The climate change debate continues.

[nomadpete]

6 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

Logic goes out the window with you guys. There was no electric system before we had coal power. It was a nation building technology. The grid was built around it. Hydro and gas were just icing on the cake.

Logic dictates that we should move with the times.

 

A long time ago, burning coal was a great step forward.

 

Times change and new less toxic methods of making energy are developed.

 

No need to stay locked into the old era of the industrial revolution, powered by burning fossil fuels.

 

Every system has its drawbacks, and its solutions.

 

Let go of the old. Move on.

Edited Sunday at 10:38 AM by nomadpete

[Marty_d]

"roads were made for horse and cart, but now you want to ditch them for these newfangled automobiles... It'll never work..."

[Siso]

15 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Energy industry is not a level playing field. Just look at the financial assistance we taxpayers presently give to the coal industry. It would be fair play if our governments (all brands) simply stopped subsidising coal. But failing that, alternatives need some subsidy to level the financial playing field.

 

I asked A.I. and this is what it said about subsidies:

 

"Yes, coal mining in Australia receives government subsidies, with federal and state assistance totaling $16.3 billion in 2025–26,......"

More details please

[Siso]

9 hours ago, Marty_d said:

"roads were made for horse and cart, but now you want to ditch them for these newfangled automobiles... It'll never work..."

we went cars, they were faster , used a more energy dense fuel. We had coal/gas, now we are going back to less energy dense fuel. We will see what happens, unfortunately!

[Siso]

Even with all the doom and gloom an Frances NP, still smashing power into its neighbors. Germany not so much.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, Siso said:

More details please

 

And there's more....

 

8 hours ago, Siso said:

we went cars, they were faster , used a more energy dense fuel. We had coal/gas, now we are going back to less energy dense fuel. We will see what happens, unfortunately!

But we are now replacing with a much more abundant supply where technology is allowing the dense storage of that fuel. 

 

8 hours ago, Siso said:

Even with all the doom and gloom an Frances NP, still smashing power into its neighbors. Germany not so much.

That is because Germany shut a significant chunk of its energy generation capacity sans transitioning out. That is going to create a gap. Other countries, such as the UK effed up their markets politically, not because of renewables. Today the UK produces enough from wind alone to power the country.. 

 

Australia, using solar is now producing an excess supply so it is giving it away... It's not the fuels for generation - it is how it is managed. 

[pmccarthy]

Absolute rot! Wind alone? What have you been reading?

[Marty_d]

Now that's commitment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-11/eltham-pilot-turned-baker-quit-flying-for-climate-change-vic/106945332

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:58 PM by Marty_d

[facthunter]

I feel the same way about the fuel I burnt. Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Now that's commitment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-11/eltham-pilot-turned-baker-quit-flying-for-climate-change-vic/106945332

 

 

 

 

 

Confused....

 

Why was this baker 'flying for climate change' ?

 

And why did he stop that?

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:12 AM by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Read it again. Maybe?   Some People care about the state of the world. Nev

[Siso]

The fuel tax credit scheme isn't just to coal. Windfarms get it as well as farming on their offroad diesel. AS far as the capacity of wind in England, you can have as much capacity as you want but it is no good if you can't use it. Sux if you still need to pay for it though. https://lumifyenergy.com/blog/curtailment-costs-scotland/ Is this what the CIS does?  SA is in the same boat. The government is just stating to admit 82% by 2030 is a pipedream. Could have told them that years ago. https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2026/08/07aug-trouble-with-82percent/  Wattclarity is a good site for the state of Australia's electricity system

 

Has any country got close to net 0 and/or has affordable electricity delivered to the consumer using mainly wind and solar. Our price of electricity is comparable to France and they have finished the transition and make money from exporting electricity int country's next door. We are half way there with mainly just replacing generation, now we need to do the storage and the transmission which is going to make the second half exponentially more expensive. France is just starting the rebuilding phase now after 50 years. Finland have cheaper power and are now a net exporter of electricity since their new reactor opened.

