Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
. That's probably why as a nuclear pimp you're so worked up mate..
So what makes you think Paradox is a nuclear pimp?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Currently yes. The problem with you paradox, is that you can't seem to accept that we are talking about the future.....you think all this has to happen tomorrow.
As for "nothing else stacks up" well Snowy Hydro 2.0, the AEMO, the CSIRO and just about every energy investor in Australia disagrees with you.
Your assertion of thousands of a required pumped hydro dams is garbage. Never claimed such garbage. That's your miscalculation. The first stage Snowy Hydro 2.0 is 2.0GW. That's basically a Hazelwood power plant alone.
Oh dear... feel free to do your own calcs on how may dams required. Until then my quick calc is the best we have.
The Snowy scheme is awesome. A huge testamount to smart engineering and planning and an amazing clean energy supply using a renewable resource. We should look at other hydro opportunites, although I believe we get a bit limited in viable areas. There must be some though.
However the Snowy Scheme it is NOT stage one of any pumped hydro storage scheme. It's a fully fledged, stand alone hydro power generator.
Sorry but you are reaching. Throw some facts related to your claims at me and stop the sales pitch.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..So what makes you think Paradox is a nuclear pimp?holy guacamole said..
. That's probably why as a nuclear pimp you're so worked up mate..
Well no one in their right mind is going to financially back new coal plants as the old ones retire. That leaves gas, nukes or pumped hydro with batteries behind the meter taking up the dispatchable slack as renewables reduce network stability.
Gas is going to be too expensive - more than pumped hydro and it's not zero emissions.
That leaves nukes to lend any credibility to his logic going forward and I don't see Australians and banks lining up for nukes for a very long time.
Given his positive spin on nukes in the past I think it's fair to say he's backing nukes post coal 2040-50.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
Yep, I do understand the scientific process pretty well, which is why (for example) there's Kuhn on the bookshelf along with plenty of other science books. For me to just accept your claim of essentially saying "NASA's science on AGW is bad science" is illogical when there is more evidence, and more expertise, on the other side.
Criticisms of the "warmist" side must be balanced against equal criticism of the "denier" side, and there's any number of inconsistencies coming from the latter. To give just one example, some "deniers" speak with approval of the person (not a meteorologist) who took it upon themselves to go to work and record the 'record temperature' in Bourke a century ago, but WAWT notes that a more recent record temp (Signa Station) was taken by volunteers rather than meterologists and therefore asks "how much confidence can we have?" in the reading. So when a temp taken by an unqualified person suits the "denier" agenda, that temp is accepted and the person is praised. When a temp taken by an unqualified person does not suit the "denier" agenda, its implied that the recorder's lack of qualifications mean that we can have little confidence in their figure. Given such inconsistency on the "denier" side, they cannot take the high ground.
Similarly, "deniers" in Australia often claim that the BoM has decided to ignore pre-1908 temps because that suits the BoM's supposed agenda, but this "denier" claim ignores the fact that the policy that pre-1908 temps were problematic was created in 1908! We can safely say that the people who go on about this BoM policy lack research skills or logic.
These are only side issues, but they show fairly well that any claim that one side is "doing science" and the other is "doing politics" are BS. There is political belief on both sides, and IMHO there is more evidence of politics coming from the "denier" side.
Yeah, you need to work on reading comprehension. I said NASA's claim on consensus is bad science as they link Cooks dodgy paper that doesn't even say what they claim. I said nothing on the rest of thier science, although that one link doesn't inspire confidence.
I'm not interested in labels or sides, they are political not scientific. Stick with the facts and steer away from non factual views from anyone, no matter whose "side" they are on. Conversely don't discount facts even if they don't fit with your view.
Facts make science, not labels, beliefs or opinions.
What the hell? You only mentioned the Cook paper AFTER I had written the post you quoted. How the hell was anyone supposed to know that your vague reference to "NASA's stance on "scientific consensus on the role of AGW" was a reference to one NASA link to one paper? It's just ridiculous to claim that I need to work on comprehension because you failed to mention one of a huge number of scientific papers that could fit within your description.
