octave

I would like to see every household producing and storing their own electricity and having a connection to the grid, for those times when they cannot collect and store electricity.

 

This is becoming more and more viable each day.   I did live off the grid for 21 years but back then the technology was expensive and the only thing that made it economically viable was the enormous connection fee we would have had to pay due to the remoteness of the property.

Now we live in suburbia and we have just organised for a solar system to be installed.  We use a touch over 4000 MW per year and the system we are installing is predicted to produce around 6200 MW per year.    We did look at getting a Tesla powerwall but at this stage it would not quite be economically viable although given the trajectory of battery prices over the last few years we expect we will add a battery at some stage within the next few years. Perhaps what will happen before then is we may buy an EV an utilize EV to house technology.

I think power generation companies are going to have to adapt to some new realities.  I read a prediction that claimed that we are heading to a situation where power will be able to be generated AND STORED at home for a price that is lower than the grid transmission costs, that is excluding the cost of the power company generating the electricity.   At this point power generating companies will have a big problem with there business model.

So a positive story.

Billionaires invest in renewables providing ‘enormous opportunities’ for Australia’s economy

Australian mining magnate Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest has invested in Sun Cable, a company that will soon be one of Australia's largest solar farms.

This is the plan by Mining magnate Andrew Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brooks to finance and build a huge solar facility in central australia and a power cable link to Singapore.  Exporting energy. 

I see the challenge as changing the minds of the majority. I would be irresponsible if I didn’t try. 

 

Peter in order to succeed it is not individuals minds you need to change but the minds of the respected scientific organisations. What you or I believe is not particularly relevant.  My advice to anyone with questions would be to go to the scientific bodies that are respected, that share their raw data that produce data and conclusions that are corroborated with other respected sources.    This is as opposed searching for an individual who claims to have knowledge that is at odds with the peer reviewed scientists whilst ignoring their connections with companies that have a lot to gain by resisting change. By the way even many of these companies admit that there is a problem.  Shell acknowledges it as do many other fossil fuel companies.

The notion convincing people one by one will achieve anything is a little optimistic.  Convincing me is meaningless, convince NASSA convince CSIRO convince Bom convince the universities convince Academies of science convince the CEOs of mining companies 

Here is an interesting clip on the work Gates is doing re funding research.

I really don't see the point in trying to change the minds of the minority.    What I do these days is to perform what I see as a positive action whenever I converse with a denier.  So far this thread has encouraged me to actually get around to having a large solar system installed in the next few weeks.    I have changed banks to one that does not invest in things I do not wish to invest.   I have changed power companies and started investing in tech companies that are working to improve things.   I also attempt to post links to positive news.  Convincing the 5% is not necessary. The way we generate energy and move ourselves around IS changing and this is unstoppable.

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

 

This video is a useful summary of why I don't accept the "science"of climate change. I find this scientist credible and honest. There are many posts attacking him, you can find them, but that is true of EVERY scientist who disagrees with the dogma.

 

Disagreeing with the current thinking does not necessarily make you right.  I can find Doctors who believe they are are persecuted for disagreeing with the vaccination "dogma" or to put it more correctly the scientific consensus.

The Soyuz 11 crew are the only ones so far. And that was bad design at fault as much as anything.

 

I have heard speculation that they may have been accidents that were not publicised.   The modern Soyuz is an amazingly safe and reliable vehicle with a good safety record since.   

"It quickly became apparent that they had asphyxiated. The fault was traced to a breathing ventilation valve, located between the orbital module and the descent module, that had been jolted open as the descent module separated from the service module, 12 minutes and 3 seconds after retrofire.[16][17] The two were held together by explosive bolts designed to fire sequentially; in fact, they had fired simultaneously.[16] The explosive force of the simultaneous bolt firing caused the internal mechanism of the pressure equalization valve to loosen a seal that was usually discarded later and which normally allowed for automatic adjustment of the cabin pressure.[16] The valve opened at an altitude of 168 kilometres (551,000 ft), and the resultant loss of pressure was fatal within seconds.[16][18] The valve was located beneath the seats and was impossible to find and block before the air was lost. Flight recorder data from the single cosmonaut outfitted with biomedical sensors showed cardiac arrest occurred within 40 seconds of pressure loss. By 15 minutes, 35 seconds after retrofire, the cabin pressure was zero, and remained there until the capsule entered the Earth's atmosphere.[16] Patsayev's body was found positioned near the valve, and he may have been attempting to close or block the valve at the time he lost consciousness."

