Sensational-Adelaide.com

claybro wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:05 pm

All cost and manufacturing aside, as at 5pm SA time.. 5:30 EST .. wind power generation for all states was less than 5%. At the time of day, with the greatest load.. 5% eith SA90% supplied by gas. Vic, NSW and Qld mainly coal. Building more wind turbines will not magically create more generation, regardless of cost when the entire SE of the continent is under the same weather pattern of light winds, and no sun. If we are to keep retiring all coal fired generation, we are going to need a lot more gas… except new gas projects also raise the ire of the usual suspects.

Why wouldn't they? Natural gas is still a fossil fuel taking lots of carbon from the ground and putting it into the air.

At some stage either an honest conversation needs to be had .. or the lights will be going out

Those conversations are being had. None of the factors you mention are ignored in plans to get the majority of the grid renewable, to pretend they are at this point is either wilful ignorance of not having looked at the plans, or arguing in bad faith.

claybro wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:05 pm

All cost and manufacturing aside, as at 5pm SA time.. 5:30 EST .. wind power generation for all states was less than 5%. At the time of day, with the greatest load.. 5% eith SA90% supplied by gas. Vic, NSW and Qld mainly coal. Building more wind turbines will not magically create more generation, regardless of cost when the entire SE of the continent is under the same weather pattern of light winds, and no sun. If we are to keep retiring all coal fired generation, we are going to need a lot more gas… except new gas projects also raise the ire of the usual suspects. At some stage either an honest conversation needs to be had .. or the lights will be going out

They don’t want stable electricity otherwise they would support nuclear & csp. However, we’re dealing with greenies here who as a central tenet of their ideology, hate technology and anything man made. It is a logical assumption that once coal and gas are all gone, they will focus their efforts to do the same to solar and wind.

What a load of old tosh.

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:07 pm

What a load of old tosh.

Prove it!

Spurdo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:02 pm

claybro wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:05 pm

All cost and manufacturing aside, as at 5pm SA time.. 5:30 EST .. wind power generation for all states was less than 5%. At the time of day, with the greatest load.. 5% eith SA90% supplied by gas. Vic, NSW and Qld mainly coal. Building more wind turbines will not magically create more generation, regardless of cost when the entire SE of the continent is under the same weather pattern of light winds, and no sun. If we are to keep retiring all coal fired generation, we are going to need a lot more gas… except new gas projects also raise the ire of the usual suspects. At some stage either an honest conversation needs to be had .. or the lights will be going out

They don’t want stable electricity otherwise they would support nuclear & csp. However, we’re dealing with greenies here who as a central tenet of their ideology, hate technology and anything man made. It is a logical assumption that once coal and gas are all gone, they will focus their efforts to do the same to solar and wind.

What a load of nonsense.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:14 pm

What a load of nonsense.

As I said above, prove it.

Spurdo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:33 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:14 pm

What a load of nonsense.

As I said above, prove it.

You're labelling people who support moving to renewables as greenies.

Many of us in this thread support moving to renewables.

Therefore many of us in this thread by your definition greenies.

I know I don't hold the motivations you assign to greenies, and I've seen nothing to suggest others in this thread do.

So either you think we're actively lying about our motivations, or you're wrong with some part of your premise.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:39 pm

Spurdo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:33 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:14 pm

What a load of nonsense.

As I said above, prove it.

You're labelling people who support moving to renewables as greenies.

Many of us in this thread support moving to renewables.

Therefore many of us in this thread by your definition greenies.

I know I don't hold the motivations you assign to greenies, and I've seen nothing to suggest others in this thread do.

So either you think we're actively lying about our motivations, or you're wrong with some part of your premise.

I don’t see many people here like that either, I was meaning more the Bob Brown/primitivist types who support wind and solar until it overtakes all other sources and then once that occurs, turn against that due to their distain for technology as some attempt to try and get rid of electricity. Doesn’t seem to be any here though, although most i’ve seen elsewhere seem to be at least somewhat inclined that way. I probably should have worded things better.

Spurdo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:52 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:39 pm

Spurdo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:33 pm

As I said above, prove it.

You're labelling people who support moving to renewables as greenies.

Many of us in this thread support moving to renewables.

Therefore many of us in this thread by your definition greenies.

I know I don't hold the motivations you assign to greenies, and I've seen nothing to suggest others in this thread do.

So either you think we're actively lying about our motivations, or you're wrong with some part of your premise.

I don’t see many people here like that either, I was meaning more the Bob Brown/primitivist types who support wind and solar until it overtakes all other sources and then once that occurs, turn against that due to their distain for technology as some attempt to try and get rid of electricity. Doesn’t seem to be any here though, although most i’ve seen elsewhere seem to be at least somewhat inclined that way. I probably should have worded things better.

Then what does this mean?

All cost and manufacturing aside, as at 5pm SA time.. 5:30 EST .. wind power generation for all states was less than 5%. At the time of day, with the greatest load.. 5% eith SA90% supplied by gas. Vic, NSW and Qld mainly coal. Building more wind turbines will not magically create more generation, regardless of cost when the entire SE of the continent is under the same weather pattern of light winds, and no sun. If we are to keep retiring all coal fired generation, we are going to need a lot more gas… except new gas projects also raise the ire of the usual suspects. At some stage either an honest conversation needs to be had .. or the lights will be going out

They don’t want stable electricity otherwise they would support nuclear & csp. However, we’re dealing with greenies here who as a central tenet of their ideology, hate technology and anything man made. It is a logical assumption that once coal and gas are all gone, they will focus their efforts to do the same to solar and wind.