And since NASA don't just rely on Cook for their claim about consensus, it is illogical for anyone to assume that it was Cook you were trying to bring up. Don't blame my comprehension, blame the fact that you didn't give any details or any references.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
Currently yes. The problem with you paradox, is that you can't seem to accept that we are talking about the future.....you think all this has to happen tomorrow.
As for "nothing else stacks up" well Snowy Hydro 2.0, the AEMO, the CSIRO and just about every energy investor in Australia disagrees with you.
Your assertion of thousands of a required pumped hydro dams is garbage. Never claimed such garbage. That's your miscalculation. The first stage Snowy Hydro 2.0 is 2.0GW. That's basically a Hazelwood power plant alone.
Oh dear... feel free to do your own calcs on how may dams required. Until then my quick calc is the best we have.
The Snowy scheme is awesome. A huge testamount to smart engineering and planning and an amazing clean energy supply using a renewable resource. We should look at other hydro opportunites, although I believe we get a bit limited in viable areas. There must be some though.
However the Snowy Scheme it is NOT stage one of any pumped hydro storage scheme. It's a fully fledged, stand alone hydro power generator.
Sorry but you are reaching. Throw some facts related to your claims at me and stop the sales pitch.
Snowy Hydro 2.0 is 2GW over 175hr of storage. We don't need thousands of these to underpin renewable energy. That's simple math.
Never said there's more Snowy Hydro in the pipeline. I said SH 2.0 is just the start of pumped hydro in Australia, after the test case.
SH 2.0 will add to pressure to shut down of some the oldest coal plants because they won't compete on price.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..holy guacamole said..
. That's probably why as a nuclear pimp you're so worked up mate..
So what makes you think Paradox is a nuclear pimp?
Not sure I am a pimp, but HC knows I do support Nuclear as a solution to our dispatchable supply issue. He thinks my reality check on the viability of pumped hydro on any scale is influenced by that I guess.
I would love to see Australia develop a world class nuclear industry. We are sorely lacking in anything anymore......
Select to expand quoteParadox said..I would love to see Australia develop a world class nuclear industry. We are sorely lacking in anything anymore......
Not sure I am a pimp, but HC knows I do support Nuclear as a solution to our dispatchable supply issue. He thinks my reality check on the viability of pumped hydro on any scale is influenced by that I guess.
Nuclear lover / nuclear pimp. Apologies for getting that terminology so terribly wrong....
New nukes in Australia will never compete with pumped hydro on price. Not even in the same playing field.
We'll never agree on the viability. Your math on the number of PH plants required is just too bizarre. You seem to think we need more water and hundreds of plants with 2GW capacity. That would power China.
So yeah, throw those facts right back at me dude. 
Meanwhile, dream on paradox. We'll get on with viable projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0, the huge rollout of solar PV, behind the meter batteries and wind power. 
By my estimate, SH 2.0 will be our equal fourth largest capacity standalone generator.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..I would love to see Australia develop a world class nuclear industry. We are sorely lacking in anything anymore......
Not sure I am a pimp, but HC knows I do support Nuclear as a solution to our dispatchable supply issue. He thinks my reality check on the viability of pumped hydro on any scale is influenced by that I guess.
Nuclear lover. Nuclear pimp. Apologies for getting that terminology wrong....
New nukes in Australia will never compete with pumped hydro on price. Not even in the same playing field.
We'll never agree on the viability. Your math on the number of PH plants required is just too bizarre.
Meanwhile, dream on paradox. We'll get on with viable projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0, the huge rollout of solar PV, behind the meter batteries and wind power.
I'm all for Snowy 2.0.
But you know it won't have an economic return right? Thats great for a nation building project like it is, but it's not an actual economic venture?
Total infrastructure cost for the scheme are touted at $6 to $7 billion. Thats just the storage, regeneration and distribution and doesn't factor in the cost of the energy pumped in. And that is in the most hydro friendly area Australia has.
At those costs, yes I think nuclear would not only being on the same field as that, it would be well ahead.
See how I use actual figures and facts to underpin my views?
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Total infrastructure cost for the scheme are touted at $6 to $7 billion. Thats just the storage, regeneration and distribution and doesn't factor in the cost of the energy pumped in. And that is in the most hydro friendly area Australia has.
