Victorian (Australia) Electricity supply meltdown. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: member_xyz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 03:28:13 am
content: https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/blackout-ahead-for-130-000-homes-as-power-system-falters-20190125-p50tn7.htmlOld "Reliable" coal fired Base Load generation shut down and neglected.New renewable supply inadequate and extremely poorly planned.But politicians and regulators will come up with another plausible explanation, record heat. Yeah right, we live in Antarctica.

author: member_xyz
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 07:15:33 am
content: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/blackout-ahead-for-130-000-homes-as-power-system-falters-20190125-p50tn7.htmlWind generation fell to 25% of capacity by early afternoon (peak heat conditions), surprise surprise.But wait for it, minister is saying "its all a fault of old unreliable coal generators". Who the fuck is going to invest in coal generation and reliability when politicians believing in new religion can't wait to shut it down.Nothing wrong with renewable energy, but everything is wrong when its driven by incompetent political agenda.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 07:34:24 am
content: As the bulk of the currently operational wind generation happens within 50-60km of me it was nearly Calm for the bulk of the day increasing with the change and sea breeze later in the afternoon currently nearly calm again so get a grip on some basic FACTS and not on the coal shovel before spoutingThe Turbines along the Gippsland coast are not optimized for Northerlies either so the wind in the Eastern part of the State would likely see them either disabled deliberately or well below performance due to the wind direction.I grew up in the Latrobe Valley and went to Uni there too when Mr Kennett screwed the SEC a very very long time ago for a short term gain. Privatization is what has failed not just the current or even the previous state governments.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 08:59:16 am
content: The real issue, as I HUMBLY see it, is that the high rise shoe/sardine/dog box developments are drawing a LOT of power that just isn't there when DEMAND is over the top,especially if the shoe/dog box owners are not at work,or back at shoe/dog box HQ because of a work power failure >>>>>> come utility cutoffor at best any unemployed shoe/dog box owners occupiers are taking away the headroom power that battling Victorians expect to be there,to cover on freaky 40 C plus day/sor freezing winter nights.It's already a BALL BREAKER as far as traffic goesbecause of these money spinner high rise shoe/dog box developmentsbut crunch time comes when bean counter pocket filling BS talk dies in the ass on a 40 C day,and they have to pull the plug on a few unfortunate suburbsvia Spin The Bottleand blame the 'old system' that's being asked to perform what even a 'new system' could not possibly cope withBRING BACK THE SECand F off the slimy profiteers who aren't even Victorians,and I doubt they are even Australians!!!!!!

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 09:56:25 pm
content: not enough VIC hamster wheels?anyhow Government of Victoria can always go to Elon Musk & ask for some batteries.I remember when coal was cheap & reliable,I remember when A heat wave was a period of 3 or 4 days back-to-back.not just one day here or there.why is it only hot on public holidays this yr?I remember when Bureau of Meteorology predicted temperatures, was the same as temperatures independently recorded by farmers.I remember when the weather had nothing to do with politics!I remember when Al Gore predicted a flood.nothing happened.I remember when Elon Musk was not seen as a god.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 11:23:17 pm
content: I remember when Electricity and Gas were 'utilities', not buy and sell corpoRAT 'commodity' clownage games at the Stock Market CasinoI remember when Petrol was affordable and did not vary in price by 30 to 40 cents a litre (e.g. $1.19 to $1.49, then $1.59 to $1.29, then $1.39 to $1.69 etc)FOR NO REASON AT ALL, and no one brings it up. They must believe we are stupid ignorant SUCKERS. Who can disagree with that?Are the middle east oil goons pumping prices on the westerners who have forgotten the art of DIY?How many suited crims have jacked this country, and how far do they think they can keep up the BS ?Especially once the -unmetered immigrant bring in- and - back door Visa Forever extension flogging- honeymoon period wanes,and starts to put a strain on an already overloaded infrastructureAustralians are SUCKERS to have let it go so far, and better prep up for worse, because that's how apathy worksAwaiting some quality apologist spin, no straight up BS please

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2019, 11:51:20 pm
content: You were ranting fine until you got to spouting anti immigrationand in particular as today is the celebration of white invasion by illegal immigrants of this country we all live in.Kennetts ideological privatization of State owned entities was a dumb ass move. Slow Easy and Comfortable used to make a profit in spite of being bloated to hell with employees and was in need of a good trim not a flog off. Since then virtually zero capital has been spent on grid feed that is not renewables of all types and taking Hazelwood offline without considering a replacement first was an act of Lunacy in a growing state. We have Loy Yang A & B making 50% of our power now over 30 years old and nothing in the pipeline I am aware of to replace them as base load producers.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 12:42:39 am
content: why utilities and other public services are being privatized

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 01:27:48 am
content: Maybe Ohmconnect can look into making its program available in some parts of Australia?

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 02:09:17 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 26, 2019, 01:27:48 amWhy would we want yet another overseas parasite taking money from our power usage to guilt home owners into reducing it? This is putting a single bandaid over a sieve for a companies profit.What we need is infrastructure spend on the grid (not more patches) and an increase to base load supply (from a mix of sources).There is about ZERO to be gained in terms of 'profits' from the private companies dropping capital spend so they keep propping up what assets they own or control from the formerly Government owned entity.We subsidize and incentivize Wind and Home Solar (soon to be some larger commercial solar online too) but they will never meet base load demands on their current increase in capacity. We as a society have about a snowballs chance in hell of putting a Nuclear Plant anywhere in spite of being one of the worlds larger suppliers of the raw ingredient so that is off the table for consideration.Our current Base load mix is Brown Coal, Natural Gas and Peak backup from some Hydro when needed with a small (but growing) contribution of renewables. Brown Coal is far from ideal from an environmental and public health standpoint but we have some very very large reserves available for ongoing generation if needed but we are also getting this sort of idea from State Government. Current Mix for informationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Victoria_(Australia)QuoteWhat we need is a responsible path forward with Government spend and leadership including buying back or building additional assets if needed. IMO this means we need to be planning for at least one more large Brown Coal plant to get us through the next 30-50 years until renewables can get closer to meeting demand.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 07:38:58 am
content: I had the impression Australia was a developed country with a lot of technical competence. Australia is also the worlds third (or was it second) biggest exporter of uranium fuel. So you ought to be able to build a high quality reactor or two. Add to that lots of solar and wind of course. Hydro can help act as storage for wind and solar. The brown coal you can leave in the ground, it isn't going anywhere. It will still be there if future generations need it.But I suspect the people who owns the coal power plants and coal mines wouldn't like that.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 07:46:09 am
content: Quote from: apis on January 26, 2019, 07:38:58 amCompetent governance is quite another thing !Like many govt's they can't see the wood for the trees and even if they could they wouldn't/haven't got the balls to do something about it.How many prime ministers you lot been through lately Bean ?

