Snowy 3.0iTD replied:

Jodi

As an engineer who has taken an interest on this subject I will try and keep this reply to unbiased facts rather than just shouting my opinion to whoever will listen.

Wind: Is certainly part of the solution, but is a long way from being the whole solution. The main problem is that if there is no wind, there is no electricity, if the wind is too strong, they have to shut them down and there is no electricity, in short they can not supply a steady stream of power, 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.

Solar: If we could make Solar cells that are close to 100% efficient we would have a mainstream viable alternative, but at there current efficiency I am not sure if Queenslanders would appreciate it if we covered a good portion of their state in solar cells, and the rest of the state in giant batteries to cover Australia's energy requirements. So until they can manufactrue high-efficiency solar cells relatively cheaply then it is only a miniscule part of the solution.

Nuclear: Safely disposing of the waste for the next few thousand years is a problem, cost per MW would most likely be more expensive than currently with coal and gas fired power-plants, and they take 5-10 years to build properly depending on their size. The above drawbacks aside though, nuclear is probably the best altenative we have for providing reliable base-load power, but looking at it in the centuries to come (assuming we last that long) uranium is still a finite resource, but then depending on how far ahead you want to look, so is the sun.

Any other factual non-opinionated information to add to this would be appreciated.

Kind Regards

Snowy

Leroy replied:

They are not the complete renewable energy solution. Just a note on a couple of points. I don't know the figures but the wind farm we have worked out to be more profitable than expected. The lead time in getting a wind farm up and running is short compared to other methods of power generation. That's what also makes them attractive to build. Dangerous? I supose they would be if one fell on your head! But sticking your finger in a power point is also dangerous too.

Leroy

Member - Alastair D (NSW) replied:

Jodi & others,
This touched a nerve for me as like you I am increasingly getting fed up with the level of debate and general attitude in Aus. We have many emerging serious issues facing our country, water and energy are 2 key ones.

I have a scientific background and am quite able, like many in the community, to assess sensible argument and information. Why do the talking heads and politicians usually present things that suggests we must have a total, one size fits all solution? Often it seems to me that they represent vested interests.

The important thing is to lift the % of renewable energy. Wind, solar, hydro, hydro-thermal, tidal etc all can play a part. They don't have to be a total solution but the best one in the region. A lot of energy is wasted by having huge power lines from a small number of major power stations. They also cost a lot to build. We need them but can limit them by generating more power locally by the most appropriate means.

Currently we export a huge amount of energy at low prices and the politicians celebrate it. We will rue the day when it is all gone.

We are in no danger of getting innovative leadership from the current federal government. Australia used to be a leader in many of the key solar and wind technologies. We are losing them to overseas and will have to eventually buy them back. Why won't the government lift the MRET = Mandatory Renewable Energy Target? www.greenhouse.gov.au/markets/mret/
This would stimulate real innovation and development. Clearly the huge and very influential fossil fuel industry has them tied up.

Could go on and on about what is happening elsewhere around the world. Ordinary Australians and community groups will have to take the lead on these issues as few of our elected leaders seem interested or capable.

I will now take a few of the pink ones and lie down.

alastair

fisho64 replied:

If "vast amounts of energy" are being exported at dirt cheap prices, then why is Woodside kicking up a stink about possibly being forced to provide up to 20% of their production at domestic prices? I suspect their is a bit of misinformation around?

Landie replied:

Do people want to potentially double their household energy costs at a time when we have rising mortgage costs and fuel bills?

I think one of the main problems with alternative sources of energy is the cost to produce it. Whilst I understand there are non-monetary benefits associated with alternative sources is there a willingness to pay for it?

I’m not being blinkered here, but simply posing the question as this is probably the biggest issue to overcome. We talk about politicians not being willing, but at the end of the day they are probably only reflecting the views of the broader electorate in this instance.

For many it will be difficult to see the long term benefits that might accrue from alternative sources, versus the short-term cost impost especially if getting the household budget to balance is already an issue.

zook replied:

This is just food for thought,

my fokes live on a property and run from solar (and generator back up - which is used rarely). They did this for 2 reasons.

Firstly, it was cheaper then connecting to the grid (the govt. had big subsidies which I have heard they have reduced or are reducing????)

Secondly, it is sufficient for their use.

Now if they can do it I don't see why someone else (and not just people away from major grids can't do it)

but hey,

thats my two cents worth, I'm enjoying the discussion.

zook

Footloose replied:

I once had a friend (yes, really) who owned a small farm. He ran solar and batteries which suited him.
On one stay with him I noticed that his wood burning stove was almost always lit. Now it occurs to me that a thermocouple attached to the stove might be able to charge the batteries.
Old hat , flaw in thought or just won't work ?

Sand Man (SA) replied:

Jodi,

I support your comments 100%. Wind turbines are a viable source of clean power any way you look at it. They may not be a total solution but nonetheless provide a valuable feed into the National Electricity Grid. (Otherwise the owners would not be investing in the infrastructure in the first place.

I have observed a Wind Farm just south of Edithburgh at the bottom of York Peninsula.

