CJW said...

Mark _australia said...

I stopped reading after they mention a study of the power generated from 13th to 20th May.
A week is such a ridiculously short time frame that is it statistically useless, so it calls in to question the whole article.

A counter claim could be made that in a certain week the wind farms produced way above the forecast capacity, if we pick the right week.

Cant believe people read this rubbish and believe it when it is negated by a knowledge of year 8 maths.

The reason they highlighted that was to indicate that wind power can never really be a replacement for baseload power because you can get long periods with minimal power generation. Now, sure, it's a huge country blah blah blah, it's windy on the other side etc etc, but to cover the required amount of baseload power the spread and number of wind turbines you need is ridiculous.

Wind turbines are feel good, they are 'clean energy' to your uneducated idiot and people lap that **** up. Realistically they are stupidly inefficient, in the low 20% range (from studies of the CALI windfarms which are the largest and longest running in the world), they are expensive to produce and they are take up a shirtonne of space. They are feel good but they are NOT the solution.

No they did not highlight a week as an example.

They said wind power is not good because the forecast was 1600MW and in one week it was almost zero. Well woopdy fkn do, it may have been the most windless week for 100,000 years.
That statistic tells me stuff all unless they say what the best week was, and the average of all weeks in the year.
Or they could quote the CALI stats you mention (but they didn't)
THEN start saying how wind power is no good.

If you use a ridiculously small timeframe, then it looks like you have somethign to hide so I will switch off.

It is like saying my heart stopped beating today. Which implies I am dead.
Yes, it did stop.... 12300 times. As I chose to only talk about the 0.6 sec timeframe it is useless information.

It MAY be that wind power is useless, but the statistic quoted looks like typical internet conspiracy trollop.

^^ All real risks that must be taken. I saw Japan, waves look pretty dangerous, did everyone sell their beach side houses after that? no.. I also don't hold my breath every time I see a bird - in case I get Bird Flu..

Considering how much CO2 we are using now, and the population growth along with the rising middle class, our need for energy is going to sky rocket.. We will be using more fossil fuels in the future, but we will need nuclear as well..

I'm not saying Chernobyl was worth it , just showing the environmental damage at the scene of the Nuclear greatest disaster is minimal..

On the scale of man made things that screw up the environment - Nuclear hardly rates a mention..

Why is everyone so hysterical about it.. The alternatives are a lot worse

I have the answer, its really simple, just less people on the planet.

And what makes people think that you can continue to design poor energy efficient housing and then just crank up the Air Conditioning / Heating. And then scream "we need more energy resources"
How many houses are being built with no eaves, poor placement on the block, 2 storey houses with the sleeping upstairs (the hottest part).
Maybe we actually need to be creative and design our housing to uses minimal energy resources.

LOL good point above.

It's as if the nuclear industry had a vested interest ?...
Nooooo, it couldn't be.

Get real you lot, Coal, and its here to stay, (well until we run out that is) then there is coal seam gas, that's another good one we can use.
All those others mentioned are left wing commie crap

mineral1 said...

Get real you lot, Coal, and its here to stay, (well until we run out that is) then there is coal seam gas, that's another good one we can use.
All those others mentioned are left wing commie crap

Gee who works in mining again?

mineral1 said...

Get real you lot, Coal, and its here to stay, (well until we run out that is) then there is coal seam gas, that's another good one we can use.
All those others mentioned are left wing commie crap

Anyone see "Gaslands"

weel cisco , youve had a few days,
whats your solution to global warming , and providing electricity to the ever expanding populations

Little Jon said...
Hey Cisco, don't insult me, I'll get all upset.

No insult intended. I just thought your comment was a bit glib.

Less people on the planet?? So who goes first??

The human race cannot reasonably expect to continue growing exponentially as it appears to be doing with a thought of ongoing civilisation without some huge advances in technology being made.

Some sort of curb on population growth may be vital for the future. Logically one would have to think so.

I think the focus should shift from the problems to the solutions and resources poured into the sciences and not the least of all social sciences.

Cisco...

Don't take this the wrong way, but seriously, do some background reading and don't believe everything you read/copy/paste.

The flaws in those articles are multiple. Don't get excited - I'm not going to enter into a debate on them here. I'm not a solar or wind junkie either. What I am is a scientist, and I spend a LOT of time working within the energy industry.

The reason I am posting this is that unfortunately the Australian Press have a habit of just creating headline controversy articles out of nothing, and unfortunately we tend to take them at face value.

For anyone who really (and I mean REALLY) wants to understand this area a bit more and also to gain a bunch more information so they can have a mature discussion about this, I strongly suggest reading the following as a starting point:

www.withouthotair.com/download.html - this is a UK-centric book that (I believe) has a bunch of flaws in it but is well reasoned and makes some excellent points about the strengths, weaknesses and feasibility of various forms and combinations of energy sources.

This is a recent publication that applies the same concept to Australia:
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/uploads/Australian_Sustainable_Energy-by_the_numbers3.pdf - this is really good.


Please, anyone who is interested in this field, please please please read these publications so that you can have a rational debate with some of the facts in front of you, instead of doing what Cisco has done.

Please note, I'm not saying that these publications are perfect, but from an energy economics insider I think that this is a good starting point for anyone who wants to get beyond the headlines and the flimsy reporting that the Aussie press foists on us and actually get some sense of what is (and is not) possible with various forms and combinations of renewable energy sources.

There is no denying we have a problem of increasing population and dwindling resources.

There is another problem which is policy makers not being serious about it. Seems the only thing politicians are serious about is being re-elected and the beaurocrats just do the bidding of whichever mob happens to be in or who is offering the most money.

Waaaay too much egoism and self interest around the place.

@ FlickySpinny

I read the 10 page synopsis from the first link and it looks to be an objective view point. As a lay person I do not pretend to have the answers but from what I see, actions being taken by the legislators appear to only be "band aid" solutions.

Obviously radical changes globaly need to be made for the human race to survive.

The problems were apparent and correcting technology existant way back in the early '70s but no action was taken. Why!!!

Science holds the keys to our collective future. As I said before:-

"I think the focus should shift from the problems to the solutions and resources poured into the sciences and not the least of all social sciences."

^^^^

Yes, most of those articles have come out of the LaRouche organisation, a right wing political organization that one should scrutinise very closely before you decide you like or endorse the claims they make.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_Movement

Also worth looking up the Citizens Electoral Council, an Australian affiliate of LaRouche and from where a few of those articles were drawn.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Electoral_Council
Some zany stuff in there.

I'd not take even one piece of information from those articles on face value.

IKW777 - nice one - that does make interesting reading. I was wondering where this stuff had come from.

GalahOnTheBay said...

ikw777 said...

Yes, most of those articles have come out of the LaRouche organisation, a right wing political organization that one should scrutinise very closely before you decide you like or endorse the claims they make.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_Movement

Not saying I agree or disagree with the views on LaRouche, but to be fair wikipedia is hardly the gold standard of truth...

Precisely. Nothing is beyond being questioned.

All please note the title to this thread is a question. "Wind, Solar or Nuclear???" or for that matter any of them?
Nothing like a good healthy debate. That is supposed to be what parliament is about........Isn't it?