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 07:48:03 am
content: It has been a long while since we even tried to have a sensible debate about a local Nuclear based solution. Power Generation is fairly much a State by State thing but Nuclear regulations are Federal which doesn't help. That is before you even get to not in my backyard issues.We still haven't been able to come up with a sensible place for our own Nuclear waste in spite of very stable geology and vast part of the country with very low population densities. Still ongoing but for background there may be possibly 500-1000 people total within 100km of this proposed sitehttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-17/barndioota-nuclear-waste-site-planning-outrages-locals/9456052Victoria has one of the largest Brown Coal reserves in the World so Coal would be the sensible interim measure. Our Gas Fields in this State are fairly good but they are finite and fortunately we are unlikely to allow fracking to stretch that.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 07:51:21 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 26, 2019, 07:46:09 amAs per the previous post Federal to State is part of the issue. Our current substitute tosser in charge is on borrowed time as we have a Federal Election in the next few months as he was so loved before he rolled the 'Elected PM' for the job he will receive an appropriate result soon

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:00:20 am
content: All that political stuff is just the usual smokescreen/s to cover up back door deals and or some incompetence thrown in for scapegoat purposes, end of story.You can forget nuclear power ever happening here too, there's no money in it for the external 'third parties' and their slimy two faced rep mates hereAnd if it does happen (good luck with that) you can take it to the bank there will be an impossible 'accident' somehow, and nuke power gets scrapped for another century.Smell the coffee folks, it's the same recycled BS every decadeDo we want Australia to be a phuqued country like many OS places where they fell asleep at the wheel?LOL, imagine impoverished aussie boat people headed for the Africa, China, Middle East for a 'better life' over there,with a 24/7 barbie happening on deck, flanked by slabs of discounted Aldi beer and watching the footy/cricket/tennis on their kids iPadsNah, can't happen... or can it?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 06:45:08 pm
content: If I understood it correctly, the grid and generators are failing because of stress caused by an unusually extreme heat wave.Has it occurred to people that what is causing the more frequent and more extreme heat waves could perhaps be a little phenomena called global warming? And that in turn is primarily caused by burning coal. Maybe investing in more coal isn't such a good idea.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 06:50:18 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 26, 2019, 06:45:08 pmWell yeah......bah humbug !Some reading for ya:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/$14-000-per-mw-renewables-economic-suicide/

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 06:55:02 pm
content: Caused by a load peak and a lack of capability to meet that peak. We have recently decommissioned one of the larger (really dirty) base load plants and have been increasing the use of Gas as base load which historically was used for peak generation due to the shorter run up times. One partial day of extreme heat is not a heatwave but the system is already under pressure without it.I used the word interim with Coal for a reason, Brown coal in particular is not a good fuel for lots of reasons but we need something to tie the system over until renewables/storage can take more of the base load needs.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 07:20:52 pm
content: If I was Australian, I would be using solar power for 99% of my cooling needs, that seems like a no-brainer as the more of one you have the sunlight the more electricity you have to cool.If you can get some trees in between your roof and the sun during the hottest times of the day that reduces your cooling load a lot too.Light colored roofs (in the infrared range) make a huge difference too. Investigate what colors work best for your climate.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 07:28:37 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 26, 2019, 06:50:18 pmRight, I had forgotten that it is not the coal/gas/oil industry who are lobbying to sell more of their products. No, everyone who says climate change is real is actually part of an evil global communist AND jewish conspiracy to kill 6 billion people (not entirely sure why? probably just b'cause their evil and communists and let's not forget jews). How could I forget!(N.B. sarcasm)

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 08:59:20 pm
content: Shortly after Japan had their nuclear disaster that caused an energy shortage, the Japanese were quite good about saving energy to mitigate the problem. Why are the Australians having difficulty doing that?Quote from: cdev on January 26, 2019, 07:20:52 pmI have always supported the idea of painting the roof white in hot climates. Maybe the power companies should offer rebates on white roof paint?

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:14:46 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 26, 2019, 07:20:52 pmI find it rather strange that a country which...- has such a low population density relative to its land mass,- has so much uninhabited wilderness / desert,- has such a high sunshine record,... isn't totally self-sufficient in solar power.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:23:55 pm
content: Because Solar works for 8 hours a day and Victoria has a population of over 6 million (not so low density). We need an interim solution until storage solutions are improved for renewables for base load.Individual home grid feed solar is fairly common and subsidised, but the storage option there has payback figures that don't add up at that scale yet either.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:27:32 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 26, 2019, 09:14:46 pmSee quoted reply for post #11 in reply #13.Governance, or complete lack of.Simply, no vision for the future and the futureneedsof the population.Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 26, 2019, 08:59:20 pmTsunami can hit any installation near the coast, theirdisasterwas somewhat of their own making.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:32:55 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2019, 09:23:55 pmSure, I understand that, but surely 'national infrastructure' sized solar farms would ease (completely satisfy?) your daytime peak grid load. Our solar only works during (sunny) days too, but it feeds into the National grid with all the other generating sources.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:35:34 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 26, 2019, 08:59:20 pmOn a list of countries electricity usage per head we use 3/4 of the USA so you point is what exactly? Mitigation isn't needed infrastructure is!

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:40:34 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 26, 2019, 09:32:55 pmSee the link from post #9 we have some solar coming online but look at the scale compared to what we get from Coal, Gas and even Wind generation. Our large industrial users don't conveniently run only when the Sun is out.edit : Link added herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Victoria_(Australia)

