“Zaphod did not want to tangle with them and, deciding that just as discretion is the better part of valor, so was cowardice is the better part of discretion, he valiantly hid himself in a closet.”Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Printable View
“Zaphod did not want to tangle with them and, deciding that just as discretion is the better part of valor, so was cowardice is the better part of discretion, he valiantly hid himself in a closet.”Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Today I noticed that the big Rhododendron next to the house has not only started flowering (6 weeks ahead of normal) but that there were parts of the flowers already dropped to the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I do hope, for the sake of the family, that the T-shirt is not wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
Well, after all our comments on Tasmanian self-sufficiency,i was surprised to see this article:
'You couldn’t make this stuff up’: Irony as Tasmania's 'battery of the nation' is flat (msn.com)
I have to say I don't hold Sky News in high regard as I find their reporting highly biased, as opposed to moderately biased with many other outlets. In fact everybody has at least some bias. However, I felt some obligation to mention my prejudice, which I hasten to add is not as extreme as that of SWMBO, who has anything to do with Murdock banned from her devices.
If this report has any truth in it, and I do say "if" until it is corroborated by another media outlet without any affinity to the Murdock press, it would appear that the Tasmania power company is a slow learner or failing that, just plain greedy. They sold power to the mainland in the lead up to the Bass Strait DC connection failure, which admittedly they could not have foreseen, but now they appear to have sold power to the mainland again and left themselves short.
:doh:
Regards
Paul
I saw a comment today (somewhere) that we were not taking nuclear power seriously. It cited the main barrier to nukes as the initial cost, which the article went on to say was insufficient to discount them. I really didn't pay too much attention as it seemed the author was pushing his own barrel or didn't know what he was talking about.
Then a few moments ago I saw this:
Nuclear waste dump King hit, Indigenous owners rejoice (msn.com)
It appears, not unsurprisingly, that nobody wants one of these in their back yard. Bear in mind that this facility in SA was really only intended for medical nuclear waste such as is produced at Lucas Heights. The lack of feasible waste disposal sites means that Nuclear stations are obliged to store their used (partially used that is) rods on site in the containment areas. It was those containment areas that exacerbated the problems at Fukushima and Chernobyl.
Regards
Paul
Is there a mounting campaign forming in the background following on from my comment yesterday.
The Coalition's Ted O'Brien has been making noises:
Coalition prepares to go nuclear in search of votes (thenewdaily.com.au)
In theory Nuclear is an answer, but in practice the proponents ignore or gloss over the fundamental hurdles.
Labour minister Cris Bowen was asked for comment:
“We look forward to the costings and the locations of the nuclear power stations when the shadow minister releases them,”
The advantages, for Australia, include local access to the fuel, minimal emissions and a clear path towards zero emissions.
The disadvantages include:
High initial cost, long lead time for construction, location difficulties, safety issues, operating costs (as opposed to running costs as the fuel once running is certainly cheap), humungus decommissioning costs and the perennial issue of what to do with the nuclear waste and indeed the contaminated plant at the end of life.
Regards
Paul
Must say that I agree with your assessment of Sky News.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The article is essentially a beat up, or FAKE NEWS as their idol would say. I'll just repeat my post from last week:
In that period Tasmania has been in a drought and the Hydro has probably sold more electricity than was prudent, but the situation is not dire. It was dire in 2016 when storage levels got down to 12.8%.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Less than 1% of electricity in Tas is gas generated and as best as I am able to penetrate Hydro's wall of silence, reputably they keep the Tamar Valley gas powered plant "ticking over" as the cheapest way of mothballing it.
The stuff about exclusion zones around high voltage transmission lines is just false - genuine FAKE NEWS. Farmers routinely crop and graze under transmission lines; they are not allowed to erect buildings.
I think the purpose of this article was in the last two sentences including: "There will be electoral punishment right across the board".
Thanks Graeme
I am still sufficiently naive to think that outright lies are not told. Certainly the farming comment I thought was strange. Also the pricing structure used by Tasmania in the wholesale market does not reflect that they are short of power. I might have to consider an embargo on the Murdoch press and fall into line with SWMBO. I don't do this because I wish to evaluate where everybody is coming from. I should have known better seeing as how Abbott's ex-lieutenant was at the helm!
