Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Originally Posted by mic-d

I believe the recycling of nuclear waste limitation is more than economic. After one or two cycles it's not worth it on the basis of break-even on energy in for energy out

Mic

Not only that, the waste material is apparently now good for weapons! So where does it go? Weapons, of course.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Warb

imminent death trump

Jeez, you had me a little excited there for a moment!

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

I understand the sentiment and don't disagree, but I think it would be extremely hopeful to think that the private sector will step up to a non-profitable venture. Even if there were philanthropic persons in decision making positions, they have to answer to shareholders.

It has been mooted in conversation several times that this is conclusive proof that climate change is a con. The logic goes that if the people in power, those with all the knowledge and wealth, do not see a requirement to do anything other than profit from the panic of the "led by the nose" population, and yet the supposed "disaster" is one from which all their wealth and power will not protect them, then clearly they don't believe that the problem really exists. Given that they do indeed have all the knowledge and power, and stand to profit from the panic of the populace, it is in their interest to allow or even encourage such panic, and harvest the profits whilst paying only lip service to addressing the supposed issue - but only if they are safe in the knowledge that the problem isn't real.

Cynically I would add that much the same logic applies if they do know the problem is real, but they also know that it is unavoidable. Why not just party away the final hours?

Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening. Much the same as the owner of the V8 LandCruiser with the "We want climate action NOW" sticker in the rear window......

Originally Posted by Warb

It has been mooted in conversation several times that this is conclusive proof that climate change is a con. The logic goes that if the people in power, those with all the knowledge and wealth, do not see a requirement to do anything other than profit from the panic of the "led by the nose" population, and yet the supposed "disaster" is one from which all their wealth and power will not protect them, then clearly they don't believe that the problem really exists. Given that they do indeed have all the knowledge and power, and stand to profit from the panic of the populace, it is in their interest to allow or even encourage such panic, and harvest the profits whilst paying only lip service to addressing the supposed issue - but only if they are safe in the knowledge that the problem isn't real.

Cynically I would add that much the same logic applies if they do know the problem is real, but they also know that it is unavoidable. Why not just party away the final hours?

Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening. Much the same as the owner of the V8 LandCruiser with the "We want climate action NOW" sticker in the rear window......

If there were to be a group with all the knowledge, as close as anyone anyway, it would be climate scientists. All of the knowledge and little of the power. Those with power who may have some knowledge, well you’re confusing knowledge and wisdom and you’re aestheticising power, they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…
And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air quality

Originally Posted by Warb

Personally, I believe that they, and 99.9% of the population, don't actually care (believe?) enough to alter their lifestyles, almost no matter what is happening.

I don't think that is true, but nevertheless...if we assume that it might be:
Market forces will bring about change whether people like it or not. There are enormous new industries developing (EVs, solar tech, battery tech, heat pumps etc etc). Whilst ever there is a buck to be made (and lots of them in this case) then the market is going to ensure that these changes are brought in. If they don't then they will have capitalised their start-ups for nowt, and would be back to the same tired old ways of doing things.

EVs present bonus money to be made: they need virtually nil servicing, yet in the transition period while people are still gullible and cling to old ideas (i.e. right now) they are sold with "Six year service plans" for significant additional dough.That seems to me to be money for jam: put the EV in the workshop for a few hours while bugger-all is done to it, tell the customer all is well, and get paid up-front for 6 years worth of that bludge. What a deal! (for the car company, that is)

Originally Posted by mic-d

If there were to be a group with all the knowledge, as close as anyone anyway, it would be climate scientists. All of the knowledge and little of the power. Those with power who may have some knowledge, well you’re confusing knowledge and wisdom and you’re aestheticising power, they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air quality

It's a very interesting question, isn't it? The climate scientists with "very little power". Really? 40 years ago nobody had heard of "climate scientists", and indeed they had zero power. These days they have conferences in glamorous places and are on the TV all the time. They have found some leverage, and they have profited by it. Almost every piece of research now has "climate change" somewhere in it, because that's what gets the grant $'s rolling in, and that's what gets the results publicised in the media. Is it in their interests to say anything that doesn't reinforce their statements?

Originally Posted by mic-d

they’re just human with human foibles such as greed, avarice etc…

Evolution has made us an avaricious species, we'll do whatever we think we can get away with to advance ourselves, almost without exception. I don't think businessmen, politicians or scientists are any different in this regard. We have always created "threats" to steer the populace, whether those threats are based on an angry god, the reds under the bed, or climate change. Is it coincidence that small groups of people have used these (and other) levers to control populations?

Originally Posted by mic-d

And I wouldn’t be judging the little guy doing an apparently hypocritical thing like driving an old gas guzzler and wearing a pro climate change sticker. You don’t know what else they’re doing in their life, and I know you’re just making the analogy, but keeping old things reduces your carbon footprint over consumerism and buying new, if not the local air quality

I entirely agree, and have said the same myself, but in this case it was a late model V8 LandCruiser 200 SUV.

Interesting.