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:44:53 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 26, 2019, 09:32:55 pmYes, with a fairly small amount of solar farms in the desert Australia could basically turn off the coal power plants during the day. That would mean a significant reduction in pollution and would mean cheaper electricity in the long run.Of course those who sell coal and own the coal power plants wouldn't want that since then they would make less money.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:50:01 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 26, 2019, 09:44:53 pmPlease do some research on Coal fired boilers and steam turbines before making up things in your mind that cant be done. Coal is base load for a reason.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 09:59:27 pm
content: Why do you think it can't be done? It's quite possible to rev down a classical coal power plant, it's just less economical so it's not desirable by the operators.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:15:53 pm
content: What part of the conversation are you missing? We have a shortfall in base load power in this state under peak conditions. There is nothing 'currently' to reduce.Ramping down a coal fired plant and keeping a boiler at idle (inefficient and adds cost to USERS not the supplier) then takes circa 8 hours to bring back online and synced to the grid. From cold the old figures used to be circa 24 hours. Ramping Coal stations to meet load variations is not practical which is why these Gas Turbines were introduced back in the late 70'shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeeralang_Power_Stationthey can be online in about 30 minutes. 5km from where I went to Uni btw.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:31:32 pm
content: It does require sufficiently accurate management and forecasting to run a properly balanced multi-source power generation infrastructure, I would have thought that would be easier with the Australian climate than the variations of the UK one.It looks as if we're having a no-coal day (though it has been on and off regularly during the week)http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:33:06 pm
content: Normal coal power plants can adjust their output within tens of minutes (at least the ones here in Europe can), not quickly enough to compensate for rapid changes in wind and solar but it would be quite possible to ramp down and up with the very predictable diurnal cycle from large dessert PV installations. It would be less efficient, sure, but it would also reduce the total amount of GHG emissions and other pollutants. The inefficiency would add cost for coal based energy, but solar is cheap, so it would probably balance things out.Germany has lot of solar and it's far from ideal to use solar around here. You can hardly find a better location for a solar installation than Australian deserts.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:37:58 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2019, 09:35:34 pmThe US really needs to conserve as well. It's not that Australia is good about energy usage, it's that they're not as bad as the US.Providing incentive to cut down on peak usage would help address the issue directly. (I suppose the system to make that possible would be considered infrastructure.) Something like thermal storage would be very economical for HVAC loads, but few invest in it as there's next to no incentive to do so.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:39:13 pm
content: Around 1500 watts per square meter is a lot of power to get for free.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:43:05 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on January 26, 2019, 10:39:13 pmIt's at most 1000 watts per square meter, and in Australia you can get a yearly average of about 300 W per square meter in the desserts, and with PV efficiency of 20% you get 60 W/m2and then some additional losses in the inverters. Still a lot of power to get for free once you have paid for the installation.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:45:11 pm
content: You need to understand we are burning BROWN coal which is a very different animal to make use of.When I went to uni virtually on top of the coal and power generation area for the state. That Gas Turbine plant I linked to was the first major non coal fired boiler in the state. Clearly we have diversified that mix since then and as a percentage coal usage is down but we are still a long way from being able to remove it from the mix for our base load needs.Contrary to what you think not all of Australia is desert and piping power several thousand km to where it is needed doesn't work that well either.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:48:42 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2019, 10:45:11 pmIt works fine, it just costs money.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:50:39 pm
content: Germany is one of the worlds top producers of brown coal, they use a lot of it as well. Sweden transports a lot of power from hydro in the far north about 1500 km and those who work in the industry say the transmission losses aren't a bottleneck. If it works in Europe it probably works in Australia as well. But those who own the coal mines and the coal power stations wouldn't want things to change naturally.Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2019, 10:45:11 pmActually you have enough desserts that covering only a fraction in PV panels would in theory be enough to cover the entire worlds energy needs (not only electricity). The problem is only storage and distribution.It probably makes more sense to put things in other places than deserts, the main point is that Australia is much less densely populated (3.3/km2) than for example Germany (232/km2) and the cost of land will be much lower at the same time as the insolation is much higher. I.e. solar is much more cost effective in Australia than most other places on earth.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:54:41 pm
content: I wonder how well it would work to make it a legal requirement that everyone that has an air conditioner must have sufficient rooftop solar power to cover the a/c power requirement. Not a total solution e.g. when the sun goes down and it is still hot, but it might help.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 10:59:51 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 26, 2019, 10:48:42 pmIt also crosses state boundaries and we are a Commonwealth of States for our sins making it piled in multilevel government red tapeAs I mentioned earlier power generation and distribution is fairly much a state by state thing.Please stop with the PV as a solution it is NOT it is 'part of the solution' and in particular until we get affordable grid level storage it will remain only a part.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 11:07:50 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2019, 10:59:51 pmThat is what we were saying, it's part of the solution. Australia has like 4% solar (that was more than I though tbh, things are changing rapidly). It's hard to imagine a more ideal country for solar power than Australia so that is kind of strange. In comparison Germany has 7%.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 11:21:40 pm
content: Depending on the where the figures for Solar come from it will vary a lot as not all home solar is grid connected and I wouldn't trust the figures to be accurate for home grid connected regardless they are most likely above what is reported.Much as it is a polluter we will be using our wet grotty brown coal for another 30-50 years yet until we get a practical storage solution. Our Coal is among the most plentiful and also the wettest out there but not the most grotty.http://earthresources.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/victorias-earth-resources/coal

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 11:27:07 pm
content: In 2015 Germany mined 178.1 million metric tons brown coal while Australia mined 63.0 million ton.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite#ResourcesGermany agrees to end reliance on coal stations by 2038

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 11:41:36 pm
content: While we have Natural Gas (mainly offshore) the reserves have a finite limit and we keep selling it to other countries for a quick $ instead of considering the longer term local need. We currently export LNG all over Asia from other parts of the country too which could potentially be used for domestic electricity production but that is unlikely in the short term either.We are still back to where the most cost effective base load solution in the interim period is coal for all of its downsides.Edit : In theory we have a 2050 phase out date.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2019, 11:48:17 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 26, 2019, 11:41:36 pmCheapest, that I can believe, but only because coal doesn't have to pay for its externalities. If you factor in the cost of air pollution, acidification, mercury pollution, waste disposal, climate change, etc, there is no chance coal is cheapest, but it's the Australian public that will pay for that, not the owners of the coal mines and coal power stations.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:09:36 am
content: Quote from: Gyro on January 26, 2019, 09:14:46 pmProponents of mass installation of solar electric panels always neglect some 'minor' issues with solar panels: Dust, hail and lightning.'Dust' (and the cleaning cost) doesn't need an illustration, but for the other two:http://joannenova.com.au/2018/12/sydney-hail-storm-just-how-hailproof-are-those-solar-panels/http://everist.org/NobLog/20160504_solar_panels_vs_emp.htmNote that wasn't a direct lightning strike, it was damage from the EMP of a nearby strike. A few houses away I think. Also note that any solution to that 'burned diodes' problem, tends to get quite complicated - and therefore expensive and unreliable.Another real issue is panel lifetime energy return on energy invested, and how long it takes solar panels to generate the amount of electricity it took to manufacture them. Like all renewables, the EROEI is hard to estimate because product operating life estimates always neglect real world maintenance and failure factors. So tend to be unrealistically optimistic.While the energy cost of manufacture (and the real economic cost) is obscured due to the panels being made in China (therefore effectively subsidized by political factors such as Chinese Gov control over the exchange rate, and ignoring environmental issues like industrial pollution), and also our local government subsidies for installation and operation.Btw, for anyone thinking the recent 'heat wave' was anything special:http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/forgotten-history-50-degrees-everywhere-right-across-australia-in-the-1800s/Typical:http://joannenova.com.au/2018/12/new-report-renewables-indirectly-make-electricity-more-expensive-so-abc-tells-australia-the-opposite/Oh, and I see the 'nuclear power is the answer' idea is popping up again. There are two replies to that.One is, do some research on EROEI estimates for nuclear power plants, over full lifetime of the systems. That includes dismantling the reactors at end-of-life, and storing the waste safely for a few hundred thousand years. Guess what? It's probably negative.Second answer, and the one that terminates the nuclear fission plants issue absolutely and permanently as far as I'm concerned, is 'natural disasters'. That includes* Tectonic tsunamis (see Fukushima. Do you have any idea how bad that is? Complete cluster-f*ck, THREE total meltdowns, cores in the ground, right next to the Pacific Ocean, no possibility of stopping groundwater flow to the ocean.* Subsidence tsunamis See Hawaii Hilina Slump* Meteorite impacts. Few people are aware how frequent these are historically. Everyone's heard of the 63 million years ago Dinosaur Age terminator impact, but who has heard of these:Hiawatha crater in Greenland (about 12,000 years ago, wrecked the entire planet, likely the cause of a known human species genetic bottleneck sometime-ish around then. Meaning, we almost got wiped out.The 12,000 Year old Comet that Landed on TEDTalks…and Erased Ancient Civilization - Greenland CraterMaybe the same one:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/younger-dryas-climate-event-solved-via-nanodiamonds-it-was-a-planetary-impact-event/Younger Dryas climate event solved via nanodiamonds – it was a planetary impact event. 12,800 years ago.Umm al Binni lake/crater. Around 2200 BCEhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_al_Binni_lakeTunguska, Siberia 1908 Just an airburst meteor. Lucky there wasn't a nuclear plant anywhere in the flattened area.Kebira craterhttps://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/6351/kebira-crater100M.y ?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-23/worlds-largest-asteroid-impact-zone-found-in-central-australia/6341408World's largest asteroid impact zone believed uncovered by ANU researchers in central AustraliaNew Zealand, 40,000 years ago. On the nth end of the South Island. Something caused a huge tsunami that flattened the Kaori forest right across the island, burying it under many meters of ocean sediment.Then there's supervolcanoes. Yellowstone isn't the only one, there are several such sites on Earth.The point being that such mega-natural disasters put a kink in life on Earth each time, but they don't ELIMINATE it. However, add dozens or hundreds of nuclear power plants, weapons and high level nuclear waste dumps smeared across the landscape at the same time, totally beyond human resources to do anything about it, and that very well could end all higher life forms on Earth. Highly raised background radiation level would suck. Even if it didn't kill everything directly, it would shift the genetic defects vs evolutionary error weeding-out balance into the negative, resulting in rapid devolution. And a whole lot of sorrow and tragedy for the human race as they went extinct via birth defects and general ecological collapse.This is why we MUST NOT USE nuclear fission power. Not on Earth, ever.Nuclear fusion, if we ever get it working and it can be done without significant long-life waste products, is another matter.