 Georgy Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev and Vladislav Volkov, Soyuz 11, 1971.

 

Ah yes decompression during reentry. Also of course the odd parachute failure, technically not in space, If you also include training exercises it is higher. Still not a huge toll considering the risks. My point was that we are not going to send hundreds of colonists to a certain death, this is not how things are done.

THEY are all going on a ONE-WAY trip.

 

NO return tickets are being sold.

 

I would suggest that anyone who has bought a ticket one way or otherwise is being quite optimistic about time frames. It looks like a return to the moon first and I would suspect that before anyone ever steps foot on Mars that there will be staged missions just like the moon landings.  Many missions testing hardware and then eventually perhaps a mission to orbit rather than land. A gradual build up of technology and knowledge.   You quite right about the enormous challenges, human bodies do not fare well in this environment.   The whole colony on Mars scenario I think will happen but not within my lifetime or perhaps even my offsprings lifetime.    The problems you sight are similar to the challenges of landing on the moon and yet this was done 50 years ago, admittedly for a short duration.  I do think we are looking at a scenario of dropping a bunch of colonists off without the technology and knowledge to survive, that would be pointless.   

"true Octave, but space exploration is now very low in most peoples' priorities. "

 

is it?  https://spacenews.com/poll-shows-more-public-support-for-nasa-science-programs-than-human-exploration/

I mean you are probably somewhat correct in that interest is probably less than it used to be.

Why O why, pick a DEAD planet to place your hopes of the future on.

 

Not pinning my hopes on anything.  I guess it is the most suitable planet for human habitation but only with massive technology. This looks interesting  https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/20/nasa-confirms-mission-to-jupiters-moon-europa-to-explore-its-icy-oceans/     These goals may seem pointless to some but a large proportion of what us humans do is pointless.   Flying little aeroplanes is pointless but some of us get enjoyment and ,meaning from it.

A waste of resources,

 

Again most of what us humans do could be considered a waste of resources.  In terms of public money, we are now in the age where private companies are the main players, if Musk or Bezos or Branson wish to spend their money on these things that is fine by me.

as well as the deaths of ALL those that take that trip.

 

There have been no deaths in space so far and a few deaths getting to and from space.  I don't believe any space agency or private company is going to send people on a trip that is certain to in death.  Of course these things are risky but people do take risks to advance technology, test pilots for example.  

I am open to the argument that sending machines may make more sense at this point but to me the point is knowing more is good.  By the way interesting point the NASA budget is 0.49% of the overall US budget.

I believe that it is just as good to go to a priest as to go to a doctor. Most times a doctor can fix you, when you know what is wrong with you.

 

Try going to a doctor when there is something unknown and in my opinion, they know as much as a priest. You will be sent for tests for this and for that, then scans and whatever else they can think of. Before you know it, you have recovered and still don't know what the problem was. When you get older the doctors will prescribe this drug and that drug, until you rattle when you walk. You can be sure that when you do feel ill, it ill be the result of this drug interacting with that one and you will go into hospital. That is the place where you cannot get away from the medical procession and will probably need a priest, if he can get there before the undertaker.

 

Luckily in the modern world you could seek your medical advice and care from anyone you like, going to the doctor is not mandatory but personally I would rather enjoy the extra decades of lifespan that modern medicine is likely to give me compared to the short lives of my ancestors, but that's just me ?

Two interesting articles.

Hydrogen future

Hydrogen can cut emissions and boost exports

People throughout history have sacrificed their most valuable things to the gods, hoping for redemption, or rain, or warmer weather. They sacrificed animals, children, jewellery. In the Bronze Age they broke valuable objects and threw them into swamps. Incas threw gold into deep wells. We are no different. A mass hysteria has gripped the otherwise intelligent world, making them wish to sacrifice the basis of our well-being to appease the gods. Shut down the mines, turn off the power stations. The gods will reward us by stopping the cycles of climate change that have continued since the world began.

 

To link this to religion is drawing I long and desperate bow.

They are few people that want to shut down mines or immediately close down power stations.  PM do you think that is what I want? Do you think that I am some religious zealot who wants to bring down the economy?

The cement industry is responsible for I believe 5% of CO2 emissions.  I don't want stop humanity using cement or concrete I just want smart innovative people and companies to come up with new and better ways.   Here are some smart people innovating cement that both uses less energy to produce and it actually sequesters CO2.  

