Thread: energy sources

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

If that is true, I just canot understand the reason behind such a level of help.

Regards
Paul

Its been bandied around for a while from a number of sources. Here's one: ACF - Australia spends $11 billion more encouraging pollution than cleaning it up

woodbe.

Paul,

I don't recall saying the price of electricity would come down. In fact the prediction is that prices will rise for some time yet. Whether they will them stabilize or fall is a moot point.

The price of PV panels is falling and will continue to do so. For how long is the unknown.

I think what should be looked at more thoroughly in a debat such as this is what percentage of our income goes to pay for energy.This and the increases in the efficiency of systems must surely have an impact on pricing. Just look at what has happened to computers over the last 25 years, or even the last 5 years.

I am fairly optimistic about the future of power generation, although, like yourself, this is tinged with some scepticism on pricing nd the greed of the energy companies and governments.

[I am fairly optimistic about the future of power generation, although, like yourself, this is tinged with some scepticism on pricing and the greed of the energy companies and governments

Yeah the two party system doesnt work much in our favour these days. It would be good if we had elections paid fully out of the public purse this might kerb some of the less than public agendas that go around.

But getting back to energy, theres a mob in the USA that has developed a clear film that can sprayed on the window glass that generates electricity. I gathers its in with the USPO etc. These sort of break throughs are whats going to drive prices in a more friendly direction.

If can find the link will put it up.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Yes.
There are exceptions: Snowy Scheme, public buildings (esp. Federal Parliament)

Australian governments at all levels invested properly in infrastructure until the late 70's early 80's, when strategic planning went out the window. As I have said the electorate hired governments lured with short term pork rather than strategic managment. The parlimentry term and the system isn't the problem, it worked in the past. The problem is the short term self centered electorate. Poorly educated and disengaged.

Wait = Pay through the nose to overseas entrepreneurs who got on board early.

I am not convinced this follows.

[/QUOTE]

If we are going to plan an entire country's energy infrastructure around the ability of the most financially needy to pay for it, we are never going to make the necessary investments to get ahead of the game.

True, but unless there is a will in the electorate to do otherwise it won't happen. We have a democracy, for all it's strengths and flaws that is the system we have to work with. We as a people resent being told what to do. If a government is to implement hard policy they either have to get the electorate on board or they do it early in the term and hope everyone has forgotten by the following election. Labour has taken the latter route this time.

We also have government incentives and handouts to the fossil fuel industry of over $10Bn per year. The fossil fuel industry seems to be doing just fine, maybe we could spend some of that to help the financially needy pay their power bills instead.

I don't know the figure but that's probably right. It's a hangover from government owned and operated electricity. As prices rose state governments implemented subsidies to get themselves re-elected. Like Howard's middle class welfare it never went away it only grows.

It's a lousy system.

One more thing. As I might have mentioned previously the idea that we "need to start doing something about pollution" is flawed. It's a common piece of green propoganda. The reality is since the industrial revolution we ahve been "doing something about pollution". Anyone who remembers the opaque smog and acid rain of the 70's knows we have taken signifigant steps. It is a valid discussion to consider if we are doing enough, but to say we need to start implies we haven't started and that is simply untrue.

Solar panels:

If you wire them to low voltage levels then yes you need an electrician, but if the voltages are ultra low you don't. If you feed the panels into a battery bank and run the inverter off that you probably don't need to worry about it, but I'm not an electrician and don't know the regs exactly. My research has been on off grid installations so I may be wrong. I would assume someone looking to do it would ask some questions and not assume an anonomyous person on a forum is giving authorative advice. ?

Further on Thorium | Watts Up With That?

might be of interest. I recall people talking about thorium reactors here. I can't say I know much about them. Some of the comments below the artical are interesting.

WUWT is a climate blog, and what some may term a sceptic's blog. I'm only linking to it because of the relevant artical. You may agree or disagree with the opinions expressed there but if you can be bothered to look they try to be respectful and show a variety of perspectives. Don't blunder in abusing people, not appropriate.

Originally Posted by damian

I am not convinced this follows.

When ideas were freely shared and the requirements for large infrastructure was the will and the available resources you would be right. Those days are gone. You now need the will, the resources and a license to the IP. Australia has had plenty of great ideas that have withered on the vine until they went overseas. When we finally decide we 'need some of that', we have to buy the tech back from overseas corporations at inflated prices.

The exception is when we wait so long for something that the demand in the rest of the world has driven prices down through economies of scale and competition.

Anyway, I think we agree on more stuff than we disagree on.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Anyway, I think we agree on more stuff than we disagree on.

woodbe.

I'm not sure that's the point. I read and contribute to these threads because I hope to learn something, to read other people's perspectives and hopefully contribute some ideas of my own.

I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with me, in fact I look forward to reading a compelling case and stand ready to change my mind.

What I do object to are arguments like: Just believe me, everyone thinks this is right therefore you should accept it, the giant spagetti monster in the sky told me so it must be right, professor big trousers from sandstone university says so and he's a SCIENTIST so you should go along with it.

I am an athiest and a scientist. I actually have a good deal of respect for people of faith and some of the most admirable people I have ever met have deep convictions of that sort. The problem is if you invoke science to lend weight to your argument you have to then play by the rules. You cannot use the language of faith as a substitute for a reasoned and supported scientific hypothesis.

Most of the contributors to these threads have been respectful, thoughtful and fascinating. I pull people up when they try to sidestep the debate with the arguments of the fanatic.

I have often been wrong. My memory fails me sometimes and I don't have time to check and flesh out thoroughly every statement I make. I usually get pulled up and that's fine.

It's all good.

Originally Posted by damian

I have often been wrong.

Originally Posted by damian's sig

You can choose to agree with me, or you can choose to be wrong

So if I agree with you, and you're having a 'wrong' moment, am I right?

Even when I'm wrong your still wrong if you disagree with me.

No, I'm not female....