author: ziggyfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:28:08 am
content: It's amazing how much ideology dictates a lot of our policy and when reality shows through the lies, our leaders blame everything except themselves.Reminds me of the feudalism.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:37:49 am
content: The alarm bells should be sounding when "Andrew Bolt described her writing as “outstanding”. That is as bad (or worse) as Trump calling someone a special friend to those who don't know Mr BoltShe has no background in climate science (she is a micro biologist with a genetics background) more than another human with a reasonable education. Not that some of her points aren't valid but her religion of non climate science is rubbish according to most qualified scientists on the planet. So information should be read with that absolute bias in mind and weighed accordingly.Mass PV isn't the only solar solution either much as it has become much more cost competitive over the last few years. We were supposed to be getting a pilot plant for one of these near Mildura that never got off the groundhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_towerand there is the fairly long running molten salt project in the USA.Also dropped in the water last year about 20km from me in the last few years was this wave energy pilot (250kW)http://bps.energy/projects

author: ziggyfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:48:34 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 27, 2019, 12:37:49 amEnglish Translation?

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:50:33 am
content: Have a browse of her site she is a self proclaimed High Priestess of climate change denial and Bolt likes to think of himself as a preacher of the same religion.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 01:04:48 am
content: Corporatism, more specifically Disaster Capitalism sees a silver lining behind every emergency or disaster. They try to take maximum advantage of every disaster by policy ratchets, huge power, IP, and land grabs, and they are not even above creating avoidable disasters.Energy is their playground and the taxpayers their preferred victims, as shown by the Enron Tapes, and ISDS (arbitral) suits that have been brought under the Energy Charter Treaty for example.These are the people who are running the world right now, pretty much, BTW.

author: doobedoobedo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 01:35:16 am
content: What you guys need is solar freakin' roadways.

author: wilfred
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 03:08:12 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 27, 2019, 12:37:49 amIf someone peddles controversy along with advertising then you need look no further for the reason. Money. It's not complicated. Once I realised that I stopped thinking of them as idiots. They found a niche and they profit from it. Clever actually. They don't need to believe it themselves.The people who uncritically lap it up, that's religion.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 03:48:02 am
content: Millionaires who make huge profits from keeping things the way they are fund climate change denialism on a large scale.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 03:48:47 am
content: Over the years I've seen enough examples of such things just being plain old lobbying. I.e. people are paid to lie and spread misinformation. For many years someone have been feeding a relatively small group of paid writers talking points (often bloggers but sometimes it's someone who writes a book or manage an email lists). Those blogs get a following of astro turfers and fools who then spreads those neatly packed snippets of misinformation wherever there is a forum or a comment section. It's completely legal to do so and probably a lot more common than people are aware of.A few years ago there was a woman with a blog here in Sweden who also wrote a book, and she didn't even try to hide the fact that she was a copywriter and knew no science (she kept making silly mistakes like calling molecules atoms and the like) yet she was somehow an authority on climate science and got a fairly large following. If you write a book you automatically become an expert in the eyes of the media and get invited to promote your book in tv-sofas and on radio (I assume you need to have the right contacts, which these people apparently do). And of course, they demand equal exposure for their fringe views in public service media, so whenever a climate scientist is interviewed they have to be paired with a lobbyist who are a climate sceptic, a lot of people can't tell the difference and get the impression there is no consensus among the experts. It's scary how effective they appears to have been.(The bloggers wikipedia page.)Problem is that money=power and those who own the coal/oil/gas industry have a lot of it. They don't want their golden goose to disappear so they spend billions on lobbying. Even if they don't manage to suppress the truth completely, they can at least delay the inevitable shift away from fossil fuels.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 06:26:01 am
content: Long read. Sorry.....Australia has a lot of coal for power I mean hundreds of years worth if not more. It’s cheap easy to dig up. Problem is the brown coal is a bituminous type which pollutes a lot. We also have vast other types of coal and shale.There is no working large scale carbon capture nor carbon cleaning technology that is cost effective for coal power production. Despite the industry “infomercial ads” on Australian TV.Our coal power plants like this are now getting quite old. They need replacement they break down often. It is environmentally destroying to keep using such power production. Consider not just the carbon but the heavy metals and radio nuclides it releases.Coal producers are large political doners their influence is great. The Liberal National coalition party (LNP) (our version of the US Republicans) are the same party that promoted selling off these coal power generation assets to private enterprise (in the 90s), from profitable state owned assets. Electricity prices have soared since.These old plants need replacing and the whole field needs major injections of investments but no bank wants to lend for “coal”. Electrical generation companies will not invest they are target fixated. They need leadership.The incumbent federal LNP is frothing mad prompting coal however some Labour state governments (the other major political party akin the Democrats) have been investing in major renewables projects and or giving incentives for household renewables.This is a good start but doesn’t address base load investment. Ok we can raise our renewable use and I applaud this (my house has a 6.6Kw solar system) but it’s not base nor storage.What to do....indeed I believe we can raise or use of renewables to much higher levels, invest in new tech but we need base investment. Dare I say nuclear? I can hear the howls now!That said we cannot even agree where to store low level waste from Lucas Heights (Australian medical nuclide and research reactor). I believe Lucas Heights was the site of the worlds 2 nuclear reactor (in1950s) sadly it all stopped due to the bad publicity. It now has a newer OPAL reactor. Australia is a vast place we have places that are so geological stable it beggars belief. In the same breath no one mentions how many related deaths coal power production causes.Not saying nuclear is cheap but are saying it is reliable. Australia is probably the safest place to have such generation.Oh a little known fact is that coal fired plants throttled backIdling produce more waste than when generating. You cannot just use a coal power plant and they take time to bring on line.What do we do? Well the LNP should be voted out within a few months (a federal election is due) Labour Party is not tied to coal industry funds. Labour is big on promoting more renewables but short on real large scale facts. Our state government (as other labour states have) provided incentives for solar and batteries. This as said is a good step. It breaks the producers monopolies assists the grid.All that said we will still need base load or major potential storage. The LNP has bold faced lied about renewables causing major power outages. The fact is it was ageing infrastructure.All I can say is watch this space. Times they are a changin! I wish Australia had some investment in ITER or such like. We are an innovate lot hopefully we shall come out with some decent alternate direction and investments. It’ll take 5-10 years to build big new tech base load plants.Edit: currently we get around 1000 watts p/m squared incident solar energy. We have panels producing 340watts they are over a metre so yeah 300 watts p/m is about right. That said technology has got better, from around 230 watt panels to 340 watt panels in ~ 15 years. Let’s hope this efficiency can be increased.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:14:40 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 27, 2019, 12:50:33 amI love it when people unintentionally out themselves."High Priestess of climate change denial"Here's an article addressing that phrase.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/27/sowell-the-catchwords-climate-change-deniers-reveals-political-crusade/Thomas Sowell: the catchwords “climate change deniers” reveals nothing but a political crusadeHe's entirely right, but I'd go further than he does. Imo the use of the term "climate-change-denier" to describe AGW-skeptics, is so irrational and contrary to reality, and so far into ad hominem insult territory, that it reveals the speaker to be either:1. Apparently incapable of independent analytical reasoning, and merely parroting what they've heard on MSM channels. With no thought whatsoever, and in ignorance of Earth's highly variable climate and geological history. Plus unaware that AGW skeptics ARE universally aware of that wildly varying climate history - which is one reason WHY they are AGW skeptics.or2. Reading their lines from a talking point list they've been provided as part of their paid shillery. With not the slightest care for whether it makes sense or not. This definitely happens, as the term 'climate change denier' is being used far too widely and in the same remarkably stupid sense, for it to be random people coming up with it themselves. It's clearly a fallback tactic originating from the core tacticians of the Warmist scam. (Who are Globalists btw.)Here's some questions for everyone here who still accepts the AGW theory: that an increasing atmospheric CO2 level is causing global warming, and is therefore a bad thing.1. Are you aware of the actual levels and rate of increase? You don't dispute that atmosperic CO2 is presently around 410ppm, up from about 300ppm at 1900?2. Do you have any idea what the average level of atmospheric CO2 was, over the history of life on Earth? And how that compares to present levels?There are many sources on this, go hunting for yourself. But here's a quick summary.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.htmlClimate and the Carboniferous PeriodParticularly this graph:At this point you have exactly two options. You can either dispute the fact that CO2 levels were almost always in the range of 1000 to 5000 ppm through the entire history of life on Earth, and that this didn't cause any climate problems at all. Or you can give up on AGW as a credible theory. Because the two things are logically mutually exclusive. It's very, very simple; they can't both be true. You have to choose one. If you continue to pretend both are true, then what you have is cognitive dissonance. Maintaining an irrational, comflicted state of mind, because you can't bear to face the consequence of accepting some uncomfortable facts you've been presented with.It's true that if till now you accepted the AGW theory, then you do have a lot of dependent questions to work through for yourself. Like:* You've been lied to, in a coordinated way, by an extraordinary number of people and sources, for over 20 years. How and why did that happen?(You might start with the CRU emails leaks.http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_CRU_1st_emails_leak.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__Global_Cull_links.txt)* Do you feel bad about having been sucked in by what is effectively a political propaganda campaign? Don't be, it was really quite sophisticated, and got most people for long time. Me included, and I am by nature very doubting. Better to get angry with those who did this to you.* So what does control climate, if not CO2? This is a fun one. There are now some very good and accurately predictive theories. Their evolution (and the lengths the Warmist camp went to in attempts to block and suppress that research) is fascinating.* When you go hunting for the underlying motives for the AGW scam, you're going to encounter some very very nasty things. Be brave. Yes, there is evil in the world. Don't be one of those who go into denial and/or do nothing about it.* Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the AGW scam, is the damage it's done to the function and reputation of science. It's had a seriously corrupting effect. Collateral damage being a severe diminishment of our species' ability to forecast and react to _actual_ (as opposed to fantasy) risks to Earth, and the harm the Warmist scam and all its related hype has done to the standing of Nature Conservation in general.For example, we're in the early stages of a no-joke Ice Age. The Warmist scammers being still widely in control of public policy, means there is zero chance of any sensible preparations being made for the massive disruptions of a mini Ice Age.Bonus questions: What are the relationships between CO2 level in the air, plant growth, and plant requirements for water? And why. What level of atmospheric CO2 did plants evolve to work with optimally? What's the air CO2 level below which plants cannot survive? Might the present CO2 low have anything to do with the prevalence of deserts? Might the rising CO2 level have anything to do with the recent notable worldwide greening of arid areas?Edit: typos.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:39:32 pm
content: Out and proud and what part of that statement I made was 'unintentional' I would think calling Bolt Trump like very intentional.I am still pragmatic enough to say one more go for coal in this state even though it does harm so I am not renewable or bust by any means and my posts here would back that up.This is an Engineering forum not a forum for voodoo priests of pseudo science. Climate change denial is NON Science as it fails to meet the basic criteria of peer revue far to often because the papers never get that far in most cases. Just because you have links and 'your' evidence doesn't make it proof of anything until it is tested, repeated and found to be true or false.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2019, 12:49:31 pm
content: Researched NON Climate SCEINCEMonte HiebMining EngineerMonte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training.Owner and creator of geocraft.comSpeaking of 'Research' you might like to look at the source material here, journals quoted and references given not to mention some actual datahttps://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