  Who are the religious zealots funding this BP.  PM you are going to have to accept that your position is a minority position.  It must be difficult when you can't reference scientific organisations but must rely on the odd contrarian.    

Mining will always be important in our society.   Even renewable tech needs the minerals that the mining industry supply.    Mining will not go away but what we mine will change as we progress. 

A mass hysteria has gripped the otherwise intelligent world, making them wish to sacrifice the basis of our well-being to appease the gods.

 

It would be interesting to make a list of these otherwise intelligent individuals or perhaps it would be quicker to compile a list of those who do not accept to some degree the scientific evidence.  

If you genuinely believe that the likes of Bill Gates amongst many others are unintelligent and hysterical I suspect perhaps you need a more convincing argument.

I am required to have a WWC as a music teacher.  I am not especially bothered by it, being self employed it is just another business expense.  My check lasts for 5 years and the last renewal was I think $80 which is $16 per year (think it is about $93 per 5 years now)   I can understand why a volunteer would be upset by this and in my opinion it should be free.  When I worked in Canberra about 10 years ago they did not have or requirement for  any kind of specific check however I got myself a Federal police record check which I did not need but hey it was good in a business sense.

I guess the question is who should pay. 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/billionaires-invest-in-massive-solar-farm-to-supply-power-to-singapore-20191120-p53cf7.html?fbclid=IwAR2z_TP9K_pKGSmKwHBRQut4y-HwvsB6GlUG9x6d8w-WRMdG07FCYtpAAGQ

I like the solar car race but I wish there was a category for  more normal cars, by which I mean 2 seats and in principle able to be registered.

 

I would also have an electric car race with solar recharge and more than one battery pack allowed, as an associated event .

 

https://www.hyundai.news/eu/brand/hyundai-launches-first-car-with-solar-roof-charging-system/

This whole Israel Folau thing started because he published excerpts from the bible.

 

There are some people who think that was wrong as it made everybody out to be a sinner. So Israel was brought to heel and lost his well paying job.

 

Now he has continued in the same vein and we hear people saying he shouldn't be allowed to say such things.

 

What I wonder is how he can be causing any damage, what harm is he doing? He has just demonstrated the old saying is correct.

 

It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and dispel all doubt.

 

Free speech means he can say it, it also means we can criticize it.

Re. the whole god smiting because of same sex marriage thing. If I were to seriously consider that proposition my first step would probably be to produce a map of countries where SSM was allowed and then overlay a map of natural disasters. If I did notice a correlation then I would probably investigate further to see whether the correlation was significant or not.   

On 09/11/2019 at 4:58 PM, octave said:

 

And another one. 

I like the idea of flywheels; after the oil shocks of the 70s flywheel research was often in the news.

 

Simple technology, no complex energy conversion. Just a composite flywheel spinning at high speed in a vacuum chamber under the floor of your car or bus, linked to a generator.

 

We don't hear much about them lately.

 

Came across this video, you may find it interesting.

I like the solar car race but I wish there was a category for  more normal cars, by which I mean 2 seats and in principle able to be registered.

 

I would also have an electric car race with solar recharge and more than one battery pack allowed, as an associated event .

 

This concept car was designed and built by members of a team that one the solar race 3 times. Not pure solar though. 

I like the solar car race but I wish there was a category for  more normal cars, by which I mean 2 seats and in principle able to be registered.

 

I would also have an electric car race with solar recharge and more than one battery pack allowed, as an associated event .

 

The battery for the SA grid cost us 40 cents per watt-hour, which is just under half of what you get from hobbyking, but that battery was so big it cost millions.

 

I couldn't find a price for a replacement 64kWh battery for the Kona, but guess it would be about $40,000. This guess leaves the cost of the rest of the car at over $20,000 which is reasonable. This is better than my hobbyking figures, but not by so much that the argument changes.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.interestingengineering.com/tesla-puts-price-on-model-3-battery-module-replacement-around-5000-7000

SO at $1 per watt-hour, or $1000 per kWh, or $60,000 for 60 kWh,

 

Actually for around this price you can pretty much buy a 60kw battery pack wrapped up in a Hyundai Kona EV

I wish your graph was right Octave. It indicates to me that my 0.1kWhr battery in 2018 should have cost $17.60.

 

Instead I paid over $100.

 

I bet you can't actually buy a 1kWhr for $176 .

 

To be fair we may comparing retail price with price to manufacture. But the more important point is that the cost of battery storage is reducing rapidly.