 

AI Overview

 

 

 

The launch of the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in April 2023 helped Finnish wholesale electricity spot prices drop over 75%, falling from a peak of €245.98 per MWh in December 2022 down to around €60.55 per MWh. Production costs for nuclear generation itself historically run low (under €50/MWh). [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

France only exporting about 8GW today, the least amount I have seen. The snip below shows the advantage of NP, hydro or both in net 0 (electrictymaps.com)

 

I know, you've all heard it before, reminds of the $275 off our bills.😁

 

Edited Tuesday at 01:09 AM by Siso

[facthunter]

France was one is the first to go nuclear and did a good Job of it. That was then. This is NOW. Water is in short supply in most parts of the world.. Anyone who thinks the world climate ISN'T changing is a smaller and smaller minority by the day. Fossil fuels are now unreliable and cause Wars Predictably.  Nev

[Siso]

They are talking dry cooling thermal plants now if they are away from the sea. Little bit less efficient but who cares in a nuclear plant as the fuel is so cheap/MWh. Fossil fuels are unreliable because they have been demonised and maintenance is deferred. (maybe fairly) Not many wars happening in Australia.

[facthunter]

Give working examples please. the Wars happening now affect Australia.  They don't have to be IN Australia  You are sounding sillier with each reply. .Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Siso said:

They are talking dry cooling thermal plants now if they are away from the sea. Little bit less efficient but who cares

Back when folks were worried about pollution and water shortages, US coal and nuclear power companies toyed with air cooling instead of water cooling. The use of air reduced the power station outputs. Especially during heat waves. The idea was largely ditched due to that loss of efficiency. Same here in Australia. Although, more recently, Kogan Creek thermal power station uses air cooling. Water is not plentiful out west.

[nomadpete]

One problem with coal/gas/nuclear power stations is the fact that steam is not an efficient medium.

 

Newer methods are avoiding steam.

 

Yes, we really do need to build large scale energy storage. My constant complaint is that modern grubmints are afraid to invest in infrastructure such as that.

[nomadpete]

Back to climate change. Whilst refreshing my memory about water cooling in power stations, I came across this little gem....

 

"water temperature is directly correlated with air temperature, with recent studies such as a 2024 research paper by Jiang Sun et al. showing a clear warming trend, as demonstrated for central Europe’s Oder (Odra) river basin. The warming rate differs per location, varying from 0.229°C to 0.720°C per decade,"

 

It seems that although climate change is only happening in little numbers of degrees, it matters. The above quote is in relation to power stations having to throttle their outputs during hot days, due to cooling water temperatures rising. 

 

Rounding their numbers to 0.5 degrees per decade, that is an alarming rate of temperature rise.

 

It's not much of a problem for wind turbines. 

[nomadpete]

Just checked on Kogan Creek water consumption.

Remember, it is air cooled. Its website reports 0.08 megalitres per GWh of generation.

 

It is a single turbine 700Mw generator.

 

0.08 x .7 x 24 = 1.344 Megalitres per DAY.

 

 

 

I seem to recall Tarong PS (Kingaroy) was using around 85 megalitres per day.

 

Water is a real problem for all steam generators.

[Siso]

There is a super critical co2 turbine being developed. Based on a gas turbine but used co2 instead the atmosphere and heated through heat exchanger instead of combustion. Supposed to be a lot smaller physically then a steam turbine. Apparently China have one running. Developer are looking at high temp NPP to run them. Still would require a "condenser" of some sort.

[Siso]

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

Give working examples please. the Wars happening now affect Australia.  They don't have to be IN Australia  You are sounding sillier with each reply. .Nev

You are sounding more like you have a closed mind and aren't receptive to other peoples opinions and new technologies. No wonder a lot of people have a go at you. Maybe a common denominator.