author: ziggyfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 12:54:15 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 27, 2019, 12:50:33 amCan you define religion for me?It's just that this thread has a lot of references to religion, yet no supernatural being is existent within the context.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 01:17:48 am
content: Calling a lot of what they spout 'Science' is a misnomer so what should it be called? Quackery, Snake Oil, Religion, Pseudo Science would all be appropriate I guess I just chose religion? Religion doesn't have to rely on a supernatural being or entity at it's core either it can be devotion or commitment to a cause or even an idea.BTW Al Gore and his ilk are not much better preaching to the Science for 'reasons'.Back on topic from a couple of days ago before we got to talking about a path forward. Planned Shutdowns and failure of aging infrastructure of the Coal Fired Generators was the actual reasonshttps://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-s-frail-energy-grid-exposed-on-day-of-record-heat-and-demand-20190125-p50tqr.html

author: ziggyfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 01:37:34 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 01:17:48 amBut there is no "Science" that proves global warming either, only climate models that have been proved wrong. Moreover, there is no verifiable (base on historical data) formula that says if we produce X amount of CO2 then we will get X degrees in temp rise.Your an engineer, you should be well aware that in order to solve a problem, you first need to know what the problem is. At the moment, all we have a symptom of the problem (small rise in temps), we haven't been able to diagnose what causes is.Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 01:17:48 amSo socialism is a religion? The reason I am badgering this point is that we need to be clear as to what we are talking about. We could be arguing the same idea, just using different words.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 02:06:33 am
content: There is no consensus among scholars new and old about what Religeon is definitively. That discussion on what is or isn't a religion is no where near on topic and other than my view is broader than yours I will be leaving it here. So I will from now on refer to it as Climate Change Denial as Quackery in this thread to avoid offending your definitionScienceQuoteObservations - Refer to the NASA link and look at the EVIDENCE not the models. We are getting hotter and CO2 is rising rapidly these are FACTS. These things are a PROBLEM in particular if this trend continues that is self evident to deny this is completeThe GLOBE IS WARMING!So now we are at the 'model' and the 'Experiments'. You cannot build a physical model of the world so you must extrapolate what you can from reduced scale experiments and use the observations to guide that process. When you have that model or hypothesis it should be scrutinized, tested, repeated and verified by peer reveiw. That is how it works if it doesn't then the model is flawed and you look again. This gets you a 'model' that changes and becomes more accurate over time and version.The Quakery merchants do not do this at all they yell their rhetoric at the media to try and make it magically become fact using the Meincampf/Trump method of the Big Lie and Non Science is their factual information base.Solution we need to stop abusing the rock we live on and treat it more kindly where we can before it throws a hissy fit.As this has nothing to do with Grid Failure this is the last I will be saying on it here.

author: connectTek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 02:46:02 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on January 27, 2019, 12:14:40 pmSpot on.Sent from my TA-1012 using Tapatalk

