OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Wrecker45 3,378]

[Earl Hood 6,063]

I was going to report that Malcolm in a muddle had actually done something, when the Fair Work Commission brought down their ruling on Sunday loadings. But now it seems Bill Shorten did it! Malcolm has walked away saying it is all Bill and the independent umpire. All a bit like Pontius Pilate I think in that he will not say whether he agrees with the ruling. I think he might have a few splinters up his clacker, that happens when you sit on the fence. 

By the way what a great ruling in an extended period of stagnant wages and surging profits and we wonder why the economy is a tad sluggish these past 8 years. Anyway I will be out and about on a Sunday drinking more coffee once these bastards lose their double hour loadings! 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Do any of our resident lefties like Jay Weatherhill's idea of building a giant battery to fix SA's energy problems? 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Wrecker45
Spelling

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

9 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do any of our resident lefties like Jay Weatherhill's idea of building a giant battery to fix SA's energy problems? 

I haven't read much about it but it seems like a good idea for mine. Especially if Elon Musk says he can do it cheap or will do it for free.

Also promising are Turnbull's comments about a bigger Snowy Hydro battery and now the libs are taking nuclear seriously*.

Actually pretty happy with these developments tbh.

 

*I reckon a good solution is to raze Hazelwood and stick the nuclear plant there. Hazlewood is closed, people screaming for jobs, the community already used to a pretty ugly sight so they won't have any opposition like they will in a lot of other places.

[daisycutter 29,343]

16 minutes ago, Choke said:

I haven't read much about it but it seems like a good idea for mine. Especially if Elon Musk says he can do it cheap or will do it for free.

Also promising are Turnbull's comments about a bigger Snowy Hydro battery and now the libs are taking nuclear seriously*.

Actually pretty happy with these developments tbh.

 

*I reckon a good solution is to raze Hazelwood and stick the nuclear plant there. Hazlewood is closed, people screaming for jobs, the community already used to a pretty ugly sight so they won't have any opposition like they will in a lot of other places.

turnbull said on radio this morning that nuclear wasn't on the table or anywhere near it. said even if there was bipartisan support today, it would still take a decade to build which was an horizon too far.

[nutbean 8,838]

10 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

turnbull said on radio this morning that nuclear wasn't on the table or anywhere near it. said even if there was bipartisan support today, it would still take a decade to build which was an horizon too far.

On current performance next week is an horizon too far for Malcolm.....

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

20 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

turnbull said on radio this morning that nuclear wasn't on the table or anywhere near it. said even if there was bipartisan support today, it would still take a decade to build which was an horizon too far.

Aw, I heard a quote from Frydenberg that said the opposite.

Damnit.

[Earl Hood 6,063]

22 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Do any of our resident lefties like Jay Weatherhill's idea of building a giant battery to fix SA's energy problems? 

I have no problem with the idea. It is the future, as in providing battery storage capacity for  intermittent solar and wind power generation. So we might as well start here. However it does not solve SA's immediate problem of the unstable grid, at best it would provide a few hours of power in another grid meltdown. The proposed state run gas plant doesn't make sense as it will take several years to build and would operate only as a peak demand plant. 

What has been missed is the other short term measure in the plan that has had little news coverage and that is the plan to install 200 MW of diesel generation in the system. These are large (1 to 2.5 MW) generators in shipping containers that can be deployed quickly in a power outage where needed. They are expensive to operate but they will only operate in a crisis so it is a great contingency plan that negates the need for the proposed gas plant. As long as there is now sensible national planning to make the national energy grid more robust. 

What makes sense to me is the 200 mW of diesel generation and the battery storage, forget the gas power plant for SA. The costs for battery storage are falling rapidly year on year, as are costs for solar cells, these will be the future of energy production. 

And forget the nuclear option being pushed largely by the Nationals, it is the most expensive option, with the longest lead time to build. 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

In my humble opinion anything that needs a battery is not pure reliable renewable energy.

[Jara 1,153]

9 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

In my humble opinion anything that needs a battery is not pure reliable renewable energy.

Well, I suppose not - by that standard, there's no such thing as completely renewable energy, as they all require manufacture of the technology. But, with respect, you're being a bit finicky - when we say renewable, surely most people understand it means the basic source (sun, wind, whatever) which is powering the device? 

 

I suppose the real question is which causes the more damage to the environment - the construction of a battery or the burning of coal. 

[Earl Hood 6,063]

13 hours ago, Jara said:

Well, I suppose not - by that standard, there's no such thing as completely renewable energy, as they all require manufacture of the technology. But, with respect, you're being a bit finicky - when we say renewable, surely most people understand it means the basic source (sun, wind, whatever) which is powering the device? 

 

I suppose the real question is which causes the more damage to the environment - the construction of a battery or the burning of coal. 

A legitimate question Jara. All I can say is the technology involved with batteries and solar PV cells is likely to be subject to Moore's Law, that is costs are reducing while capacity is doubling every 2 years, like semi conductors and most electronic componentry. This is the tram to be on. In contrast coal is not going anywhere technologically. Carbon capture is not happening for coal burning power plants despite President Gumps latest pronouncement about clean, clean coal, really clean coal and more jobs in coal. Too expensive compared to solar, wind, then gas. 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

I'm not massively into renewables (I doubt that will surprise anyone who reads these pages regularly). BUT what I will tell you there is one current technology that I expect to completely blow wind and solar out of the water over the next decade and it is wave power.

The sun goes down, the wind stops blowing. The waves just keep on rolling in. The newest technology sits under the water and instead of being a blight on the landscape like solar, windmills and power plants (that actually produce reliable energy). The renewable wave technology is sitting under the water and creating artificial reads that the fish like breading in and has associated marine benefits.

 

[daisycutter 29,343]

15 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

A legitimate question Jara. All I can say is the technology involved with batteries and solar PV cells is likely to be subject to Moore's Law, that is costs are reducing while capacity is doubling every 2 years, like semi conductors and most electronic componentry. This is the tram to be on. In contrast coal is not going anywhere technologically. Carbon capture is not happening for coal burning power plants despite President Gumps latest pronouncement about clean, clean coal, really clean coal and more jobs in coal. Too expensive compared to solar, wind, then gas. 

not sure the supply of lithium follows moore's law, earl. do you know of any new developments in battery storage that would replace or exceed lithium?

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not sure the supply of lithium follows moore's law, earl. do you know of any new developments in battery storage that would replace or exceed lithium?

Molten Salt from memory has the potential.

I remember a mate telling me about it a while back, haven't examined it in detail myself.

[daisycutter 29,343]

2 hours ago, Choke said:

Molten Salt from memory has the potential.

I remember a mate telling me about it a while back, haven't examined it in detail myself.

is that 'potential' like clean coal, choke? 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

55 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

is that 'potential' like clean coal, choke? 

lol I have no idea.

Someone mentioned it to me in the context of battery potential and I remembered it when you asked a similar question just before.

This is the fullest extent of my knowledge on it.

[Earl Hood 6,063]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

lol I have no idea.

Someone mentioned it to me in the context of battery potential and I remembered it when you asked a similar question just before.

This is the fullest extent of my knowledge on it.

If you google molten salt you will find numerous cases of its use in large scale and smaller scales solar power systems. Of course it could all be fake news. 

[daisycutter 29,343]

15 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

If you google molten salt you will find numerous cases of its use in large scale and smaller scales solar power systems. Of course it could all be fake news. 

interesting technology (goes back to the nazis) but still evolving. does look promising but probably not a short term generic solution. time and technology will tell