Well I'd say that would be the one that Musk would have challenged – it wouldn't be like him to gild the lily or anything. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Would it? :B
Printable View
Well I'd say that would be the one that Musk would have challenged – it wouldn't be like him to gild the lily or anything. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Would it? :B
They're not painted but wrapped in some sort of plastic coating.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
This is also done on conventional Steel and Al panelled vehicles.
Here's a M3 Tesla with a gold wrap.
Attachment 533104
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Tesla Cybertruck’s Race Against A Porsche 911 Was Apparently An 1/8-Mile Run (msn.com)
To be fair (in an unfair world) we don't know the full detail for certain and to my mind it would be incredibly stupid for Musk to make such a deception that can be quite easily discredited. Having said that, it would appear in America that rich gentlemen,and I use the term extremely loosely, can say or do whatever they wish without accountability. Maybe they even believe their own untruths.
Regards
Paul
Yairs, unlike telling his major advertisers to "go f$&% yourself. I hope that's clear" which is definitely one of the smartest moves I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Moderators: If this is in the wrong thread, please move it. Members: I was unsure whether to post here, in the dust extraction sub-forum or to start a new thread - any views?
BobL has highlighted the dangers in the workshop from fine dust over many years.
Thirty years ago there was a landmark paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine called the Harvard Six Cities Study that linked excess deaths in six US cities to particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. t prompted new regulations on industrial smokestack emissions.
That study has just been replicated and extended, and published in the journal Science. The new study found that the effect of PM2.5 pollution was even higher than the previous study found and also that PM2.5 pollution from coal fired plants was 2.11 times deadlier than from other sources.
Here is a summary, the full report is in the current issue of Science.
Harvard’s legacy of heading off deaths from industrial air pollution— Harvard Gazette
I think that it is fair to say that PM2.5 pollution is even deadlier than Bob has been saying, and that it is not a good idea to live downwind from a coal fired plant.
Yeah I often feel like I've been peeing into the wind. I often think that as well as or even instead of a fuel or economy gauge ICE cars should perhaps be fitted over with a PM2.5 meter so's drivers can ee how much gunk their vehicles spew out. The first time I tested my hone first made dust detector I almost killed it by placing it near SWMBO's idling 4WD diesel exhaust.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
Whether it's particles rising from combustion or mechanical processes like wood dust, most people are still prepared to gamble on not being affected by dust. Back in 2017 a panel of over 30 international experts accurately determined that world wide at least 5 million people a year die prematurely from dust but that's only part of the problem. Hundreds of millions suffer worse health outcomes than otherwise, leading to much worse quality of life, varying forms of invalidity, and medical conditions than people expect. The number of productive years lost is massive and is a major contributor to the ridiculous cost of medical care. If these effects were really factored in we'd be banning all sorts of stuff. I am constantly amazed by rabid beancounters that are very selective about what beans are allowed to be counted. As long as they're not paying everyone else can go f@#&% themselves.
Graeme
I would suggest this information is quite pertinent in this thread as it potentially could be yet another nail in the coffin for coal fired power generation. Equally, it could have gone into a dust thread, but one of the thrusts of the article was that not all PM 2.5 has the same danger level. The coal fired power station emissions at this level were significantly more of a health hazard.
On an optomistic note, the situation in the US may be more serious than in Australia. Much of their coal has a high sulphur content compared to Australia and it is the reason they have "scrubbers" installed on the back end of their exhaust gases to capture these nasty elements. I pulled this excerpt:
"And third, this scrubber technology is very effective. We tracked mortality over time and were able to see the impact on mortality before and after scrubbers were installed. You really see the number of deaths go down................If you have to rely on them, then we shouldn’t allow any coal-fired plants without scrubber technology"
We don't have this feature on our coal fired power plants as the coal is not high in sulphur. I think it is the sulphur that is the problem.
Regards
Paul
Without sounding too far fetched it's not just burning coal that makes particles as the world is still plagued with the prehistoric energy sources of burning biomass. Sure it can be carbon neutral if the biomass is 100% replaced but unfortunately it's not. Burning biomass may only be a fraction of the total energy generation but there's loads of burning involved in land clearing and bushfires, plus burning biomass is typically incredibly inefficient so generates loads of particles. Unfortunately some people have no choice but to burn stuff like camel dung to cook their food.