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 03:22:29 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 01:17:48 amAnd Yes you should see the politics here. This is a Federal Election year with Morrison in trouble in the polls making promises to a State where he stands to get thumped. Federal generally doesn't get involved in matters of State power generation

author: ziggyfish
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 04:06:44 am
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 02:06:33 amIf we want to talk about science we need to take a scientific approach. Definitions are the core of any scientific debate. I would ask you to define Quackery, and Climate Change Denial, however, I believe that will lead to another nonsensical response from you so I will leave at that.Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 02:06:33 amYay, we get to talk about Science now.Not sure which link you're referring too? Would love to see the evidence that explains the current pause in global warming.Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 02:06:33 amAll I am after is the reproducible model which shows that with X amount of CO2, we get X rise in temperature, which is the Global Warming Advocates claim. This can easily be done in a test tube, or a lab experiment.To prove your claim, all that needs to be done is add oxygen, and a layer of CO2 to a test tube, shine a heat source on it and measure the difference in temperatures with and without CO2. So no need to model the universe.Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 02:06:33 amCorrect, the question is how are we abusing the rock (which is the question, that proponents of Global Warming, haven't been able to answer)? I myself believe that the climate is changing.Let's say the problem is CO2 is the cause of the warming. What is the solution? Well, the current solution is to tax the CO2 in the hope we scare the CO2 molecules into complying with our man-made laws.I believe in a different approach, and that is planting more trees. Now for some actual science.The equation for, Photosynthesis (this is apart of the earth carbon fixation defence mechanism).CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 2H2O (water) + (photons light energy) →  (carbohydrate) + O2 (oxygen) + H2O (water)This means that the more trees we plant, the more CO2 is converted to larger plants, which means more photosynthesis (and less CO2).The oxygen molecules that are produced in the reaction also lowers the air pressure (thus attracting more rain), which is why large forests often produce their own rainfall.Or if you prefer a picture:So logically the solution is to plant trees if the problem is CO2, however at present, we simply don't know the cause of global warming, we have only speculated that it is CO2. We simply can't get this wrong though, we may spend all our resources (time and physical resources), trying to reduce CO2 emissions, however, the problem could be something completely different.Quote from: beanflying on January 28, 2019, 02:06:33 amDefine Grid Failure? I define Grid Failure as a shortage of power supply on the grid, which is exactly what happened in Victoria.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 28, 2019, 08:51:18 am
content: If someone is interested in what actual scientists are saying about climate change it can be found here:https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/Who are the IPCC one might justifiably wonder:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeAnd for those who don't feel like digging into the science themselves, for whatever reason, here are some authoritative statements by actual scientific organisations:Scientific opinion on climate change: Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standingOf course, none of that is going to convince the conspiracy theorists since it is all part of the big conspiracy.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 05:58:17 pm
content: Old growth forests only sink a tiny amount, to sink CO2 with trees you have to keep mulching them and grow the forest on an ever larger mound of carbohydrates ... bit of a fire hazard.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 06:44:54 pm
content: Considering the way many people use energy, savinglotsof it wouldn't be hard!

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2019, 07:45:54 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 27, 2019, 06:26:01 amDo you have a url where I can see those 300 W/m2PVs? Please? Thanks!

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 01:08:51 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 29, 2019, 07:45:54 pm'over a meter' yeah that's the problem.Lets take LG's 360W 20.8% efficient panel (best on their site).https://www.lg.com/us/business/solar-panel/all-products/lg-LG360Q1C-A51700 x 1016 x 40 mm1.7m x ~1m = 1.7m2360W/1.7m = 211W per m2

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 02:58:31 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 29, 2019, 07:45:54 pmhttps://www.lgenergy.com.au/downloads/category/5/product-datasheetsTHe LG Neon panels. I thought they were 1.2m x 1m but they are 1.7m x 1m.....so they would be under 300Wm/2 but close'ish. Our panels are 305W rated, 1.6m x .99m.https://www.solargain.com.au/sites/default/files/EN%20Eagle%20PERC%2060M%20295-315W_0.pdfWe were to have the Q cell 325W panels but they ran out some installed 305W x 22.https://www.solargain.com.au/solar-panelsConsidering panels output was on avg 220W 10 years ago they have improved somewhat. Panels to suit for various installations, aka low angle, low light, mono, poly etc. Depends upon the panel design and what optimal wavelength they work at. A lot of good info here.https://mcelectrical.com.au/tag/solar-panels/

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 03:10:16 am
content: Quote from: apis on January 27, 2019, 03:48:47 amhttp://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.phpAbsolutely there is a site (link above) run in Australia called "the Galileo movement"......you'd think ah a science site!....well errr no! A climate change denialist site that is full of rubbish written by morons who have big business and airwaves prowess. They even write articles then refer to their own articles as fact....my god! They started this way back to stop carbon pricing and reduction of coal under the Labour Party (Australian version of the Democrats).Not withstanding their links to the Australian LNP (our version of very right Republicans or Tories in UK) and obviously coal industry are massive.Now here's a proper science site about Galileo which will calm everyone's anger....How dare they sully his name, absolute lying tossers.http://galileo.rice.edu/

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 03:11:56 am
content: No doubt some of us visiting this thread wanted to see late-19th-century electricity disasters...

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 03:15:19 am
content: Was back in the Arc (1985?) my Dad as a Secondary teacher ran a program running a Solar powered car N-S across Australia (pre World Solar Challenge) on 12% Panels and at the time they were leading edge and don't ask what they cost even at a heavy discount from Solarex for 8sq.mThe last few years have made them truly capable of being in the mix against all comers. Just got to sort out a storage mechanism that works for the $ now.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 03:42:02 am
content: Quote from: amyk on January 30, 2019, 03:11:56 amThis did happen in South Australia, caused by wind and old infrastructure. Of course this fail cause widespread blackout and was blamed on "renewable's" by The LNP...other bold faced lies. Meh ....why let the facts get in the way of a good story.http://www.kublermdk.com/2016/10/21/sa-power-outage-blackstart-in-relatively-plain-english/