At those costs, yes I think nuclear would not only being on the same field as that, it would be well ahead.holy guacamole said..Paradox said..I would love to see Australia develop a world class nuclear industry. We are sorely lacking in anything anymore......
Not sure I am a pimp, but HC knows I do support Nuclear as a solution to our dispatchable supply issue. He thinks my reality check on the viability of pumped hydro on any scale is influenced by that I guess.
Nuclear lover. Nuclear pimp. Apologies for getting that terminology wrong....
New nukes in Australia will never compete with pumped hydro on price. Not even in the same playing field.
We'll never agree on the viability. Your math on the number of PH plants required is just too bizarre.
Meanwhile, dream on paradox. We'll get on with viable projects like Snowy Hydro 2.0, the huge rollout of solar PV, behind the meter batteries and wind power.
Only if Australia already had a nuclear industry in place.....then maybe your fantasy numbers would stack up right off the bat...
I'm willing to bet the first few nike plants would cost squillions, far exceeding any SH 2.0 blowouts.
Plus you nuke lovers never talk about the decommissioning and radioactive waste storage costs do you?
You always leave that up to hard working taxpayers.....
Anyway, in the absence of new coal plants and nuke plants, the options for dispatchable firming power are reduced to pumped hydro, gas and behind the meter batteries.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Paradox said..Chris 249 said..
Sorry, but your claims are simply untrue.
..... Sure, the exact magnitude of the effects may be unclear, but that there are effects is not something they doubt.......
1) Then I think you misunderstand or have just assumed what my claims are. At no time have I ever said that there is no such thing as AGW.
2) you clearly state that the magnitude of AGW is unclear. I agreewhole heartedly. Why are you assuming I or anyone else for that matter does not think that we are contributing to global warming to some extent??? I have come across very few people who don't think that there is some level of Antropological contribution.
That is what the scientific debate is all about - the level of contribution of all our influences and then the subset of CO2 in that contribution.
The science on that is far from settled, and there are very good arguments for anywhere from 10% to 80% or more. We simply dont know. The problem is that the consensus or science facts are being presented as not just the belief that we are contributing 50% or more (often 100%), but that the science clearly shows that is the case. And that is very untrue, its a bald faced lie.
Our friend Mr Cook found that problem in his 97% paper. One of the categories he used to rate papers was "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming" unfortunately he only managed to get 64 papers out of his 12,000 odd that claimed that. So they decided to adjust their summary to not mention that category at all and only listed those that endorsed AGW at any level of contribution (1% or more), of which he found 1000 odd. Plus they then included 3000 that implied AGW existed without mentioning it on the assumption if it was implied then it must be a thing. (many authors came back and rejected the assumptions made)
Then they discounted 8000 of the papers because they had no position on AGW, and cleverly worded the summary to be able to be read that all global warming was anthropological, even though it didn't really say that .... and thats how you get 97% from 64 out of 12,000 papers.
Oh by the way, if you don't believe that 100% of global warming is anthropologic, then that will get you branded a denier in lots of places. Welcome to the club 
I didn't say anything about your beliefs about whether AGW exists. I addressed your claim that " The people who use that language are actually the ones that are against the scientific method and are trying to force popular (but unproven) theory's as scientific certainties." That claim of yours is complete and utter BS. There are many passionate believers and practitioners in the scientific method who believe in the consensus theory of AGW. That's the truth, even if you deny it.
So let's look at Cook. For a start, your figure of 64 uses just only one of the three "categories" (to use your term) or "definitions" (to use Legate et al's term) that was used in the paper to determine which papers indicated that the authors believed in AGW. As far as I can see, this is just a decision by Legate et al to use just one definition that they pulled off page 2 of Cook et al. In fact, Cook et al used other definitions as well.
You appear to be ignoring the over 960 papers that Cook et al found to to have explicitly endorsed the idea of AGW under their other definitions, and the 2,910 that they classed as having "implicit endorsement". You also appear to be ignoring the fact that only a very small number of papers that were explicitly or implicitly against the AGW consensus. Of course they discounted papers that had no position on AGW - what the do you want them to do, count them although they do not touch the subject?