Visual Polution?.......Bah!
Danger to Wildlife.....Didn't see any bird strikes. I reckon I have killed more with my front windscreen.
Noise. None that I heard.

Some "greenies" will complain just because it's different.

We went fishing out on the water and while waiting for the King George whiting to strike, we had a serene view of the "propellers" as they slowly turned in the wind.

Robin replied:

Hi Jodi

Picking up your last point first , why don't we do something ?

Things that really happen , as opposed to things we might like to happen, by and large occur for reasons effectively beyond our concious control.

We are moving down a path towards thermonuclear energy and nothing we can do will prevent it. We might protest it, we might delay it , the odd country may even go down another path for a century or so but the end outcome is inevitable.

As a professional engineer I am quite aware of other technical solutions but ultimately it is not a technical problem but an ever increasing population in which each individual effectively, demands an ever increasing energy take.
A trend on a trend.

We have the theoretical ability to stop the issue today by reducing our wasteful ways. We can't because we effectively choose not to, even dictatorial countries like china could not stop population increase which is 1 of the driving forces.

Given that we can't do that , we could still stop the resource grab by producing
more effectively.

The literature shows that the production of protein in the form of meat has an efficentcy of about 10% compared to growing crops of equivalent content, whilst at the same time being directly responsible for about 70% of de-forrestation as trees are cut down to grow vegetarians (cows), which are then killed for protein after the inefficent conversion of the grass they chew.

In an American reference (Your Heart Your Planet) - every bigmac eaten - causes the permanent loss of 1 sq metre of rain forrest.

(Always liked that analogy)

Hence we can all take a first step today - If we choose to.

But hey, many of us can't give up something with personnal consequences such as smoking let alone give consideration to long term issues


Robin Miller

zook replied:

ok, just to clarify,

yes the decision was made on the basis of cost (primarily). But what I was trying to get at was that if the government doesn't support the industry by way of subsidies to make it cheaper for people to install and run then there is no incentive for manufacturers to increase technology as there will be a VERY small number of sales (due to the price).

Secondly, while the current technology (to my knowledge) is not sufficient to run a reverse cycle air con unit, it certainly can contribute to the power (and reduce the amount you have to use from the grid) - you can also sell excess power back to the grid owners (i don't know how profitable this is).

So while the tech. is not developed enough yet, some investment or support for the industry should be given else it'll shift offshore like most other high tech industries.

zook

Member - MrBitchi (QLD) replied:

Maybe some of the engineer types on here could have a look at this.....

Lutec

Barnesy replied:

Everybody seems to agree on one thing, fossil fuels won't last and we need alternatives. Many different methods should be explored. The CSIRO state they already have the solar technology to power ALL of Australia within a couple of decades. It only needs to come down in price and surely increasing the MRET would help to do that.

Some quote about France's nuclear program, majority of European countries have gotten rid of their reactors and are going wind. Denmark's electricity is about 60% from wind. Many other countries have about 40% from wind. Not only is nuclear environmentally and economically dangerous but also politically risky.

Maybe if power stations hadn't been privatised then it might be easier to change to different sources. These companies have guaruntees from governments about how long they will run the stations for.

Personally i would be willing to spend extra for renewables because i know it's the only way to go. People have taken out major debts just to get into their own house or because they were encouraged to spend to 'get the economy moving'. On a whole Australia now has record levels of personal debt. This does complicate things.

Surely a major goal should be to improve public transport within cities. This would be good for traffic, pollution, use of dwindling supplies of fossils and cheaper for the everyday person. If enough people saved money by using public transport they may be able to absorb a little extra for electricity?

Tim HJ61 (WA) replied:

Ah my favourite subject!

Given the government most people in Australia elected refuses to take these issues seriously, or nowhere as seriously as overseas where I understand fuel excises are increased not decreased - much like cigarettes received increasing taxes to get people to change habits; and they have targets in Sweden of ??20% renewables, and they have vege oil and BioD available at bowsers and and and ......

Given this situation, I really support those of us who want to something to be done, to just get on and DO it ourselves. Whether it be sourcing vege oil or BioD for your own vehicle consumption, or installing solar cells to supplement your 240V supply, or especially in small communities, start doing some innovative things around power demand and creation of power.

It is my firm belief that at current demand, renewables cannot remove the need for base capacity power stations, and the reality is in Australia that this is likely to be coal in the East and Gas/Coal in the West for a long time to come. However, we MUST increase renewables to cut the peak use which creates the demand for more and more base power stations (just to cover the peak demands a few days a year). So we'd have a whole bunch of renewables feeding into the national grid - or the eastern grid more correctly - (didn't see any cables crossing the Nullabor on my last trip), not replacing it.

Way back up the top of the first posting, Jodi asks 'Why are we taking so long to get going?' Because over 50% of the population have several times elected a government that clearly believes in the free market - a hands off approach that supports big businesses and globalisation. This is what happens when we elect people who believe in such things. If you want something different to happen, do something local people - your self or your community. This government isn't going to make it happen for you.

Tim