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 04:03:05 am
content: Just went back over my Basic AstroPhysics (Duke, Ronen Plesser, I can link a video but its 15Mb, I'd need a place to put it up) notes on Earths temperature model (been a long time I looked at them). Pretty much the planet temperature it is dependent upon how far the planet formed from the sun (as an accreted DISC), but, earth is hotter than it should be. The answer is the Bode Albido and Green House effect. The Bode Albido is the avg reflectivity of the planet (according to various measured wavelengths) and the green house effect is due to the atmosphere trapping energy. Without greenhouse effect the planet would be frozen.Earth's atmosphere is essentially invisible to most incoming energy thus it hits the ground and is absorbed/Reflected and re-radiated back to the atmosphere in a differing IR wavelength. In the atmosphere this energy is now absorbed/reflected or escape (our to space) , back to the ground. Again energy does the same again absorbed/reflected or re-radiated. Each turn with diminishing order of energy (entropy). Of course this is a basic model oceans, current, seasons etc all play a part. Suffice our basic calc's did come surprisingly close to the avg earths temp.But the key point is a small change in Bode Albido (like melting ice) and or Green house absorption ratio, of as small as 1% will change (increase) Earths temperature by around 3 Degrees C. The balance is precarious and a low delta figure can cause massive changes indeed.So...what to do. If you think the jury and evidence is still in question but were unsure then you would be negligent in not taking changes to what we are doing even if you were unsure. To err on the side of doing something is the logical thing to do.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 04:03:19 am
content: According to the Stats on the day in question rooftop solar was supplying 9.5% of the grid power. Not to bad for a growing chunk of the mix.QuoteAs per my original post in this thread the winds were very light where the turbines are located that day.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 10:05:49 am
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 30, 2019, 04:03:05 am1) There's been 3..15x more CO2 ppm in the atmosphere in the past and nothing even remotely similar to thatmodel predictionhas ever happened.2) There's ~ 33% more CO2 now than a century ago and T has not increased 3*33= +99˚C.=> It seems the importance of the CO2 has been greatly exaggerated.We receive from the sun ~ 3.14*6371e3*6371e3*1e3*24*365= 1.12e9 TWh/year.World energy consumption is ~ 170e3 TWh/year, more than half of which is thrown as heat into the atmosphere.Each of us is a ~ 100W heater (2000 kcal/day) and we're 7 billion, that's 7e9*100*24*365/1e12= 6132 TWh/year of heat that goes to the atmosphere :-)We've turned many millions of km2of energy-absorbing green fields and forest into concrete and tarmac, that's not good for Albedo.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 11:12:05 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 10:05:49 amNo 33% more CO2 does not equate a a 99˚C temp change. A small change in Albedo ratio will cause massive earth temperature changesThe effect of CO2 is well known and studiedQuote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 10:05:49 amYour equating all energy released as warming effect...its not the case it has to be in the IR range. Reflection/Absorption or re-radiated energy in this IR upon a molecule or object is always of a lower order due to entropic nature. The energy quality is lower thus energy from use human is not absorbed by the atmosphere like you state. Its a differing beast.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 11:44:20 am
content: Your lobby isn't funny, you're sucking tax payers' millions by the thousands to make models that don't work and propose solutions that neither.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 11:50:16 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 11:44:20 amThis is the crux of it, facts and discussion vs an anti-facts pulpit banging. This is the crux of it all in a nutshell laid bare for all to see.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:11:53 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 30, 2019, 11:12:05 amClimate simulations are hacky and fragile and for the running real world experiment we have no control, how is this well studied? It's the best we can do, but in any normal area of research it would be seen as very poor evidence. Only the precautional principle can bolster the evidence, not its quality.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:13:50 pm
content: There has been over 80 years of research all over the world, and the only explanation of why it's getting warmer (that agrees with measurements) is that we are releasing more and more greehouse gases. A relatively small amount of CO2have a large effect because there are positive feedback systems. For example a small increase in temperature leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere which in turn increases the temperature even further (because water vapour is also a greenhouse gas). Even small warming effects gets amplified by strong positive feedbacks.This is a complicated subject at it can't be fully explained in a forum post, but data and research and comprehensive synthesis reports are available for free on the internet for those who are honestly interested.The most comprehensive introduction to the physical science basis is freely available here:https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/For those who are to lazy/busy to read that:

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:15:42 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 30, 2019, 11:50:16 amYours are non facts I would say, as inQuoteYou also have saidQuoteYes it is, a behaviour very well known by real scientists in a lab, but not at all by the global AGW lobby pseudo ones that have been failing year after year for decades to model its effect in the complex system that's the atmosphere where it's only a trace gas.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:20:05 pm
content: More on topic than

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:23:50 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 30, 2019, 12:11:53 pmAbsoluately climate modeling and change modeling is more than a small calculation. But to date modeling has given the best and closest data to what is happening. Nothing else explains it.It would be remiss not to err on the side of caution. Changing our way will not hurt the planet it may realign some industry and thise most effected buy this possibility of this are the ones anti climate change. Yet they offer no solution except rejection.If we are unsure but know there is change then we should act. Not doing do is illogical

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:24:16 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 30, 2019, 11:12:05 amSo what is heat? Because I'm sayingheatreleased...

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:27:31 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 30, 2019, 12:23:50 pmYou're just repeating like a parrot Elon Musk's words. Word by word, exactly. LOL. Come on, use your own brain please.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:28:44 pm
content: Quote from: beanflying on January 30, 2019, 12:20:05 pmAhh yes hot on eastern seaboard atm. Our dogs are feelin it.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:37:09 pm
content: Quote from: station240 on January 30, 2019, 01:08:51 am20.8% efficiency measured in DC in a lab at 20˚C... that translates to barely 10..12% at real use temps under the sun and after conversion to AC. Am I right?

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:39:42 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 12:24:16 pm

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 12:49:20 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on January 30, 2019, 12:39:42 pmClimate scientist is a good job to have nowadays. And rest assured all his papers will be published, if the conclusions go in the right direction. It's in the Nature® of the lobby.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 01:10:07 pm
content: Soscientistsandpeer reviewed scientific journalsare lobbyists now?

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 01:39:21 pm
content: Those that twist the numbers to "hide the decline", yes.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hide+the+decline

author: nick_d
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 01:45:54 pm
content: As a climate skeptic, I have nothing against renewables, however I believe they have to make their own business case without subsidies.The priority for me is simply that I can buy the things I need to live, at a reasonable price, without subsidising things I don't believe in.Since it is 100% possible to generate the electricity and 100% possible and profitable to do it cheaper than now, I believe Government should simply get out of the way and let private investment tackle it. Generation and distribution infrastructure should be sold off, and space made available in our streets so that private companies may double or triple the distribution infrastructure if they feel the profit motive warrants it.I noted a number of comments about the privatization of SEC and so on. While I believe in privatization in principle, what we call "privatization" in Victoria is not really that. What has happened here in case of all utilities, including the new NBN, and public transport and (to some extent) freeways... is essentially that the Government and its partners build the system, then various contractors are brought in to collect the money.If Government GENUINELY sold off the infrastructure it would be a huge benefit to us. Firstly, large amounts of Government debt could be paid off, saving an interest burden on ourselves and future generations (although, this assumes we can curb Government's insatiable desire to borrow more money). Secondly, genuine competition would cause the providers to invest in the infrastructure, which they do not at the moment, because there is no genuine competition. Competition in Internet and ADSL, for example, was recently killed off by the NBN, and has never existed in water, gas, electricity, public transport, etc. Competition in mobile phone exists, but due to spectrum auctions most money goes to the Government, so it is effectively a Government monopoly with providers such as Vodafone acting as Government partners to collect the money.Nick

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 01:57:35 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 01:39:21 pmWhen I followed your link I found this:

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2019, 03:26:18 pm
content: Quote from: apis on January 30, 2019, 01:57:35 pmThis one explains it much better:

