Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well that's all you had to say in the very first place, and your meaning would have been quite clear, instead of obfuscated, and frankly, misleading.

It's a bit like sport-fishing really. When the bait's in the water there's a good chance of a strike.

Originally Posted by doug3030

It's a bit like sport-fishing really. When the bait's in the water there's a good chance of a strike.

Ok, so finally Doug3030's intentions in the thread have become clear. He has made no real meaningful contribution at all, just pedantically bickering with various points of view, and just wants to bait people.

With that in mind I have no intention of reading any more of his posts, and he is now the second-only person to go onto my ignore list.

Originally Posted by NeilS

Thanks, Paul

Not much sun here yet and no wind this morning... SA is paying over $300 MW spot price.... Yikes!

And, Tas has turned on the tap to keep the Vics going.

Very interesting.

Neil

You are clearly taking full advantage of the active trend.

I took these screen shots yesterday just to highlight the difference the sun makes to SA in particular and to emphasise that SA has little base load power of it's own. The left pic was at 1500hrs and the pic on the right at 1828hrs. In SA there is a large increase in load for the evening peak.

State MWs and prices 1500hrs 13 Feb 2020.PNGNEM Load and price. 1828hrs 13 Feb 2020.PNG

The fact that it has insufficient base load of it's own is not really a problem to my mind so long as the adjacent state of Victoria can supply the deficiency. Compare the price (as that is the primary indicator of demand) to the same time period on 12 Feb (sorry I cannot supply the same screen shot). The price during the same period ranged from -$40.00 to $50.00. Quite a difference.


SA demand 12 Feb 2020.PNG


Something I neglected to mention before is that in the shot above and the earlier post showing those shots is that half the shot is what happened and the half to the right is the prediction for that period of time. It may or may not eventuate that way. You can see to the left the line is "crinkly," which reflects the reality, while on the right it is unrealistically smooth.



Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Beardy

That all sounds fine but the two points that I still struggle with are ;
1- What is this golden opportunity that Australia is presented with? I hear this touted a bit but don’t understand what it is.
2- This coal replacement item/ product has yet to come to fruition as we have recently discussed, I don’t understand how we are meant to be going full steam ahead and leading the world when we don’t even know what direction we are meant to face.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Watch Q&A from last night.

Originally Posted by Beardy

I will tonight, I hope my questions are answered but I am not confident

And so did you watch it as planned? If so, do you have any reaction to it?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

We all know that Bond went to gaol, albeit 17-18 years later after he committed his crimes well after he was AotY, but what have Flannery, Goodes, and Batty done to be considered in his class?

Originally Posted by doug3030

They appeared with him on this list. List of Australian of the Year Award recipients - Wikipedia (those who were selected for the award by the government of the day to help further their own political agendas)

Originally Posted by AlexS

They're all people that Doug doesn't like. Says more about him than them.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I can't follow that at all. You've linked to a list of every AotY since 1960, which also includes David Morrison, Peter Cosgrove, a host of sportspeople, musicians, religious figures etc. I don't understand why you would single out Goodes and Batty to compare them with Bond. The implication (to me anyway) is that Goodes and Batty have done something to disgrace themselves, as Bond did. Obviously you must think that Morrison and Cosgrove et al are right up their with Bond as well.

Originally Posted by doug3030

The point I was making was that AOY awards are not necessarily a guarantee that they have sufficient achievements to justify it. Like other decisions made by politicians, they are made to get the most political mileage possible.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well that's all you had to say in the very first place, and your meaning would have been quite clear, instead of obfuscated, and frankly, misleading.

So Brett, you asked me to explain the link between Flannery, Bond, Goodes and Batty in the firstquote above.
I answer your question in the second quote- big print that the awards are for political positioning.
Next two quotes - - after explaining my initial post - I get attacked firstly by AlexS, then by FenceFurniture. Next post I paraphrase my original explanation (in big print again)
In the last quote I get "that's all you had to say in the very first place". Well I didn't say it in the first place for a reason, however, I did fully explain it when asked, no problems. And I explained it BEFORE the two attacked! I'm not the one being obtuse here.

As to the "fishing trip", well I only went on one. I haven't been fishing the whole time. I have been trying to contribute to the thread. several times when I posted a contribution I copped what I considered to be unreasonable responses from a very few participants. So this time I made the contribution and I purposely did not explain the links between the AOY winners I named because I wanted people to think about it. I carefully chose the bait for the fish I wanted to catch and they both came in like a couple of flathead onto a soft plastic lure dipped in tuna oil. I am sure that many other members would have seen the trap and were quietly watching to see the outcome.