Regards
Paul
Deleted
I am reminded of that quote from H L Mencken almost one hundred years ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
"No one ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."(The Sun, Baltimore, 18 September 1926)Perhaps we should apply a similar logic when assessing the competence of yournalists?
But I think we should make a exception with a certain news organistion which practices overt political manipulation from an ultra right wing perspective.
And their journalists, and the journalist's directors, are following orders from on high or anticipating Mencken.
True; but what does it reflect?Quote:
Also the pricing structure used by Tasmania in the wholesale market does not reflect that they are short of power.
I drew this to your attention back in mid-May. The Hydro seems to be dumping electricity on the spot market in peak periods every day at prices well below true market price. Why? Here is the current Spot Market report from AEMO:
Attachment 529665
You will not the apparently fixed low price during the peak period from 5.00 - 11.00 pm last night - first red circle - and you will note that the regulator has anticipated that same low fixed price tonight - second or green circle. Why? Also remember that these are spot prices and not contract prices.
I have been trying to guess why it is so; a number of possibilities, including:
- Secret deal where the state government has directed the Hydro to sell electricity to Aurora/Transend at a directed maximum price,
- Incompetent clerk at the commodity trading desk,
- Corruption,
- None of the above.
I stopped buying newspapers about ten years ago.Quote:
I might have to consider an embargo on the Murdoch press and fall into line with SWMBO.
GraemeQuote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
I am at a complete loss to explain this strategy. It is clearly deliberate and has been ongoing for some months so that rules out your No.2 hypothesis. I did run it past our Traders, but they only confirmed what we see without any other explanation.
Regards
Paul
I don't think that it's only "a" news organisation that practices political manipulation on behalf of one or other side of politics. The ABC over here (and the BBC in the UK) are both clearly left leaning, perhaps not to the same degree as Fox is right leaning, but significant bias is still present. Most other news sources are also biased one way or the other, and it's very hard to get to the "truth".Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Every morning my wife and I share the same joke regarding CNN and Fox - "should we see what evil Trump has committed today, or how bad Biden and his son are?". One interesting observation is that, at least in my eyes and the brief sections I flick through at breakfast time, Fox often seem to be making a joke of the whole thing, over-acting and not taking any of it too seriously. CNN on the other hand always seem very serious, it's all life and death and the smallest trivia is debated at length as though it's the end of the world....
Another example of the political manipulation of news, and related to our discussion here about hydro, is an article about the rivers in Iraq drying up. One article I read recently attributes this to climate change. Another, whilst also initially blaming climate change to some degree, later admits that all the rivers in the system, and their tributaries in other countries, have in fact had multiple dams built, been redirected for agricultural irrigation, and subject to ever increasing extraction to provide water to the ever-increasing human populations of the area. This human intervention has both massively reduced the "normal" flow, and also largely eradicated the annual floods that cleared the silt and fertilised the river flats. So depending on which article you read, and how far through it you go, this is either entirely due to climate change or almost entirely due to direct human intervention. The journalists are clearly trying to push an opinion, rather than publicising facts and allowing the reader/viewer to make up their own mind.
It's very hard to get to the truth these days!
Fully agree. Their is consistent biases in the news organisations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
However, my specifier "a" was linked to the adjectives "overt" and "ultra". Only one significant mob meets all those criteria?
The interesting one is trying to pin down the biases in the SBS. They definitely exist; at first I thought they were "anti-Anglophone", but that is not an adequate descriptor.Quote:
Most other news sources are also biased one way or the other, and it's very hard to get to the "truth".
And we have done the same with the Murray System! It is not just a third world problem.Quote:
... later admits that all the rivers in the system, and their tributaries in other countries, have in fact had multiple dams built, been redirected for agricultural irrigation, and subject to ever increasing extraction to provide water to the ever-increasing human populations of the area. This human intervention has both massively reduced the "normal" flow, and also largely eradicated the annual floods that cleared the silt and fertilised the river flats.
Now ain't dat da truth!Quote:
It's very hard to get to the truth these days!