Attachment 533188
Yachties quickly learn to pee from the leuward rail.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Anyone who has ever seen someone suffering from emphysema will know how incredibly moderate your language is.Quote:
Hundreds of millions suffer worse health outcomes than otherwise, leading to much worse quality of life,
Oftentimes I have read responses to your posts and thought - Richard Cranium's namesake.
Economists refer to this as the free loader principle.Quote:
I am constantly amazed by rabid beancounters that are very selective about what beans are allowed to be counted.
Way back in the middle ages in England people prided themselves on their cleanliness because they threw their excreta out the window (Quite literally). Far cleaner than keeping it in the house!
Not so long ago industrialists believed that rivers were helpfully provided for them to dump their rubbish into. Some still do believe that. But progress is being made.
When I was a kid in we lived close to the Hobart Rivulet roughly midway between Cuthbertson's Tannery and Cascade Brewery - both piped their industrial effluent into the rivulet. Down stream from the tannery the creek was totally dead - no fish, no insects, no tadpoles, etc, and it was smelly. Above the tannery there was life in the creek; we regularly caught trout but not yabbies. Above the brewery the creek was even more alive including yabbies. Please note I am talking about Tasmanian yabbies (Astacopsis franklinii) which require very clean running water and not mainland yabbies (Cherax destructa) which thrive in muddy water. Fast forward fifty years and that creek has been cleaned up - the tannery is defunct and the brewery long stopped dumping crud - and it has even been recolonised by platypusses. Lovely.
I found this article interesting as it reported on a number of party political positions on Australia's likely move towards zero emissions. I do wonder whether it is ethical for an opposition party to undermine the government on an international stage, but maybe that is a discussion for another arena.
Coalition tells Cop28 it will back tripling of nuclear energy if Peter Dutton becomes prime minister (msn.com)
A few excerpts:
"While only 11% of countries at the talks – mostly nations that already have a domestic nuclear energy industry – backed the nuclear pledge, O’Brien declared “Cop28 will be known as the nuclear Cop”."
"Experts say the country would not have a nuclear industry before 2040 even if the national ban on the technology was lifted now, and nuclear energy is more expensive than alternatives."
"New South Wales Coalition MP Matt Kean, a former state treasurer, acknowledged O’Brien’s commitment to reaching net zero emissions but said “obviously nuclear is a long way away” and the country should back renewable energy now."
“Who knows what might be available in another 20 years – we may have flying cars in 20 years – but that doesn’t mean you base your whole transport around it,” he said. (Matt Kean)
The thrust of the Coalition argument was the place for nuclear powered generation. The protagonists for this in Australia seem to be missing the fundamental reality of whether it is competitive with other forms of power. Apparently, they are now not touting SMRs (I think somebody told them there has been no such installation built and the one that was proposed in the US has been canned), but advocating full scale installations. I don't think anybody has informed them how expensive they are to build and how long it takes. There is another issue in that Australia has too much other viable forms of power for the Nukes to be economic. Who in their right mind is going to build a base load type facility that will have to be either shut down or run at a negative price point throughout the day.
The answer to that is no private company will consider nukes without very significant government subsidies and guarantees. For Nukes to be considered, the government would have to cough up large sums of money and be prepared to run the facilities at a loss. This is quite apart from the other issues that plague nukes such as waste disposal, site location, decommissioning costs (a really big issue that is almost never discussed) and safety.
The article is worth a read, but as usual really raises more questions than answers.
Regards
Paul
PS: As far as tripling nuclear energy in Oz, 3 x zero is still zero. :wink:
What else would you expect from an idea-free zone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Coincidentally, I was looking into Australian elections history last week after reading a piece on Dutton by Michelle Grattan. Among other observations, this is what I found:
The first 15 years of Federal Govts were very turbulent indeed, with 8 changes of Govt and 11 Prime Ministers (but only 7 different men) in the first 14 years 9 months. A number of those changes of Govt were not by election, but by a vote of no confidence. Outside of those turbulent years, there has only ever been a single one-term Govt: that of James Scullin (Labor) who was elected a week before the Wall St crash of 1929, and was unable to survive the effects of the Great Depression. However, he appears to be revered, and his economic policies were apparently a decade ahead of their time, and many of them were adopted by the right wing United Australia by 1940. (they were more right than left, but possibly less right than wrong :D)
What that leads to is that Lord Voldemort has no historical hope of becoming PM in 2025 (whew). It would mean Albanese's govt is the second one-term Govt, and would also mean that Voldemort would be the only Leader of the Opposition elected to LotO after a change of govt election who then went on to become PM for the first time at the next election. Andrew Fisher had already been PM when he achieved that feat (he was PM for 7 months, then lost a Vote of no confidence).