Anyway, now I am on Brett's personal "naughty boys list". I had not thought it would come to this but I learned along time ago that I cannot take responsibility for the decisions of others, good or bad. So be it. I guess that I can take some solace in the fact that it is a very short and exclusive list.

We need MONSTER solar farms. Windmills everywhere. Pumped Hydro storage where we can... Focused light salt-bed thermal.... deep hot rock thermal....

On the hydrogen front, I was only just talking to some scientists in the USA and China who have a new membrane that is nothing short of unbelievable. It readily, cheaply and easily (AND with longevity) allows only Hydrogen to flow through, leaving water (or whatever) on the other side.

It is said they can scale this up the wazoo.

Let me see if I can find the article.

ON TOP of this, another group has perfected a solar panel that works in the shade and AT NIGHT. It uses UV. It looks exactly like a solar panel and I believe it can be readily incorporated/overlain onto existing panels.

IF WE AS A SOCIETY can get past all this trivia about coal base load and focus on the future we can solve these problems.

$1 billion for a new coal fired plant? Insanity. $1 billion of fields of solar - genius.


edit 1 - Water-conducting membrane allows carbon dioxide to transform into fuel more efficiently

Use solar to burp out Methanol!

edit 2 - Researchers turbocharge hydrogen fuel cells with novel ion-conducting copolymer | NYU Tandon School of Engineering

Use solar to burp out hydrogen!


Imagine this. Instant-on gas fired generators distrubuted into suburbs... power where needed. Big base stations of solar, hydro and wind for bulk base.

Very exciting!

Brett, You had asked earlier about the inner city furnace. The answer is no. The project my son is working on is methane from food waste use enzyme break down. No burning involved. He was in the States when you asked, so I thought I had better find out what he was actually up to before I opened my mouth.

One thing for sure, the BOM will be scratching their heads about the abnormal temperature spike in Katoomba, in the last 2 weeks

Well, given that Beardy has been in and out of the thread (looking) about 2-4 times today, and hasn't posted any evidence whatsover to support the following claims:

Originally Posted by Beardy

Well there are the dams will never be full again statement about two years before they were breaking their banks,
so we spent how much on Desal plants and their horrendous standby costs for the last 10 years and the energy required to run them V building dams
I recall the other statement of the sea level rising 25 metres and Parramatta would be the new Sydney waterfront for a start.
Flannery is just one example, there are plenty of misleading reporting by certain media outlets that are not being honest

Originally Posted by Beardy

Those that don’t trust the mistruths and scaremongering that constantly comes from the pro CC camp ( just like they do from the denialists)
The likes of Tim Flannery have done the cause no favours.
If they were honest and upfront of the real state of play they could gain more trust and traction

Originally Posted by Beardy

I recall Tim Flannery getting a 90 million dollar grant from Gillard for his thermal rock energy that he said was very straight forward and an easy form of energy, well after the money was gone guess what, it was too hard.

It would seem that this statement (wrt finding the evidence)

Originally Posted by Beardy

You don’t have to look far to find them.

is not quite as straightforward as he says.
It may turn out to actually be impossible to find supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well, given that Beardy has been in and out of the thread (looking) about 2-4 times today, and hasn't posted any evidence whatsover to support the following claims:



It would seem that this statement (wrt finding the evidence)
is not quite as straightforward as he says.
It may turn out to actually be impossible to find supporting evidence.

Really? You are checking to see if I have logged on as you are busting to win an argument

I am not here to argue with you, I am stating my point of views and opinions but you seem to take offence when others do not necessarily share your point of view.
I am not particularly a fan of the whole CC mantra / religion and how it has been sold to us from the likes of TF and numerous others and related media outlets. And to be absolutely fair the CC deniers do exactly the same thing for their camp but the difference is the CC guys won’t acknowledge it happens in their camp. Me I sit in the middle and try and look at things from a practical common sense point of view and try and decipher the truth which is usually somewhere in the middle of the two.

