Jump to content

From other site...WIND TURBINES


Recommended Posts

I started this thread on the Rec Flying site because of the topic's relevance to passing aircraft, but it's drifted into the realm of politics and the environment.

 

If they were economically sound, no-one would be flogging the coal horse...

-except those corporations trying to protect their lucrative trade in dirty coal.

 

Where are their viable power stations? If the technology was viable, we'd all have been doing ages ago.

We were using renewables ages ago- until cheap fossil fuels took over.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortunately, fossil fuels are the concentrated energy source that powers secondary industry. We could not grow and season enough timber to meet the annual demand for energy that we require.

 

I continue to hold the view that it is the coal corporations who are supporting the "environmentalist" dogma that nuclear energy is the Devil's child.

 

It also annoys me that Australia, with its abundance of exposure to solar energy, lags behind the rest of the world in its domestic application.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all heavy industry has been dependent on fossil fuels. All around the world there are alumina refineries powered by hydro power. Solar power is limitless, clean and cheap, but Australia is a bit short on the vision required to capitalise on our great asset.

 

Steelmaker teams with Ross Garnaut to run factories using renewable energy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when all you have is the ABC.Yes change needs to happen, but lets do it properly. SA has completely ballsed it up, and we have a whole bunch of people wanting to follow them...

Not from the ABC:

 

SA’s Tesla battery responds to coal-fired plant failure

 

A month in, Tesla's SA battery is surpassing expectations

 

...Nuclear would be perfect for us, but for some reason we listen to people with little understanding of reality and big on scaremongering and virtue signalling...

Nuclear power stations take up to 15 years to get online. The technology is evolving and no doubt improving, but it's all foreign-owned. Australia would have to go even deeper into debt to go nuclear, then we'd have the waste issue...

 

Solar farms are being installed now -as we speak- and at least some of it is Australian technology. Wind farms are being built now. (Much of the equipment might have been locally made, but turbine companies packed up and left Australia because of the Abbott government's anti-renewables policies.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were to put nuclear waste.!Down the obsolete coal mines.

 

spacesailor

I love your logic!

 

Seriously though, most are a bit close to populated areas and aquifers. Ideally, nuclear waste should be stored deep in geologically (and politically) stable rock. Australia has some ideal locations.

 

Better still, don't produce it in the first place.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much radioactive material would leach into aquifers if the material was placed in the old underground coal mines around Sydney.

 

I bet that there has never been a study to find out how much change to background radioactivity comes you get if you bury radioactive waste.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much radioactive material would leach into aquifers if the material was placed in the old underground coal mines around Sydney.

I bet that there has never been a study to find out how much change to background radioactivity comes you get if you bury radioactive waste.

An experiment few would want to try; if a serious leak were discovered, how would you clean the waste out of the aquifer?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider how much radioactive material radiologists put into you when they do some of their examinations - very little. I would imagine that to test for seepage into aquifers, not more than a few hundred grams in solution would be required.

 

Also, I'm sure that one of the first examinations of a potential dump site would be of the geology to ensure that there was a layer of capping between the dump and any aquifer system. I think that an examination such as this would rule out any location west of the Dividing Range. One would also have to test for the natural radioactive background level. I wonder how much radioactive material is in the natural water systems that flow out of the regions of Australia where uranium ore is found.

 

Uranium mining in Australia - Wikipedia

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how much radioactive material would leach into aquifers if the material was placed in the old underground coal mines around Sydney.

I bet that there has never been a study to find out how much change to background radioactivity comes you get if you bury radioactive waste.

The problem around Sydney Newcastle and Wollongong is not waste leaching out but water pouring into underground mines through cracks in the river and lake beds. Thirlmere Lakes SW of Sydney have almost disappeared and have ended up in a coal mine

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "NEW" SA gov't said they will sell the Tesla Batteries. Holy Coaly. It's working and it's a Labor idea. Gotta go. Eliminate all trace before it catches on. Nev

I sure hope that report is incorrect, Nev. Perhaps they want their big business mates to reap the massive profits when the batteries provide power during snap shortages. The Liberals have an idealogical aversion to governments owning anything.

 

I believe you Mexicans got the opposite of cheaper, more reliable power when Kennet privatised the system.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, OK.

 

The highest domestic electricity prices (per kWh) is evident in the States with the highest privatisation of power assets. If the Tesla power battery makes a profit, expect it to be sold to overseas interests asap.

 

And electricity prices there to rise in order to pay dividends to the new owners.

 

Queensland has the lowest privatisation of power assets, and the lowest cost per kWh to the public. Yet it has the biggest HV grid. How can it be that a government owned major asset can provide cheaper service than a privatised one?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, OK.The highest domestic electricity prices (per kWh) is evident in the States with the highest privatisation of power assets. If the Tesla power battery makes a profit, expect it to be sold to overseas interests asap.

 

And electricity prices there to rise in order to pay dividends to the new owners.

 

Queensland has the lowest privatisation of power assets, and the lowest cost per kWh to the public. Yet it has the biggest HV grid. How can it be that a government owned major asset can provide cheaper service than a privatised one?

...because they don't have to reap a profit from providing an essential service to the public?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a whole new reward system for our political and business leaders; not based on temporary distortion of share prices or sales figures. They need to be rewarded for making long-term, sustainable improvements to the business or jurisdiction they administer. Long after they have left, modern computers could easily assess the effectiveness of their decisions and allocate regular payments- just like musicians and actors get regular royalties when their artwork is accessed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can a business show a Good profit for it's shareholders when the C E O reaps all that profit into their pocket.

 

My father used to take $1,000 out of the "till" as his allowance, when profits were down his worker's were let go to save that wage, Good job he had my brother to fill the missing worker gap, I wouldn't work for nothing even for the old man!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From other site-

 

That largely, those whinging the loudest are the most hypocritical?

Who is whinging? Perhaps those who oppose phasing out burning fossil fuel are whinging about the phenomenal success of the renewable sector.

 

Hypocritical? We all use the old technology, because that's what's available. Perhaps the difference is that some of us have invested heavily in transitioning our lifestyle to cleaner energy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...