The moral of the story: becoming the Leader of the Opposition after a change of Govt is historically a poison chalice!
Spreadsheet showing a timeline of our history attached.
It seems that concept of nett zero is lost on too many people who should know better (in the decision making world). Referring to this part:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
"Aemo found the optimal future grid would run nearly entirely on renewable energy, with a range of technologies – including batteries, pumped hydro, demand response and fast-start gas plants – filling gaps around it."
If we can reduce other CO2 emissions (e.g. from transport, other high emission industries) to a level where we can incorporate fast-start gas plants to "fill in the gaps" and still achieve nett zero then we may not need anything else outside of that and renewables. Our current uptake of Solar power is pretty incredible and I expect that it will be the same when we have a decent variety of EV options to choose from, and with plenty recharging stations available. We Aussies are at the forefront of new tech early adoption (e.g. we had the highest adoption rate of fax machines, back in the day).
I should think that if nuclear power is achievable by 2040 then that means starting the process right now (10 years to build, 7 years to argue about how and where, and then start the planning). Whilst the arguing has already started, there'll be no actual planning done by the current government until after 2028 (assuming history is right and they are not a one-term govt). That would put nuclear out until the mid 2040s.
That is the trouble with Mr Dutton; he just does not think big enough or long term. Tripling output ? He should be thinking of increasing it one hundred fold ... and that is just a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Now don't you worry about that, Paul. Mr Dutton's supporters will immediately recognise it for what it it ... FAKE NEWS.Quote:
As far as tripling nuclear energy in Oz, 3 x zero is still zero. :wink:
Next, you will be asserting that 100 x 0 is still zero!
That sentence is 5 words too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
:2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I feel that the biggest problem with the concept of net zero is that it is entirely a paper-based calculation. Paying a third party to plant a tree, and offsetting a hypothetical amount of carbon captured over the life of said tree in no way makes the atmosphere any better in the short to medium term. Even if that tree actually gets planted, actually survives, and then has its carbon content used for building or in some other way is "captured" in perpetuity, that entire process will take tens of years, and the chances are that its carbon will, at some point, once again be released into the atmosphere. If the tree dies, never gets planted, or burns in a bushfire, then absolutely nothing was gained, even in the short term. I would guess that the same applies to most other calculations in the "net" zero figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Accountants spend years learning to work their way around rules..........
Agreed. It would be better to measure outputs of CO2 etc that contribute to global heating, and concentrate on reducing those emissions.
As we move deeper into summer, I suppose it was inevitable that the electricity market would become stretched. yesterday and today, for example, are what we call "Red Days" in our workplace. These are designated that way when there is clear potential for commercial market to go ballistic.
In the southern states a 40° day was quite common yesterday even in coastal areas. This invariably means the Air Cons are going to be cranked up. The recommendation is to pitch the temperature somewhere between 24° and 26° being an economic point and still relatively comfortable.
As always, the evening peak carries the most likelihood of demand attempting to outstrip supply as the heat of the day is still with us.
Regards
Paul
PS: Ironically perhaps, in downtown Millmerran yesterday, we only reached 36°. :D The only problem with that was it didn't go below 26° overnight :( .
Regards
Paul
Yes Paul, it was a "red" late afternoon and early evening on Amber Electricity yesterday...well the forecasts rates were red (above 50c per kWh) for about 3 hours 17:30 to 20:30, but it turned out they were all in the yellow/amber zone of 35-49c. Still pretty expensive but a far cry from the $2.24 or something that was predicted for one period.
I keep the stats on my daily sparks usage these days, and that has given me cause to also keep weather stats too, and I chart them together. Here we are halfway through December, and this month is 5.2° hotter than the 65 year average from 1957-2022.
FFQuote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
That's a little (euphemism) concerning, but I am pleased you have quoted the average rather than an individual spike. A trend such as that is thought provoking if nothing else.