Edited Tuesday at 10:19 PM by Siso

[nomadpete]

36 minutes ago, Siso said:

There is a super critical co2 turbine being developed. Based on a gas turbine but used co2

Well we gotta find some use for all that pesky excess CO2! 

And nowadays it's easier to find than H2O.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 10/08/2026 at 8:21 PM, pmccarthy said:

Absolute rot! Wind alone? What have you been reading?

Just catching up n this thread.. Are you saying my post was totally absolute rot or a specific component of it?

 

Let's go through what I wrote:

On 10/08/2026 at 4:56 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

And there's more....

The direct subsidies to the coal (and fossil fuel industry are well documented at c. $16bn a year. Of course, I was lazy and used AI, but you can get a glimpse here: https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

 

On 10/08/2026 at 4:56 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

On 10/08/2026 at 8:35 AM, Siso said:

we went cars, they were faster , used a more energy dense fuel. We had coal/gas, now we are going back to less energy dense fuel. We will see what happens, unfortunately!

But we are now replacing with a much more abundant supply where technology is allowing the dense storage of that fuel. 

Are you saying the supply of electricity os not more abundant than fossil fuel? The very term reneables sort of should put that to bed.. but lets take a closer look:

Resource Availability and Supply Horizon

Fossil Fuels (Coal, Oil, Natural Gas): Derived from ancient organic matter, representing a fixed finite supply locked in underground reserves that take millions of years to form. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Renewables (Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geothermal): Inexhaustible on a human timescale. The Earth intercepts solar energy alone at a rate roughly 10,000 times greater than total global energy consumption. [1, 2]

 

Yes, AI generated, but ut sort of supports the virtually inexhaustible renewable supply v the exhaustible fossil fuel supply. 

 

Thanks for making me look. It looks like a lot of that fossil fuel energy density is lost as heat.. so the energy efficiency is much closer. That was a bit of an own goal. 

 

On 10/08/2026 at 4:56 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

That is because Germany shut a significant chunk of its energy generation capacity sans transitioning out. That is going to create a gap. Other countries, such as the UK effed up their markets politically, not because of renewables. Today the UK produces enough from wind alone to power the country.. 

 

Australia, using solar is now producing an excess supply so it is giving it away... It's not the fuels for generation - it is how it is managed. 

I don't need to cite sources for Germany shutting its nuclear generation facilities down in the aftermath of Fukashima. It i well known. It was around the time Merkel started going, IMHO, a little loopy. 

 

Are you saying Victoria (And NSW, and QLD) are getting free electricity because the supply is less than the demand?

 

This should debunk that absurdity:

 

Can you tell us hat you are reading that states different facts?

[Siso]

I think you are not getting what I am saying. I should have said energy dense. Remember quite a few years ago there was a solar powered aircraft that flew around the world. It took months and everyone was saying how good it was. Really it was showing how bad it was when compared to a fossil fuel based aircraft as you could get in one and fly around the world in 2 days.. The below snip was taken this morning for SA. Most people will say look how much intermittent  there are, how good is that. I look at it and say look at all the backup that is coming on line, how bad are intermittents. Bit like wanting to strengthen aircraft that came back from a battle in WW2 with battle damage and people wanting to strengthen in those areas, when as somebody pointed out they should strengthening the areas that weren't damaged as those aircraft that were damaged in those spots weren't getting back. Intermittent make electricity expensive because they cut down the capacity factor of mid range price generation (coal) (not a fan) who than need to charge more to cover cost. Same goes with the gas in SA.  Notice there is gas running the whole time at an inefficient minimum generation for grid stability. 

"Parasitic intermittent generation makes electricity expensive." cheap when its there very expensive when its not.

 

[red750]

I saw on Channel 2 the other day a story aboout a guy in Brisbane who is developing a generator for powering the home which is powered by an electric motor - the electricity it generates itself. The generator produces 4 or 5 times the power required to run the motor, the rest is available to power the house. I have no further details or references, other than, I think they said, the guy was involved in developing the Triton Work Bench.