A Chinese Company Has Developed A Nuclear Battery. We Have Questions (msn.com)

Not much detail on cost, viability, safety and ability to scale up.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I don't think that is true,

I'd really prefer to think it wasn't true either, but everything I see suggests that it is. How many people have actually given something up, or changed their lifestyle to adopt a better approach? Solar panels, EV's, these aren't a negative impact on lifestyle, or even a change of lifestyle, they're done because they save money, or provide boasting points (or both!). Even if motivated by the right reason, there is zero lifestyle change involved - they might have a net benefit effect, but they still fit the category of "not caring enough to alter their lifestyles". Even leaving the air conditioner off, or switching off lights is too much for most people. I understand your comments about market forces, and I entirely agree. But none of it translates into a belief in the need to change, it is simply an opportunity to profit. If the driver is belief in the need to change, then that itself ensures the change produces a net beneficial effect. If the driver is profit, then can we be sure the same applies? As an example, looks at the number of PV components suppliers and installers who, over the last 20 years, installed systems that now produce vastly less power than specified, or have failed completely, because of poor design, construction or installation. I have seen systems installed on roofs that had almost no sun exposure. The motivator in all these cases was profit, the medium and long term outcomes were negative - those systems now have to be removed and disposed of. I was (though not anymore) licensed to trade REC's, and as a result I used to get updates about components and installers that no longer qualified for REC's due to various issues, almost all of which came down to "profit over quality" somewhere along the chain. Do we believe that the current makers of PV systems (or EV's and other "climate friendly" products"), when driven by the need for profit, are any more intent on a positive long term outcome?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

EVs present bonus money to be made: they need virtually nil servicing, yet in the transition period while people are still gullible and cling to old ideas (i.e. right now) they are sold with "Six year service plans" for significant additional dough.That seems to me to be money for jam: put the EV in the workshop for a few hours while bugger-all is done to it, tell the customer all is well, and get paid up-front for 6 years worth of that bludge. What a deal! (for the car company, that is)

People aren't always very bright! However..... I know a good many people who only discover that their tyres are bald, or they have bits hanging off the underside of their car, when it gets its annual service. Given that rego checks don't apply for the first 5 (?) years, perhaps some compulsory inspection for service-free vehicles should be required?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Interesting.

A Chinese Company Has Developed A Nuclear Battery. We Have Questions (msn.com)

Not much detail on cost, viability, safety and ability to scale up.

Regards
Paul

That coin in the article is a China 5 jiao coin (half a juan) which is 20.5 mm in diameter. So those batteries are hearing aid size - and they last 50 years without charging.

If they never go flat, how many to power a car? And all the charging problems go away!

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

If they never go flat, how many to power a car? And all the charging problems go away!

From that article it appears that they have a higher energy density than lithium, but a very low power output. From what I can see, a Tesla 5.3kW module is rated at 1000A for10 seconds (or maximum 1500A, or 225A continuous) at around 25V. 1000A at 25V is 25,00watts. It weighs 25kg. The nuclear battery in the article is stated to produce 100 microwatts. So you need 10,000 per watt. Or 250million to produce the same power as the single Tesla module. OTOH, you could go very slowly for 50 years!!!

Originally Posted by Warb

Even leaving the air conditioner off, or switching off lights is too much for most people. I understand your comments about market forces, and I entirely agree. But none of it translates into a belief in the need to change, it is simply an opportunity to profit. However..... I know a good many people who only discover that their tyres are bald, or they have bits hanging off the underside of their car, when it gets its annual service. Given that rego checks don't apply for the first 5 (?) years, perhaps some compulsory inspection for service-free vehicles should be required?

Warb

Agreed. We have become incredibly lazy even to the extent of not turning off our own unnecessary power sources. My pet hobby horse is boiling the electric kettle for coffee. I put in just enough water. If i filled the kettle, which would equate to approximately five or more times my need, this process would cost five times as much in heating the water.

I was going to say that not all energy development is for profit and was going to quote my own example where we installed solar PV on the roof of our house we built nearly forty years ago in NSW. Today it is a rental property. I was going to say I don't derive any benefit from having put solar on the roof, but even that is not quite true as I see it as an "attraction" for a tenant to rent that property and in fact an incentive for a tenant not to look for a different property. As to the quality of work etc, this installation burnt out. If the house had been built in weather board it would have burnt down. Fortunately, I couldn't afford timber and used Hardiplank instead. Otherwise the house would have burnt down.

Solar burnout 2.jpg

Rego checks vary quite a lot around the different states. In QLD you only require a rego check if you sell a vehicle. Otherwise, none at all. I am not saying this is how it should be, just how it is.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

As to the quality of work etc, this installation burnt out. If the house had been built in weather board it would have burnt down. Fortunately, I couldn't afford timber and used Hardiplank instead. Otherwise the house would have burnt down.

Ouch!

I found the number of REC Registry notifications to be quite alarming at times, and it's one of the main reasons why I'm sceptical about "profit" being a good driver in this area. That, and a lifetime spent watching unscrupulous people and companies doing anything they can to make a $ without any concern of who gets hurt.

I'm presently watching the BBC news and hearing how Fujitsu knew that their software was dodgy, even whilst helping prosecute people who were innocent of everything except being users of dodgy software!

And if you consider that a major car manufacturer deliberately made vehicles that cheated the emissions tests, can the same company (or any other) be relied upon to accurately evaluate the environmental benefits of its products, and put those benefits above profit?

I'm old and cynical!!

Originally Posted by Warb

I'm old and cynical!!

... and remember Raplh Nader.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

My pet hobby horse is boiling the electric kettle for coffee. I put in just enough water. If i filled the kettle, which would equate to approximately five or more times my need, this process would cost five times as much in heating the water.

Regards
Paul

When rellies turn up and do this it drives me nuts! They fill the kettle and then make tea in a two cup (at most) tea pot!

Here's a video Sabine made on the recent nuclear battery story
This New Nuclear Battery Could Soon Go On the Market - YouTube