Regards
Paul
Yes, the 65y average is 23.8° and this mtd ave is 29°. If that keeps up (and it looks like it is from the forecast) then it would be a 22% increase over the 65y ave. That's huge!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Playing Devil's advocate for a moment, I'm always a touch sceptical of these temperature numbers. When I was trained as a scientist (industrial chemist) many years ago, we were taught that for measurements to be meaningfully compared they must be like for like. 65 years ago, most temperature readings were taken by the local postmaster, probably using a max-min mercury thermometer, or something equally "old fashioned". These days they are taken by far more advanced systems, sometimes even satellites. 65 years ago, most local post offices were in small towns, and even the ones in cities had far more green space than they do now. A study by one of the Sydney universities suggested that the ambient temperature of Sydney would be lowered by (from memory) around 3C if all the buildings had light coloured roofs. Do we allow for these changes when we compare the readings?
My original scientific training would tell me that comparing a manually read greenfield reading with an electronic reading from the middle of 12,000 square kilometres of concrete is questionable at best.
I would also note that the historical records have been edited over time. Some of the high readings have been removed, the reason given is that "their accuracy is questionable" (one example I read some time ago stated that the postmaster had "probably misread the reading"). When I first started commercial irrigation, I downloaded all the data I could find at that time for the area I was farming to calculate my required worst case irrigation rates. A few years later I discovered that much of that data is no longer available. For example there are still (last time I looked) rainfall records dating back to the late 1800's, but mysteriously the temperature records now start in the 1960's.
I am NOT a "climate denier" - it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the climate changes constantly - archaeology proves conclusively that areas have changed massively over both short and long timescales. It also seems very likely that man's actions have had an impact on everything around us, including the atmosphere and therefore probably the climate. I am 100% behind the removal of fossil fuels, and many other of our more questionable activities. However, I do think we need to be careful when looking at some of these figures, as "science" sometimes seems to lose track of reality in the desperate need to prove something is happening.
A WA EV aficionado has bought the first Hyundai "Mighty" EV light truck in Australia and together with another driver are about to drive it round Australia.
Both drivers are seasoned "round Australia drivers". One driver has done the big loop 4 times and holds the current EV record for doing it in 10 days.
MIGHTY Electric Truck | Hyundai Electrified Commercial Australia
Range claimed is 200 km with a full load (7 tons) at 100 kph.
Not cheap - about twice the price of a similar diesel variant.
5year 200k km vehicle warranty, 400k km battery warranty.
Yes they factor all that in - in spades. The issue is far less about current day readings and more about the reliability of the old readings. Stevenson Screens were invented in the 1880 but not in widespread use especially in remote locations for many years after that. Screens were not always well maintained and spurious results were often found to be associated with damaged or incorrectly installed screens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Yes but that doesn't mean that all the years' records were necessarily as unreliable as they may have been in 1957 or so. That unreliability effect gets diluted as the years of better temp taking methods were implemented.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
Furthermore, it could well be that that is the very reason why the long term records available are only back to 1957, given that records were kept for a long while before that. In other words, I suspect that the BOM has already tried to factor out records that may have been dodgy. Katoomba isn't a remote location, and in fact it is part of Greater Sydney these days.
Jeez, I'm just saying that the first half of this month has been much hotter than the 65 year ave, which is the only info available, and I'll add that anecdotally, it is certainly considerably hotter than the last few years. What do I base that on? Well, I'm pretty sensitive to heat which is why I moved up here from Sydney 13 years ago. All of those summers bar one have been exceptionally pleasant by comparison. In 2010 we even had the firebox going all day Xmas & Boxing day! After the horror summer of 2019 (everywhere, including here) we installed 2x A/C units. They hardly got used used in the 3 summers after, but they have had fairly extensive use this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
I'll do what I can to get the averages from whatever years are available in the last 2-3 decades, when temp taking should be a bit more reliable. I am always interested in seeing if there are statistical trends.
I'm starting to think that my experience with science and scientists is very different from that of other people! I was trained as a chemist a long time ago, and that training included various scientific and research principles, such as "use all your effort to try to disprove the concept before claiming it's real". I then went into the commercial sector, where a completely different approach was taken. The commercial approach was basically to design an experiment specifically to show the concept is real, and largely (if at all possible) to ignore any results contrary to what you want. There's a great deal of money floating around, and many companies will write that off against tax by paying for research that just might, perhaps, give a result. The longer you can string them along, the more you get paid! Along the way I also met with scientists, commercial and otherwise, who were emotionally attached to a concept and would make outrageous claims based on very questionable results, and who were apparently completely unable to see why others didn't believe them.