That article about Downer withdrawing from Australia written in Renew Economy and The Financial Review whilst both may be technically correct, the perception of one article is misleading is it not?
That is the type of thing I am referring to, you can see it happening in this thread with people believing that X or Y is the answer to our problems based on the spiel they have read from whatever source or from the pro CC camp and it gives the false impression that we have the solution and it is certain political parties or individuals who are stopping it from happening which isn’t the case. All of these options being bandied about are being trialled and not a proven solution yet but they don’t say that.

I could find some articles to post up and then you or someone will post up a counter one about the intent or the timeline of the statement and it was a longer timeframe and not immediately blah blah blah and then the thread will get derailed like it has before playing for points which I have no interest in.
Surely you can’t deny that at the time when Flannery and Gore were working the crowd the language was very alarmist and the intent was a scaremongering approach, the words were carefully chosen but the intent was clear

Why cant we just tell the truth and say this is where we are at?

I didnt get get to watch all of that Q&A show yet but saw about 3/4 of it. Maybe the critical information is in the last part of the show which I will get to but didn’t see the silver bullet to my earlier questions in the bit I watched yet. I was a bit surprised with some of the guests on the panel and thought there would of been some more suitable candidates but it was a good show just the same.
Maybe the balance of the show will tell me but I am still struggling with this notion that Australia can be the next superpower of energy supplier to the world. I get it if it is a product we are extracting from the land like we are currently doing with coal etc as it has to come from here but if it is manufacturing based I am so sure. We have already lost all our manufacturing to overseas markets as we can’t compete so why would this be different? It would be great if we could do it but I can’t see it.
I will watch the balance to see

Please keep it none personal. Blast away at the subject not the messenger.
I do not want to be forced to close this thread..

DavidG Moderator.


Remember - Subject, not person.....

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

May I briefly hark back to the base load situation and I am going to throw out a statement for discussion.

It is that we may have completed the first stage of renewable energy and for the moment we have gone as far as we can go in economic terms. By that I mean that any additional power sources of any type will from now on make the market uneconomic. Let me suggest that during the day renewables on a good day can replace or supply around forty percent of the market. By a good day I mean that the sun is shining well, the wind is blowing well and the dams have plenty of water. If any further players enter the market they are only competing for that 40% and as a consequence will drive down the wholesale price in total.

On the face of it that makes it sound good for the consumer. Short term it is, but long term companies go out of business. Bear in mind that none of these renewable are in a position to replace that 50% base load.

What do you think is the way around this? Firstly that an economic plateau has been reached and secondly what will replace the fossil fired base load?

Regards
Paul

Would it be fair to say that fitting of panels to private homes has been good for the home owner and providing supply to the grid but the flip side is that it has been detrimental to the commercial ventures entering the market?

We are effed. Game over.

News | NASA Flights Detect Millions of Arctic Methane Hotspots

Originally Posted by Beardy

Would it be fair to say that fitting of panels to private homes has been good for the home owner and providing supply to the grid but the flip side is that it has been detrimental to the commercial ventures entering the market?

Beardy

That is partialy true. However, consider:

While ever solar panels were low volume they were always going to be expensive and would never become affordable. So the subsidy was required but as well as kick starting solar, unfortunately, also held the price up (the problem with subsidies). Today solar is relatively cheap. Subsidy is not unique to solar. Coal gets subsidies on their diesel fuel for example.

The solar farms had the opportunity to get in early but they didn't initially. Then they thought they saw money and jumped in. When they got there it dawned on them that there was no free ride and they had to actually compete. Did they forsee that in SA, for example, the whole sale prices would at times be negative for a extended period? Probably not. The gas people made a similar error. While the wells were being esablished ad the pipeline built there was no place for the gas to go. They built small power plants and gave the gas away. Once the pipeline was operational they could export the gas for elevated prices and the gas stations found themselves on a level playing field. They immediately screamed they couldn't make any money.

There is no milege in entering a market unless you can do it either better or cheaper or expand it. If you cannot do one of those things you are now sharing the bucket of money with the existing players and probably everybody ends up with less. Usually in the electricity market the newcomer has the hardest time as the investment costs are as high as they will ever be. The old hands have reduced their debt and have a distinct advantage. This is why in my post to which you have referred I suggested, for the time being, any further solar players are going to be disappointed if they believe there is pot of gold out there. We actually have an oversupply of power for the sector in which they can compete.

While I am a strong believer in solar power, it still has a long way to go before it becomes the universal panacea some people would like it to be. While probably I am in that wishful group, I like to think I am also pragmatic.

Regards
Paul