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 12:46:59 am
content: Quote from: nick_d on January 30, 2019, 01:45:54 pmBig corporations don't believe in investment, proof exists in the form of almost no solar power stations they have built.Besides which, doing nothing is free, and they are legally obligated to give as much money as possible to their shareholders.Those 200,000 homes/businesses in Victoria that lost power due to the failure of 3 Latrobe Valley based coal fire generators, with the exact same faults (boiler tube leak).Now the power distribution company should not have to pay compensation, not their fault.However, there is nothing that allows the power generators to be fined, which is wrong.Energy Australia and AGL who own these ancient power stations, should be the ones paying for everything, eg $100 per household + anything that has to be replaced (spoiled food).It's $20M+, would have been cheaper to maintain their boilers properly.Quote from: nick_d on January 30, 2019, 01:45:54 pmBULLSHIT!All you're doing is trading one problem (debt), for another (less income).Government owns power company, electricity is priced reasonably, government are happy with whatever income it brings in. (result less taxes).Corporation owns power company, demands 30% profit regardless, everyone including the government pays more for their electricity, all income from power goes to corporate instead of government. (result more taxes, more expensive power).You seriously want to pay more taxes, and more for electricity ?!?.Yeah it doesn't make sense to privatize vital infrastructure, unless you're running a post USSR fire sale of assets in exchange for bribes.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 12:53:22 am
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 10:05:49 amNo the figures are wrongMy calc's on 1000w/m^2/s surface energy (ok, this is not correct due to sin/cos incident angles) x (4 x pi x (6.37 x 10^6m/^2)^2 (area of earths sphere, only one side at a time) x 3600 (sec's per hr) x 24 x 365 = 2.5x10^24W/Yr (we should be using Joules not watts)...edit...ooops 1/2 world incident at a time (to make it realistic):= 1000w/m^2/s (2 x pi x (6.37 x 10^6m/^2)^2 x 3600 x 24 x 365 = 1.26x10^24W/Yr (a more realistic figure).That is indeed a bucket load and way higher than your figure by order numbers. Yes it has errors but is an approximation.To check...look up google....states surface has 430^18 (J)/h, . Which is 430^18 (J)/h x 24 x 365 = 3.766x10^24J/Y or approx watts PY.Which is to say this figure is close to my figure. Even de rating this for errors will not reduce the magnitude by much. Ok, how much energy is usable, the sun puts out a blackbody irradiation curve not all is visible light not all is usable nor convertable, but the above is calculated theoretical incident usable energy.Lets look at converting this to electricity.238w/m^2/s (surface energy conversion by a panel, as you said) x (4 x pi x (6.37 x 10^6m/^2)^2 x 3600 x 24 x 365 = 6x10^23 Watts/PYAgain, this is an order magnitude more that you said.Lets now look at energy produced consumed by the world in the form of electricity (I think electricity I don't know) ....Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 30, 2019, 10:05:49 amWhich is about correct according to google I really have no idea so we will say this figure you use is ok.So 1.9x10^16W/YR produced Vs solar incident usable energy is 6x10^23 W/PY!Which one is bigger! I'll just use the google quote"In a single hour, the amount of power from the sun that strikes the Earth is more than the entire world consumes in an year."Lastly lets take this conversation over to the "renewable energy forum" as we don't want to keep going off track in this thread. Yes this discussion has some bearing on this thread contents but we are getting way off topic and members have asked to stay on thread.

author: beanflying
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2019, 01:49:23 am
content: Need a clue about how DUMB Privatization of Power is. This is Australia wide and Victoria is the 'Leader' of the pack

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2019, 03:26:10 am
content: Yeah, electricity privatization is a disaster. Formultiplereasons.Btw, here's a link to that interesting graph:http://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qAZpT/14/Also google australian electricity supply privatizationI'm trying to work out when the significant privatization events occurred.Privatization itself, and the creation of the economically moronic NEM (national energy market) is definitely sending prices sky high as well as causing a failure of necessary system maintenance. This shows up every time now there is any widespread storm damage, and it turns out there are only a very small number of maintenance trucks/crews for all of Sydney.However I think the privatization issue is also tending (and being deliberately miss-used) to obscure another factor in system failure - that increasing utilization of 'renewables' is resulting in the disappearance of reliable reserve generating capacity. An ongoing decline, now resulting in not enough capacity available to cover peak load sometimes. Combine that with the NEM 'bidding market' and the result is truly insane, unworkable prices during capacity shortfalls.Those still pushing the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) line, will blame ALL ongoing electricity supply problems on privatization. Wait and see, as the grid fails more and more often, it will become their mantra. And I agree, we should re-nationalize the grid, AND rebuild plenty of spare spinning generator capacity. However every Warmist article calling for nationalization will contain lines like in thishttps://reneweconomy.com.au/the-case-for-renationalising-australias-electricity-grid-33788/QuoteTrying to make sure no one gets any ideas about building new, workable solutions.As an example of the actual insanity of the CAGW crowd, this:http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/evil-whites-caused-the-little-ice-age-by-bringing-small-pox-to-america/Having failed to expunge the Medieval Warm Period and the two little ice ages from the historical record (not for want of trying by M. Mann et al.) they are now going to try and blame humans for the previous little ice ages. As Jonova comments, these people are truly bonkers.I'd guess they are trying to lay some groundwork for blaming humans for thecomingIce Age, once it becomes completely undeniable to everyone. And starts to kill a lot of people due mostly to lack of preparation at a national and global level.Because heaven forbid people came to blame the Warmists for this snowballing cluster-f*ck of delusional misdirection and lies. Lot of people are going to be very very angry (particularly if relatives froze or starved to death), and might start stringing up anyone they can find to blame.Meanwhile, back in sub-zero reality:https://www.iceagenow.info/this-is-global-warming/Edit to add:Too bad we can't rely on the MSM to report deaths from cold honestly, ie without the Warmist spin:https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-lets-call-it-a-cold-snap/“Cold snap: A FedEx worker found dead at a delivery facility was one of 17 killed,” reads the headline on msn.com.

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 09:28:46 am
content: Bring back the SEC (STATE Electricity Commission), Gas And Fuel, and whatever the Water utility/Park and Gardens company was called...hopefully honest Gov operatedWhile we're on that swing of things, POFF the Toll enforcing highway r0bbers City Link or whatever slicked up monicker they are called nowThe section of jacked road from the Airport to Flemington Road was/is theTullamarine Freewaypaid for by previous gen tax paying battlersIt should be aNO TOLL ZONE, just like the Westgate Bridge and Freeway, again paid for by previous gen tax paying battlersWhat's next on the acquisition agenda from the insane asylum candidates, guised in suits pushing 'progress and growth' BS no one buys anymore ?

author: LapTop006
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 04, 2019, 12:21:30 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on February 04, 2019, 09:28:46 amMMBW (Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works)

author: nick_d
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2019, 08:18:16 am
content: I certainly agree there's been a significant deterioration in the situation since the Government used to operate the SEC, the MMBW and so forth.I just looked up Jemena since I had the impression that what used to be the SEC (electricity generation and sales direct to the public) had merely changed name to Jemena, since if you have dealings with say AGL, Origin Energy or Tango Energy or whatnot, all they're doing is reselling Jemena's service. I don't know for sure, but I guess Jemena services all of Melbourne and possibly Victoria.I had been thinking that Jemena was still operated by the Government and that the only privatization that had gone on was in adding the reseller (AGL, Origin Energy, Tango Energy, etc). However, I discovered that Jemena is 60% owned by State Grid Corporation of China and 40% by Singapore Power. So it seems the real story is that our generation and distribution assets were sold to China/Singapore.Whilst this is obscene on the face of it, it wouldn't necessarily be a big issue if as I suggested previously, the streets were opened up to allow private companies to duplicate or triplicate the infrastructure. However, I don't think that's very likely to happen. One of the reasons the Government would have got a decent price for the sale of the SEC's assets, would have been the tacit understanding that the thing being sold is a monopoly provider and would remain so for the foreseeable future. It's probably to compensate for this that the "public face" was split up into the various private companies, to create the appearance of competition.So, as always, it is the restriction of competition that is the real story here, not the privatization as such. I certainly agree that power bills are much too high. This of course creates a prime opportunity for a lower-cost competitor to come in. But how would they get their power to households? They'd have to do some kind of deal like the NBN did with the use of the Telstra ducts, which would ruin the whole thing.cheers, Nick