If the vast majority of those for renewables aren't "greenies" then your entire premise here that one logically leads to the other is entirely false.

The same logic could equally argue that being against renewables means you are someone who as as central tenet of your ideology hates the environment and worship short term profitability over the medium/long term health of our environment like a Captain Planet villain. The big difference here is that in this case there would be more evidence to suggest that than your claim, since while I don't recall ever seeing Bob Brown argue in parliament that we should abolish technology, we have seen the current government carrying lumps of coal into parliament and talking about how good for humanity it is.

unfortunately the mere question of an open honest discussion on renewables typically turns into a politicised slanging match. My original comment of an open an honest public discussion to dispel the myths of both sides would include.
How much electricity will be required in the next 30 years given the entire transport and logistics industry is to transition to EV or hydrogen?
How much hydrogen will be required for heavy haulage (if as it seems this is the path they are going down), and how much energy is required in the manufacture of transport suitable hydrogen?
How will large volumes of hydrogen be safely stored?
For the electricity sector..How many wind turbines and in what locations? Have these locations already been identified, including offshore? How often will those sites provide the average generation required by each turbine? Will the public accept multiples of wind turbines on prominent ranges and coastal locations, once out of the way locations are used up?
How many hectares of solar panels, and how many large storage batteries? Again what sites?
How are the solar panels in desert areas to be kept clean..ie suitable water availability?-anything in WA further than about 200km from Perth is regularly covered in fine red dust, and I imagine the same applies for much of the sunnier parts of the country. The panels will need regular cleaning- so how much fresh, non saline water is required?
What is the useful generating life of the solar panels and wind turbines?
How much of the material in these units is recyclable-how much is waste?
What components are toxic waste and how do we dispose of it?
Exactly how much lithium and precious metals are required for the batteries and other associated components, and what is the environmental impact of the mining of these materials. How toxic is lithium once released into the environment for example? How finite are these materials, once the entire world is switched to solar and wind?
These are the questions people genuinely want answered, and just because they are asked..or the answers are difficult to find does not mean people are being mischievous or willingly blind. It is a massive change to society and we need to know we are not replace one problem with a whole heap of others.

That's a massive list of questions. I'm happy to do the research on them over the next week or so if in return you are happy to do the same for an equally long list about dealing with the consequences of continued fossil fuel extraction and use.

Personally I think we should stick to what is happening in South Australia and what South Australia needs to do to get to o a 100% renewables. Questions relating what the whole of Australia has to do is too broad....do you really want to spend hours researching potential wind conditions in 40 different localities in Australia?

Keep the discussion local and some of the arguments may become less muddied...

There are some interesting questions in and from the posts above this one.

One I have never seen mentioned is the total amount of energy consumed by transport. Refineries and importers would have a good idea of the volume and energy content of the liquid hydrocarbons they distribute. That would be a good indication of how much electricity will eventually be required for transport and agriculture to replace diesel and petrol.

Personally, I don't find looking at wind turbines particularly offensive. I think they look majestic. I wonder what people said in the 1950s when every country town got a large silo near its railway station and a line of steel towers carrying electricity across the state. I regularly drive east over the railway bridge in Elizabeth in the afternoon. From that vantage point, I can see over twenty electricity towers. I think it would look much more impressive to have a row of wind turbines turning majestically in the evening breeze.

I believe I have read somewhere that lithium batteries are entirely recyclable into new lithium batteries at the end of their life. I think the same may be true for solar panels, but not as certain. Much of South Australia north of Goyder's Line may be suitable for solar panels, And the areas near the line may actually be more productive for sheep under the panels than they are now, due to shade and concentrating the rain in the lines between the panels.

SBD wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:56 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:45 pm

In 2019 ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) were due to fund a pumped hydro project in South Australia. There were 4 different applicants who applied for start up funding to get their project off their ground.

ARENA never announced any funding, the cost of large scale batteries kept falling and ARENA decided that any pumped hydro project would be uneconomic compared to batteries in the near future. And so it happened.

There will never be any large scale pumped hydro in SA, too expensive and too inflexible compared to batteries.

Have all of the pumped hydro projects been canned? Two seem to still have web sites and future dates for construction starts.
* Baroota Reservoir
*Goat Hill

The one at the quarries in Highbury was canned. I don't get why it's so expensive compared to batteries. Pumps, turbines and pipes are not that expensive.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:33 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 11, 2021 11:56 pm

PeFe wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:45 pm

In 2019 ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) were due to fund a pumped hydro project in South Australia. There were 4 different applicants who applied for start up funding to get their project off their ground.

ARENA never announced any funding, the cost of large scale batteries kept falling and ARENA decided that any pumped hydro project would be uneconomic compared to batteries in the near future. And so it happened.

There will never be any large scale pumped hydro in SA, too expensive and too inflexible compared to batteries.

Have all of the pumped hydro projects been canned? Two seem to still have web sites and future dates for construction starts.
* Baroota Reservoir
*Goat Hill

The one at the quarries in Highbury was canned. I don't get why it's so expensive compared to batteries. Pumps, turbines and pipes are not that expensive.

Summary of costs here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... umpedHydro

Costs add up when you need lots of pipes and turbines, and seems like once you have that base in place it's relatively cheap to add more storage to extend how long it can provide power.

Suspect that most of our plans have involved pumped hydro that is designed for relatively short periods of grid instability, where you still have the same fixed costs.