Your claim that "many authors came back and rejected the assumptions made" appears to be amply rebutted by Table 5 of Cook et al, which shows that a higher proportion of such authors said, when emailed, that they believed in the consensus than Cook's own analysis had revealed. For example, the analysis of papers said that 36.9% endorsed AGW, whereas 64.7% of authors who contacted Cook et al said that they endorsed AGW.
The question about the reality of rising CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is moot.
What is disturbing is the unscientific assertions made by deniers that the recent climate and weather phenomena we observe are due to natural variability and the further assertion that the coincidence of these phenomena with the aforementioned rising GHG concentrations is purely coincidental and that we should go on business as usual! The tobacco and asbestos companies did the same for decades.
Add to this the conspiracy theories about the alleged BOM's doctored data, the IPCC being a slush fund for scientific funding, the almost non-existent bushfire arsonists, and the awe inspiring fictional agenda to bring about the end of western civilisation and capitalism etc etc and one can see a pattern of seething desperation emerging.
But other than those conspiracy theories, the "skeptics" have pretty much got it all sown up with rigorous science...which we're all waiting to see....one day soon....
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Your math on the number of PH plants required is just too bizarre. You seem to think we need more water and hundreds of plants with 2GW capacity. That would power China.
The maths is not bizarre. It's simple. (Someone else used to use the term "math" rather than "maths". It grates for some reason, probably because it's an Americanism and ironically they can't do it).
Anyway Australia uses 229.4 billion kWh per year, that's 626 GWh per day.
Snowy 2.0 has a capacity 0f 350 GWh
So if we were fully dependant on renewables and the sun and wind stopped for a day we'd empty Snowy 2.0 before the day was out.
www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consumption.php
www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/faqs20/
(Apologies to the handful of brilliant American mathematicians)
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
I didn't say anything about your beliefs about whether AGW exists. I addressed your claim that " The people who use that language are actually the ones that are against the scientific method and are trying to force popular (but unproven) theory's as scientific certainties." That claim of yours is complete and utter BS. There are many passionate believers and practitioners in the scientific method who believe in the consensus theory of AGW. That's the truth, even if you deny it.
The people who use that language "the science is settled" and "the time for debate is over" are always refering to a position that AGW is the dominant reason for observed recent AGW. That is what I am calling out as untrue.
Perhaps you need to stop using terms like "consensus theory of AGW" and actually define what you mean as that is particular vague comment and is deliberately used to confuse people.
Regarding Cook, I don't have any major issues with your comments. The reality is that it is a poorly executed study from a number of perspectives. But lets just ignore all the other issues and Just boil it down the fact that it looked at 12,000 papers on climate change and AGW, and came up with 3,000 that accept that AGW is a thing, acknowedging 9000 had no position. I don't care how you do the numbers, you cannot turn around and say that 97% of publishing scientists endorse anything on those numbers. You only have 25% of the published papers reviewed commenting on it. I would agree that you could ectrapolate that of the 25% of those papers that acknowledged AGW, 97% agreed that AGW contribution is greater than 1%. Thats not what people say though is it?
Lets look at NASA, they make the below comment but ONLY reference the Cook paper, so thats all you can look at to verify the statement. They have been called out on this but have done nothing to rectify it.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
That is a very different statement to what Cooks paper and results actually say isn't it?? It's plain wrong and bad science at best, deliberately misleading at worst. It clearly intends the reader to think that 100% of Global warming is due to human activities. God know what the hell climate warming is. That doesn't even make sense.
Here is Cooks quote on consensus: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming"
Again deliberately misleading as most people reading that will think he means humans are causing 100% of GW, but at least he attempts to stick to the truth as it can also mean they agree humans are causing 1% or more of global warming as that what his paper showed. This will never be acknowedged however.
You get the point here? People are being deliberately misled on the truth of what the studies say. That is bad science.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..holy guacamole said..
Your math on the number of PH plants required is just too bizarre. You seem to think we need more water and hundreds of plants with 2GW capacity. That would power China.
The maths is not bizarre. It's simple. (Someone else used to use the term "math" rather than "maths". It grates for some reason, probably because it's an Americanism and ironically they can't do it).
Anyway Australia uses 229.4 billion kWh per year, that's 626 GWh per day.
Snowy 2.0 has a capacity 0f 350 GWh
So if we were fully dependant on renewables and the sun and wind stopped for a day we'd empty Snowy 2.0 before the day was out.
www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consumption.php
www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/faqs20/
(Apologies to the handful of brilliant American mathematicians)
Apologies for leaving off the s. My bad.
Pleased we've clarified that paradox loves nukes and thinks we should invest heavily in them.
Sorry, but I never claimed SH 2.0 alone would resolve the baseload issue by 2050. By 2050, I imagine there would be a plethora of new baseload solutions and it's highly unlikely any will involve nukes. The current crop of coal plants will be largely decommissioned.
So unless, you have some other magical solution, let's run with pumped hydro, behind the meter batteries and a bit of gas and remnant coal.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Ian K said..holy guacamole said..
Your math on the number of PH plants required is just too bizarre. You seem to think we need more water and hundreds of plants with 2GW capacity. That would power China.
The maths is not bizarre. It's simple. (Someone else used to use the term "math" rather than "maths". It grates for some reason, probably because it's an Americanism and ironically they can't do it).
Anyway Australia uses 229.4 billion kWh per year, that's 626 GWh per day.
Snowy 2.0 has a capacity 0f 350 GWh
So if we were fully dependant on renewables and the sun and wind stopped for a day we'd empty Snowy 2.0 before the day was out.
www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consumption.php
www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/faqs20/
(Apologies to the handful of brilliant American mathematicians)
Apologies for leaving off the s. My bad.
Pleased we've clarified that paradox loves nukes and thinks we should invest heavily in them.
Sorry, but I never claimed SH 2.0 alone would resolve the baseload issue by 2050. By 2050, I imagine there would be a plethora of new baseload solutions and it's highly unlikely any will involve nukes. The current crop of coal plants will be largely decommissioned.
So unless, you have some other magical solution, let's run with pumped hydro, behind the meter batteries and a bit of gas and remnant coal.
Lol you imagine a plethora of baseload solutions, in a nutshell that's really your entire argument to replace fossil fuels.
Unicorn farts below the rainbow
Where in WA we will have a pumped solution like snowy 2.0?
For something that would drain in 2 days that cant be considered for baseload, period.
If for todays consumption it would last 2 days, 30 years from now it would last a couple of hours in 2050.
Or another way of getting Snowy 2.0 into perspective is to consider power rather than energy. You'd have to stick in a lot more turbines to discharge 350GWh in a day. The proposed turbines are rated at 2GW. At 625 GWh a day Australia runs at an average of 625/24 = 26 GW. So Snowy 2.0 can provide about 8% of OZ power. So we'd need a couple more reversible turbines to buffer any shortfall in solar/wind at peak loading times.
The tesla battery weighs 540kg for 85 kWhr. 6.3 kg per kWhr. So a 1 GWhr battery will weigh 1000000 X 6.3 kg = 6.3 million kg = 6.3 thousand tonnes. So to power australia for a day on batteries is 6.3 X 625 thousand tonnes of batteries. = a 3.9 million tonne battery. 150 kg per capita, sounds about right.
Snowy 3.0 is equivalent to 2.2 million tonnes of Tesla batteries. We'll soon have that, just connect your Tesla to the grid. You are only allowed to drive it if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Shouldn't be a problem for us.
Not that this count as maths, it's arithmetic.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Is this true?
www.express.co.uk/news/science/1244172/Global-warming-slowing-down-study-NASA-CO2-greening-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
But isn't water vapour a far stronger greenhouse gas than co2.And is supposed to be the positive feedback they keep harping on about.
Plus plants transpire less water with increased co2.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Or another way of getting Snowy 2.0 into perspective is to consider power rather than energy. You'd have to stick in a lot more turbines to discharge 350GWh in a day. The proposed turbines are rated at 2GW. At 625 GWh a day Australia runs at an average of 625/24 = 26 GW. So Snowy 2.0 can provide about 8% of OZ power. So we'd need a couple more reversible turbines to buffer any shortfall in solar/wind at peak loading times.
The tesla battery weighs 540kg for 85 kWhr. 6.3 kg per kWhr. So a 1 GWhr battery will weigh 1000000 X 6.3 kg = 6.3 million kg = 6.3 thousand tonnes. So to power australia for a day on batteries is 6.3 X 625 thousand tonnes of batteries. = a 3.9 million tonne battery. 150 kg per capita, sounds about right.
Snowy 3.0 is equivalent to 2.2 million tonnes of Tesla batteries. We'll soon have that, just connect your Tesla to the grid. You are only allowed to drive it if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Shouldn't be a problem for us.
Not that this count as maths, it's arithmetic.
that will be even more interesting if you calculate those millions of tonnes Tesla battery at the cost $200 per kwh.Then complete replacement after 10 years or so. Snowy Hydro may last 100 years as many similar objects in Europe already do.Pumped hydro may fit perfectly to my plans of creating multiple lakes , damms , water storage facilities around Australia.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Or another way of getting Snowy 2.0 into perspective is to consider power rather than energy. You'd have to stick in a lot more turbines to discharge 350GWh in a day. The proposed turbines are rated at 2GW. At 625 GWh a day Australia runs at an average of 625/24 = 26 GW. So Snowy 2.0 can provide about 8% of OZ power. So we'd need a couple more reversible turbines to buffer any shortfall in solar/wind at peak loading times.
The tesla battery weighs 540kg for 85 kWhr. 6.3 kg per kWhr. So a 1 GWhr battery will weigh 1000000 X 6.3 kg = 6.3 million kg = 6.3 thousand tonnes. So to power australia for a day on batteries is 6.3 X 625 thousand tonnes of batteries. = a 3.9 million tonne battery. 150 kg per capita, sounds about right.
Snowy 3.0 is equivalent to 2.2 million tonnes of Tesla batteries. We'll soon have that, just connect your Tesla to the grid. You are only allowed to drive it if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Shouldn't be a problem for us.
Not that this count as maths, it's arithmetic.
So a 3.9 million tonne battery will sort Australia's power needs out (for 10 years), what % of emissions does that count for globally. Excuse my arithmetic but is that approx 40 or 50 Billion tonnes of batteries to power the USA. Then there is Europe, Asia etc etc, Sounds like a lot of mining, doesn't sound like a great environmental outcome, incidentally will all the machines doing the mining run on fossil fuels or will they be 100% renewable energy as well.
New book coming out soon:
FALSE ALARM : How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.
Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.
Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is.
Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics.
In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.
False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong -- and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.
Available 23rd June 2020
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Or another way of getting Snowy 2.0 into perspective is to consider power rather than energy.
Sure you could consider that if you had no idea why they're building it and instead tried to concoct a scenario that's nothing like the reality today. By 2050 it will one of many new low and zero GHG emissions dispatchable power sources, including a significant amount of behind the meter batteries (about 25% total grid capacity according to the AEMO).
Snowy Hydro 2.0 has nothing to do with "powering Australia". This is a nonsense proposition. Its dispatchable power is designed to firm up the grid at peak periods when renewables aren't running at full capacity. It's designed to replace inefficient, unreliable and dirty coal plants, which must run 24/7 even if no one wants the power. It will drive prices down because it will create a far more efficient and resilient grid, using a lot more very low primary cost electricity when needed.
I will certainly read the new book. I read The Skeptical Environmentalist a few years ago and consistently found myself scratching my head. Mr Lomborg makes many valid points but I felt I was reading it out of time. The conclusions+logic often seemed flawed, at least in my opinion, and many of his scientific reasonings just didn't do enough to convince me of his propositions. None the less it was a reasonable read and it will be interesting to find out where he now stands 20 years since the 2001 release.
With direct relation to 'This place is heating up?' below is a link to interesting article. Always good to hear about people taking their skill set and doing something that can have real-time benefits. Certainly highlights the issues to knowledgably navigate big data.
theconversation.com/i-made-bushfire-maps-from-satellite-data-and-found-a-glaring-gap-in-australias-preparedness-132087
Gday. Please correct me if im wrong im no expert . English is my first language but got terrible marks at school so bear with me.
I thought pumped hydro would work a bit differently. The electricity for the pump part of pumped hydro would be mostly generated with solar panels. With enough sun( and panels) which we get in most of Australia especially a bit inland I think this could be done. The power storage part comes down to how much water the bottom reservoir below the dam/ turbines can hold before the sun shines again so can pump it back up. This way no water is lost.
A problem would be water loss through evaporation versus rainfall from the dam/reservoirs. So we need deep reservoirs in proportion to surface area. Some of these old mine pits could be a good place to start? The other thing I saw(cant find link) was those balls on that lake in u.s.a which cover water to reduce evaporation,
Pumped hydro doesn't need deep dams. What it needs is pairs of dams with a good difference in elevation between them. There's a project attached to a solar farm up near Townsville that uses a couple of worked out gold mines.
www.genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project.html
There is a company building a compressed air storage system that uses water in deep mine shafts to provide pressure
www.hydrostor.ca/
They have a project under way in SA
www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2019/09/21/hydrostor-secures-financing-to-complete-australias-first-compressed-air-storage-facility/
I think that low pressure storage might work in old pits that fill up with water. Carnegie wave power was using waves to pump air through a turbine. If you had a large bladder sitting under 20 or 30 or more metres in a dam or pit, you would have a similar source of low pressure air and it wouldn't get torn apart by storms. Maybe economic, maybe not, but probably worth doing the sums on
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Ian K said..Or another way of getting Snowy 2.0 into perspective is to consider power rather than energy.
Snowy Hydro 2.0 has nothing to do with "powering Australia". This is a nonsense proposition.
I'm not proposing anything???
8% of our power requirement Is useful, it's not nothing. Maybe you were evaluating Snowy 2.0 as a source of energy? Haven't googled the figures but i'd guess it would be a lot less than 8%
FYI
Snowy 3.0 and 4.0 have been proposed.
www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/faqs20/
"Will we need a Snowy 3.0, 4.0 etc?
Yes, over coming decades the NEM will need enormous amounts of energy storage. This has been recognised in the Australian Energy Market Operator's (AEMO) Integrated System Plan. AEMO has said that with ageing coal-fired power stations closing storage capacity is one of the critical issues for the national energy market (NEM). "
Just read an article in the SMH which says that natural gas is a distraction and is probably making global warming worse
www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/why-the-dash-for-gas-and-cash-is-not-an-option-20200220-p542tb.html
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
New book coming out soon:
FALSE ALARM : How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet.
Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.
Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is.
Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics.
In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education.
False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong -- and points the way toward making the world a vastly better, if slightly warmer, place for us all.
Available 23rd June 2020
lol
more of the same from Bjorn
"He is to the debate what Dr. Oz is to medicine, a rodeo clown who frames his information to give audiences what they want (a quick- fix miracle cure) and cries censorship when confronted by actual scientists."
not surprising that he writes for your pals at the Australian TA!
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
Just read an article in the SMH which says that natural gas is a distraction and is probably making global warming worse
www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/why-the-dash-for-gas-and-cash-is-not-an-option-20200220-p542tb.html
Gas is just the fossil fuel industry trying to stay relevant. It's an interim solution at best.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..I'm not proposing anything???holy guacamole said..Ian K said..Or another way of getting Snowy 2.0 into perspective is to consider power rather than energy.
Snowy Hydro 2.0 has nothing to do with "powering Australia". This is a nonsense proposition.
8% of our power requirement Is useful, it's not nothing. Maybe you were evaluating Snowy 2.0 as a source of energy? Haven't googled the figures but i'd guess it would be a lot less than 8%
FYI
Snowy 3.0 and 4.0 have been proposed.
www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/faqs20/
"Will we need a Snowy 3.0, 4.0 etc?
Yes, over coming decades the NEM will need enormous amounts of energy storage. This has been recognised in the Australian Energy Market Operator's (AEMO) Integrated System Plan. AEMO has said that with ageing coal-fired power stations closing storage capacity is one of the critical issues for the national energy market (NEM). "
You're confusing a proposal with a proposition. It's OK. No worries.
BTW, at least you agree we don't need thousands of new damns like our resident nuclear lover...some major pumped hydro sites and behind the meter batteries should do fine by 2050. Snowy Hyrdo 3.0 and 4.0 would be great. By then the technology will be down pat and the capital costs will be refined. As low cost input energy long term, they're going to kill off any pipe dreams about nukes entering the Aussie NEM.
No need to resort to ultra expensive nukes.