So now we are looking at a world where headlines are everything. A world where "you can't argue with the science" and climate change deniers are ostracised. If you want sponsorship for your research, you relate it in some way to climate change. The best way to get ahead is to do something that other people will like, and which will get you headlines, because science is a business. If the sponsor of a scientist's research would prefer to see a certain result, will that scientist really have the guts to report the opposite, and if they do will the result ever get published? Under these conditions, are we really to believe that all science is 100% unbiased and truthful? Are we to believe that everything that is in the media is an accurate representation of the actual results? Is a journalist better off repeating the actual results, or pulling the most shocking numbers and quoting them out of context? Are the viewers more likely to get worked up about a "meh" statement or an "aaarrggghhh" one?
Is mankind screwing up the planet? Undoubtedly. Do we need to fix it? Absolutely. Do all the scientists, businessmen, journalists, activists and politicians involved (on either side) in process of analysing the problem and coming up with a solution have the moral backbone to tell the truth and do what is best for the planet, regardless of profit or loss, election results, loss or gain of power or prestige, results that disagree with the zeitgeist or personal beliefs etc. etc.? If we believe that they do, then we can go ahead and wholeheartedly believe everything we read, although of course we need to pick a source because they're often at odds!
My experience of scientists (and people in general) is that it's rare to find one that will bite the hand that feeds it!
[Note: I also have met many very good scientists who are dedicated to producing excellent science with an honest and accurate outcome. However, these people have rarely been in "front and centre" high publicity fields and are therefore less exposed to the lure of the almighty dollar.]
It's also interesting how age affects my own interaction with the weather (I'm not sure that interaction is the right word, but I can't think of one better). I know that over the last 20-odd years, on my farm I worked through drought, floods, freezing temperatures and periods where it was 38C+ every day for a week or more. Very rarely did we stop work, though we did sometimes build shade structures to work under. Now, in my retirement and having moved to a somewhat cooler area, I find myself running for aircon when it approaches 30C, or drops below 10C or so. Intellectually I know that I've worked through far worse, but it doesn't feel like it!!
My daughter says I'm a cranky old man. I think she may be right!
During the 1990's through to 2015 I was a member of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). The main IUPAC Commission I worked on (CIAAW) is one of the oldest scientific commissions (since 1899) in modern science and back in the 1930's included the very famous Madam Curie as a member. While there were a (very) few "difficult", "lazy", and "self serving ie they had an agenda" individual members, most were an absolute pleasure to work with and the difficult ones were just voted out or left cos they quickly worked out they were expected to work. The main subgroup I worked on reviewed data and conclusions from published papers but we always triple/quadruple checked calculations etc and when in doubt always made sure we took conservative stances on major decisions and they are able to say that based on the current state of knowledge at the time CIAAW didn't have to retract any major results due to mistakes. Sure, when new information became available changes were made (lots of them) but that's the way science work.
You can check the CIAAW members list here
Historical Members | Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights
I'm the 4th "Robert' on that page.
That was the way I was trained, and I fully agree with the sentiment. Sadly, at the present time, when "you can't argue with the science" seems actually to mean "if you disagree you'll be ridiculed and your career ended" and the media are interested solely in a good headline, I'm no longer 100% convinced that the climate information I see reported in the media is truthful, unbiased and accurate in both science and reporting. There's a great deal of pressure to be on the bandwagon, and absolutely no reward in not doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
As an example, the other week there was, briefly, a flutter in the media about a new study that had suggested that some climate event, and I don't recall exactly what (perhaps a "tipping point"?) was only five or ten years away. In this case, whether or not the science was accurate is less relevant than the fact that the study actually gave a range of (from memory) between five and well over a hundred years, with the most likely time being somewhere in the middle. The media, however, choose to quote the shortest possible time frame as "when scientists say it will happen".
There are a couple of very grave problems that we face: stupidity, and the need to grab a headline. Often they go hand in hand.
I share your concerns but source the problem to the multitude of journalism schools which are producing "journalists" who do not have basic numeracy and have a very shallow appreciation of the scientific principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warb
For example. Who is to say that one person's opinion is weightier than another's? If three scientists say that the world is a globe and ten posters on Facebook say the world is flat, then you apply scientific reasoning and conclude by the evidence of 10:3 that the Earth is indeed flat.