In Australia "a" (?!) is indeed most overt in its bias. Having said that, for a while I read a newspaper blog, which is or was in fact another newspaper blog under a different name. At that point in time, not only was the editorial content significantly left-leaning (perhaps not "ultra" but certainly heading that way) but the "moderated comments" section was so "modern, politically correct left wing" as to almost be a parody. Very few comments of even centre-left ever got through "moderation" and if that blog and its comments were your only source of information, you'd have believed that everything slightly right of centre had basically ceased to exist. They added to that impression by ensuring that every now and again they allowed an extreme right wing comment to get through, which of course was then screamed at by the outraged "average reader".Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Internationally, I find one major news source to be equally obvious and extreme in their bias, though they do it with a straight face as opposed to another's showboating.
The interesting point here is that all these organisations are businesses and cater to the whims of their customers. Yes, they could be seen as trying to manipulate their consumers, but I would think that the majority of their consumers are already leaning the same way as their supplier - other than those who enjoy shouting at the television! With that in mind, it could be argued that the right wing media will inherently be loud and showboaty, whilst the left wing media will be serious and "deep" - the media is supplying what they believe the viewers want, in the way they want it. Perhaps in the opinion of the media, the right-leaning viewer is brash and thinks everything can be fixed "easily" by applying Christianity, punishment or tradition, whilst the left-leaning consumer sees themself as someone who considers things deeply and has "modern" values based on understanding. I suspect this even extends to the choice and appearance of the presenters themselves. Marketing is a science, after all!
If that is the case, then perhaps it is inevitable that left-leaning media organisations "appear" less biased or extreme..?
Just a word of caution on the bias of media outlets. Where it applies to truth or deceit I think it is valid to mention it, particularly when it is giving a deliberately false impression. However, the Forum has quite a strict ruling against political comment. This, I believe, is for a number of reasons, but included would be the fact it is so easy to get people offside. The other main reason is that it is quite easy to fall into defamatory territory: The Forum does not enjoy the same "privilege" as parliament and should an individual or an organisation take exception to a comment made by a Forum member, we would find that they have much deeper pockets than us and we would be lucky to having anything left that even had pockets in it should they decide to go into battle through the courts!
Don't get me wrong on this as I have been warned in the past so I am just passing on information. Ooops; There goes the halo.
On a completely different note, I have banged on about Norway in recent times and how they seem to be so far advanced in renewable power compared to almost anybody else, but certainly compared to Australia. Our son, who is living in Norway sent us this brief comment a few days ago:
Attachment 529697
A few words of explanation: "Tibber" is the energy provider such as Ergon or Energex or a whole host of other providers in Oz. Between the hours of 0300 and 0400 the retail price that day went to a minus figure. In fact the provider pays the consumer if they use power during that period and it is deducted from the bill.
Before we all go 'I want some of that," the hour is pretty inhospitable. There are 100ore to the kroner and 7Noc (Norweigian Kroner) is approx A$1.00. I think that makes it a little less than 1c/kWhr and you have to find something to consume the power at that time in the morning. (Your EV?) However, the principle is to encourage power useage outside of peak periods.
Regards
Paul
PS: No significance with the dog other than it belongs to our son and his partner and as of one month their new daughter. It is an Alaskan Husky (retired from sled duties) and goes by the name of "Sorry." It appears there was a litter of six pups and a small Japanese girl, who was learning English, was given the task of naming them. She only had about six words of English (which was very convenient) and "Sorry" was one of the words. :)
The potential for legal and financial disaster is very rarely understood by people ['the publishers'] who run forums, online groups and other places where people can post comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The publishers can be liable for defamatory comments made by people on their sites, even if the publishers are unaware of the comments.
It's one of the reasons which has inhibited my occasional inclination to start a YouTube channel publishing videos on handyman topics. I've seen various channels descend into rabid defamatory comments in the subscriber comments which are just s**tfights between touchy, trolling or loony subscribers, which I have neither the time nor interest to police if I start a channel. The subscribers are legally liable for defamation but much harder to identify than the publisher, which in my case for legal purposes would be me, not YouTube. Same applies to someone running a group or page on Facebook, Instagram etc. In the case of stand alone sites like woodworkforums.com it's whoever owns the site.
A plain English outline of the law is at High Court rules media liable for Facebook comments on their stories - The University of Sydney .
Whilst I have no complaints about any forum having rules to prevent trouble, I do find it interesting that when organisations or businesses are so keen on heading off any negative or even "questioning" comment about their motives - presumably they feel the sand under their feet is so insecure that they need to prevent anyone poking it! But back to electricity.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Thank you 419 and Warb for your comment. I needed to mention the situation, not that I think anybody has transgressed at this stage. I felt it was better for us to self-moderate than cause an administrator the hassle of intervening. This thread has been a mature discussion for close to 90 pages and something of which the contributing Forum members should be proud.
I also edited my post as it appears the pic did not load. I also modified the conversion rate as I think I had it ten times to large. :rolleyes: I also mentioned that, if it were me, I would be using the hour concerned to charge my EV (on the biggest charger I could find).
Regards
Paul
Queensland in this report looks like it is making big inroads into the emission target, but it is still the bad boy:
Emission Control: Australia’s most coal dependant state now halfway to achieving 2030 renewable energy target (msn.com)
I won't re-hash the content as you can read if interested.
This chart I found interesting:
Attachment 529698
Regards
Paul
The graphic of highest emitters is interesting, but perhaps like the dam being 12m from full it doesn't, by itself, mean all that much. Comparing the NT at 3.5% with NSW at 25.1% makes NSW look bad. However, if you factor in this share of GDP data which shows the NT at 1.34% of the national economy whilst NSW is at 32.09%, then emission per unit of GDP is far lower in NSW. From the same data, NSW has 31 times as many people, yet only 7 times the emissions.
I've also noticed over the years and the many articles I've read, that the "accounting" of emissions varies to suit the case being made. For example, I've seen the carbon emissions from coal attributed to the consumer of power (our houses and industry), to the grid, and also to the mine where the coal was extracted. In reality, if 1kw of power from coal produces (from memory) around 0.9kg of CO2, then whilst that 0.9kg can be split between "emitters", it can't be accounted for twice. Equally coal used for smelting, or any other purpose, can only have its emissions counted once, even if apportioned between extractor and user. So perhaps the NT is having the coal it extracts attributed to it, whilst the actual emission is powering the economy of another state? Or another country?
On a different subject, I've now established that even on an overcast, cloudy and rainy day, my newly upgraded PV+batteries system is able to produce 100% of my power (although heating is by wood burner, and I plant way more trees than I burn!), but under such conditions it only manages to export enough to cover about half of my daily supply charge. However even at this time of the year (winter) and with my 5kW feed-in limit, 2 typical days produces enough excess feed-in to cover the deficit from the rainy day.
My next task will be to install (or rather to have the electrician install) Shelly controls, to enable me to automagically switch on loads such as water heating when solar production is high, and to monitor our consumption in greater detail. I'm enjoying this project!
I guess the closer we get to self-sufficiency energy nirvana (home storage batteries, V2H from EVs, etc.), the harder the established generating/distribution organisations will push back.......desperately trying to fend off the inevitable irrelevance. One reason I'm an early adopter is that the costs to remaining customers to maintain the grid can only go up as more and more of us move away from buying our power.
WarbQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I am certain you will recall the old line "There's lies, damned lies and statistics!" People can prove whatever they want avoiding outright lies by the simple expediency of cherry picking.
The .9Kg of CO2 emitted is bad, but should be from 1MW! Actually, that figure is for the most efficient coal fired stations. The general run of older stations are around 1.2Kg/MW. Once-through Gas turbines are about .8Kg/MW and the more efficient HRSG units down to about .6Kg/MW.
It is great that you are in a position to go renewable and are taking action. Unfortunately, the vast majority are not in that position. I was looking at increasing my solar collection recently and then twigged that I don't have any more suitable roof space until I get a proper shed.
Regards
Paul
Look forward to reading about your experience and to seeing some reliable performance figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
so much of the solar debate is contaminated by:
- Overt marketing hype, and
- Well intentioned dreamers with rosy glasses.
Paul, I had first hand experience in the strategic use of legal bullying in a previous corporate life.
- I was very careful in my post to not name any organisation or person; don't want to embarrass our host,
- you are unlikely ever to get to court. A corporate lawyer through endless manoeuvrering will run up your legal costs and bankrupt long before you get near a court. Routine legal strategy!
Sorry, but Sorry is definitely very important.
Much as I'd like you to be right, I suspect you're thinking tonnes rather than kg!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
If "coal" contains about 90% carbon (anthracite, like my parents used to burn to heat the house), and 1kg of carbon makes 3.7kg of CO2 (1 x carbon + 2 x oxygen where oxygen has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon is 12, so CO2 is 3.7 times heavier than carbon), then 0.8kg of CO2 was produced by 0.21kg of carbon, which equates to 0.24kg of anthracite.
0.8kg of CO2 to make 1kWh of electricity is a scary number, but it seems more likely than 250grams of coal generating 1MWh of power!
WarbQuote:
Originally Posted by Warb
We tend to talk exclusively in MWs in my workplace and I have confused the two. So, .9Kg per KW or .9T per MW.
Thank you for the correction. If you had not spotted that, I can visualise the denialists spouting how little difference burning fossil fuels makes.
:-
Regards
Paul
An interesting comment on the Coalition's nuclear option proposal:
Why nuclear is clever in opposition but a nightmare in government (thenewdaily.com.au)
Regards
Paul
Interesting article, but I think the title could be modified to "Why anything and everything is clever in opposition but a nightmare in government".....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
People want everything fixed, whether it be climate change, inflation, housing, immigration, health or anything else, but they don't want to change their own lifestyle, have any less money, work any harder or longer, or have any other perceived "negative" impact, no matter how trivial, from the enactment of the fix. So you can gain support by saying "we'll fix it", and you can make the other side look bad by saying "they're not fixing it", but actually fixing it is another matter!
The coalition proposal to go nuclear is at best glib. I have already mentioned the hurdles to nuclear power but there are some more.
We have a competitive market and that market is primarily in private hands, at least as far as new players are concerned. This means that a private investor has to make money. If there is the slightest possibility of difficulty, particularly with a large investment, such opportunists will go elsewhere with their barrow of money.
This article, which it should be noted must have bias because of its origin (World Nuclear Assoc) is interesting:
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association (world-nuclear.org)
It is long and quite detailed: Sometimes confusing, but I did take this extract:
In deregulated wholesale electricity markets the economic justification for any capital investment has been decreasing while the actual need increases due to the ageing of existing plants. The IEA points out that at the turn of
the century one-third of investment in electricity flowed into deregulated markets exposed to wholesale price uncertainty, whilst two-thirds went into regulated markets with some assurance of return on capital. By 2014 only 10% of investment was directed into deregulated markets. This has prompted urgent reviews by governments concerned about medium-term energy security. All operating nuclear power plants were built by governments or regulated utilities where long-term revenue and cost recovery was virtually certain. Some of these plants, especially in the UK and USA, now find themselves in a deregulated market environment.
Regulated and government utilities make investments in generation assets, spend money on power plant fuel and operation, and make decisions about retiring existing assets. These decisions are based on long-term planning processes focused on ensuring reliable operation while minimising total costs over the long-term. In a deregulated market a merchant generator depends on the inherently short-term and often volatile market for its revenue, putting the operator at risk; and the developer of a new plant faces considerable uncertainty due to greater completion risk. Government support is needed to mitigate these risks and make new projects bankable.
I think that is saying that nuclear may be entirely unsuitable in a deregulated market and/or one that is not government run or at the least government guaranteed. It also flies in the face of other statements made in the article that nuclear power is competitive with renewables. Much depends on where you are in the world and what else is available for power generation.
Regards
Paul
Matt Ferrell, yesterday, on wave energy. Very interesting in that WE has ~100x the energy density per m² that solar has.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxdbD-N7pHE
As I understand it, you can turn the ability to post a comment "OFF" with YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by 419
Seeing how there was a minor digression...my view on biases from news outlets:
- It seems to me that "left" or "left leaning" is sometimes substituted for a more balanced description like "a wider, more selfless view" or "a bigger picture view" by those who would much rather have a navel gazing view that is good for them and bugger everyone else (and who is almost guaranteed to be well-off or wealthy, and can easily survive (e.g.) rising interest rates and inflation).
- I agree that a commercial enterprise will want to tilt their coverage to what they think their consumers want to consume. That may often be at the cost of the truth being told (or at least the full truth). It is not too difficult to spot those that spin things, but omission of facts is more insidious as we may not know what we are not being told.
- For Aussie news I rely on reading ABC (a little left leaning), The Guardian (quite left leaning), and occasional things that pop up on YouTube. The Guardian is sometimes a little too blatant in their left leaning, but I find them less egregious in their behaviour than some of the shrill right leaning commercial enterprises. Over the weekend I was exposed to some of the more commonly watched 6pm news, and it was pretty poor shallow coverage that was sensationalised....on and on and on. I watch Insiders – they have journos of all flavours on, but not from as big a pool as they used to.
- For American news (which I follow pretty closely) I read the US Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, and I watch YouTube snippets from CNN, MSNBC, MeidasTouch Network, and some of The Young Turks (who claim they are the "fairest network in America" but Ana Kasparian does get a little shrill at times). The NYT is fairly neutral, but they do mostly despise Trump (in the opinion section). Their news section is pretty much "just the facts". On MSNBC the guns for me are Ari Melber, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, and MSNBC has a pretty good range of guest commentators like Andrew Weissman and Neil Katyal amongst numerous others.
- I largely stay away from Fox News, OAN, Newsmax but that doesn't mean I don't see what they are saying. MSNBC and TYTurks in particular will always show the latest outrageous or super-biased, or fake news clips from the very rightwing channels in any case, which means I get to see and hear for myself what the Republicans and MAGAs are saying. I do have an opinion of Tucker Carlson and Judge Jeanine Pirro et al, but ahh, not one I'll share. (funny, when I put Janine Pirrot into the search it prompted Janine Parrot... :D)
So all up I hope I'm getting enough of the facts to be able weigh it all up and come to a balanced and informed view, after I discard some of the too obvious left wing bias. There is only so much time one can devote to news gathering.
Just be grateful that the very rightwing views in Australia pale in comparison to what goes on in parts of Europe, and increasingly in America, although they are becoming louder here. America is deeply concerning, and it's come about because of their ducked up political and judicial system. The very idea of knowing where the politics of Sheriffs, Prosecutors and Judges lie is ridiculous and bizarre. Then there is the Electoral College....and the right to "carry".
Back to the sparks discussion...
I suspect the reality is that in a deregulated market, investment in any form requires a risk/benefit analysis and a very large investment in something (anything) with a long payback period just doesn't meet the criteria. Renewables are quick to get into operation, attract government grants (whether directly or via LGC's), are easy-ish to get approved (the only naysayers are those few, and unimportant, rural people who have to look at it!) and therefore are an easy decision. Like everything else, climate change is about money - whether plastic bags or energy generation, the underlying motive is profit even if the rhetoric is "environment" - so it really doesn't matter what is actually better; what makes most money in the shortest time will attract the investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
The above, by the way, doesn't mean I'm pro-nuclear, simply that I don't think truth has any place in a profit driven system.
On a related note, as part of my ongoing project to reduce my externally generated energy usage, I started looking at heat pump hot water systems. The technology allows water to be heated with far less energy than a normal immersion element, and some systems even have an external trigger to allow them to run a boost cycle based on output from a PV system. All good so far, but then I found a few people saying they didn't really save much energy in the longer term. Apparently, and this is what relates to the "profit" comments above, unlike standard hot water tanks there is no regulation of insulation on heat pump systems (this is blamed on Tony Abbotts red-tape reduction) so some manufacturers fit less insulation, resulting in them cooling far more quickly than normal tanks and therefore having to heat "more" to replace the lost heat. The rhetoric is "save the planet" but the corner cutting screams "profit"......
Absolutely. It is why the deniers want to pretend that it is not happening because they think it will be unnecessarily costly to try to curb it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
For me, that is back to front. It MUST be done, and the fact that whole new industries can make a buck makes it far easier to tackle the task at hand, and get more people on board. It is the same situation as the ICE vehicle replacing horses and steam, and computers replacing people in the 70s (I witnessed that irrational fear first hand as an IT operator from 1976 onwards). People can't see the new industries and opportunities that progress creates. WOE IS ME!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Imagine what it would be like if there was ONLY cost involved, with very little profit. How far behind would we be then?
That would be more believable if what was being done was the best approach, or even a good approach, to solving the problem, but very often it's not. A supermarket stopping using "single use" plastic bags and replacing them with (free) paper bags could be said to be done for the right reason. A supermarket stopping using "single use" plastic bags and then charging the customer for the same bag but with "This bag is reusable" printed on it, is not!!Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
The same applies to using "energy consumption" as a lever to sell a product to replace a perfectly functional one that will now go to landfill - the carbon cost of making and delivering the new product far outweighs any marginal gain in energy consumption, and that's before you factor in the "disposable" nature of the replacement product, which will again need replacing [warranty + 2 months] later.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that an acquaintance of mine when touring a windfarm with a group of his students, had a student ask why a number of turbines had been switched off. The answer was "to reduce supply until the price goes (is driven) back up". How does that fall under the heading of "the best approach"? In fact, it could be seen to be giving ammunition to the argument that we have to keep coal stations running to cover the times when renewables don't generate enough. But it makes more money....
I'm not suggesting that it is being pursued in the best way, or even a very good way, otherwise we'd have had Federal Govt intervention in about 2009 or so instead of kicking the can down the road. I'm just making the point that if there was no money to be made from developing green energy it wouldn't happen, and we'd be years and years behind even our current position (which may even be too late).
CSIRO has also been doing a lot of research on wave energy, as have some universities.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Wave Energy in Australia - CSIRO
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
With all the recent and neverending brouhaha on stolen elections I decided to have a close look at a recent US election results.
At that recent presidential election Candidate A polled 65,853,514 votes against Candidate B who received 62,984,828 valid votes. Candidate A seemingly won the primary poll by 2,868,686 votes or 4.6% - seemingly a clear majority.
Then the ballot was sent off to an archaic body commonly called the Electoral College who massaged the votes and declared that Candidate B had won by 306 votes to 232, a clear margin of 74 votes or 30.9%. The Electoral College had converted a loss by 4.6% into a 30.9% victory, and a President was duly elected.
I agree with Donald Trump. The election was stolen. Except I do not think he was referencing the 2016 election where Hilary Clinton outpolled him by 2,868,686 votes.
Sure is a weird concept of democracy.
This is the result of the commercial market and the mantra of "competition is good." Competition is good when the only criteria is price. Unfortunately, price is rarely, if ever, the only consideration. I would concede that it discourages price gouging that you might expect to see in a monopoly scenario. In the Australian Electricity market today there are many factors other than price. However, price still dominates and is likely to do so for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I just cannot see anybody putting up their hand to commit to the large capitol cost of a nuke, coupled with the vagaries of the Australian governments. Those vagaries include a lack of regulation and guarantee, governments that are quite likely to perform a complete backflip. It is likely that they would only be competitive during the dark hours and on top of all that it would be at least ten years before a unit was commissioned even if they started tomorrow. That is always supposing there was permission to site it somewhere.
Too many hurdles; More like full blown steeplechase (Not so many finishers in that game, if you have ever watched the Grand National).
Regards
Paul
Unfortunately, experience has taught me that when the only motivator is profit, it is very rare that the proposed "solution" does very much at all, and often in the long-term results in things becoming worse, not better!Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
It's one of those little quirks of human nature that many people perceive themselves to be somewhere near the centre of the spectrum between two extremes. Therefore, no matter where many observers see thenselves on the spectrum (often somewhere slightly left or right of centre) this becomes the reference point from which they perceive other behaviours as being left or right from.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Where this gets interesting is when someone who is, for example, well to the left of centre might see behaviours that are between their own orientation and the real centre as right wing. The converse is also true, of course.
Of course, not everyone's perceptions are distorted by their own bias, but it amuses me at times to read the thoughts of those whose are.