Yes, but further analysis will most likely show that the 10 flat earthers are all just repeating information they all got from the one source. They were most likely not conducting their own research. Let's suppose the three scientists did theor own research, the actual ratio is three to one that the world is a globe but the one flat earther has more facebook followers. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
BOM long term NSW weather statistics are here, and you can pick a station number. At the top of the page you can go to a list that is sorted by site name if you don't know the number you want.
Irrelevant, the opinions of FB posters are paramount and infallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Next you will be saying that Galileo was right and that PopeUrban VIII was fallible.
More seriously, Doug, the point I was trying to make is that too many journalists lack the scientific training to make the distinction that you just instinctively made. They do not differentiate between gossip and sciebtific fact.
The problem with all the various groups mentioned by so many of you is that as far as viability is concerned they are just not in the real world. I am including journalists, other commentators, politicians and to some extent even the so-called experts. They all either forget or ignore ( some from ignorance, some from self interest and some for malicious or other nefarious reasons) that in Oz we have a competitive, commercial market. If you can't make a reasonable commercial profit, it is not going to fly.
Talk of shutting down power stations or building another type of station is all irrelevant hyperbole if it does not stack up as a commercial proposition. The fossil fueled stations will shut down when they can no longer make money. The danger is not that they will shut down, but that they will shut down before there is something to replace them. That replacement power has to be of at least equal value if not more. That value has to be for all hours of the day and not just the sunny hours.
The biggest flaw in the nuclear philosophy is not the ban on nukes in Oz, although I don't agree with a ban as such, but more to do with their commercial viability. In other countries, they may be more viable, but it doesn't look that way here.
Regards
Paul
It definitely has to be more to cope with the transition away from gas home heating and gas hot water, just for a start. Then there is population growth, followed by the industrial dependence on gas to account for (bearing nett zero in mind, of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
I wonder how viable they are in those countries (with existing nuclear power) going forward from here though? Perhaps many of them are going to find out the real cost of decommissioning them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
Apart from the nuclear power plants that have effectively "blown up", which no doubt causes far more decomm costs, how many have been decommissioned on schedule so far? Are there any at all yet? Did the costs come in around the forecast cost?
doing some "simple" maths ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
5 years or 200,000 km warranty equates to 40,000 km per annum.
As a guide, my BMW X3 travels that far every 6 months or so.
But given that the EV truck only has a range of 200km, many operators would require 2 trucks -- one to do the morning deliveries, the other the afternoon ones -- so a 5 year warranty might be reasonable.
For comparison, an ICE semi working the Sydney-Melbourne or Sydney-Brisbane routes would do in excess of 200,000 km per annum, and would carry a warranty of around 400,000 km
Very well stated Paul.
I think that the sistualion is even more insidious than yo say, Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmiller
We lack the topography of Norway to invest massively in hydro power, natural or pump assisted. But the rapid growth of other renewables means that we have heaps of power when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. This is reflected in very low and even negative wholesale prices in times of abundant supply.
A hydro plant is ideally situated to exploit this situation. Switch off the turbines when the prices are low; wait for high prices.
But coal fired plants cannot ramp up and down quickly. They are basically "price takers" with very little ability to influence the market.
As more and more alternative energy comes onto the market the price volatility will increase. It may become so volatile that one (or more) of the coal fired generators do not survive - they go bankrupt! This would leave a catastrophic hole in the electricity supply. And before there is a viable alternative source. The economic and social impact would be horrendous.
Ironically, the government may be forced to assist coal fired plants!
who actually gives a toss? and why should flat-earthers be treated as anything other than the marginal cranks?Quote:
Originally Posted by GraemeCook
At least two and probably several millennia earlier, it was known that the only 3-D shape that could cast a circular shadow whatever the object's orientation in space was a sphere. Eratosthenes (the Greek philosopher) may have determined the earth's circumference with a high degree of accuracy in around 200 BC, but the basic concept -- that a sphere is the only shape that casts a circular shadow -- would have been known to the Sumerians, and probably even earlier civilisations.
I think that you should address that question to Mr Trump or Mr Musk or Mr Johnson or Mr Dutton or Mr Jones.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian