The big problem with most discussion on the subject of energy, and that goes from individuals to governments, is that in the vast majority of cases it's based around ideology and heavy use of the term "I believe....". Facts are either not present or are dismissed.If we thought we had problems with the transition to renewables, the EU is in another league.
European, Australian & so on politicts are cluttered with fools who believe renewables & other leftist ideologies will work and continue to invest billions of tax payer money in dud ventures and forgetting about energy security and factsThe big problem with most discussion on the subject of energy, and that goes from individuals to governments, is that in the vast majority of cases it's based around ideology and heavy use of the term "I believe....". Facts are either not present or are dismissed.
Renewable, fossil or nuclear - they can all work so long as they're designed to work and built accordingly. Trouble is, pretty much anyone outside the technical side of the industry baulks at designing and building for reliability then becomes the first to complain when it fails.
It's one of those things that's doable but the key is actually doing it.
Any decent engineer knows full well that it's possible and that the question is working out the best way to do it then actually doing it. Same with a lot of things - they can be done, the question is the best way to do it.idiots who believe wind turbines and solar will work and are clean! FFS how stupid can society become
@Smurf1976 and I have been going on about this endlessly in this thread, 5 to six years ago people were convinced it was just a case of throwing a switch, from fossil fuel to renewables.I'm not a big fan of Greg Sheridan, but I think he gets this one right on energy security and the risk the West is taking running towards renewables and Germany dumping nuclear before there's a suitable transition plan. Russia have the EU bent over and will be able to take Ukraine because of their reliance on Russian gas.
Green-tinged West shoots itself in the foot on energy
Greg Sheridan
The absurdity of the West’s position in its confrontation with Russia over Moscow’s aggression towards Ukraine lies in this wretched equation.
If Russia invades Ukraine the only response threatened by the West – led by US President Joe Biden – is crippling sanctions. Chief among those sanctions must be stopping Russia earning the money to fund its army through its energy exports. Yet Russia provides a third of Europe’s gas, and half of Germany’s gas imports.
But Germany, in thrall to the excesses of Green enthusiasm, is abolishing not only its coal-fired energy but also its nuclear energy as well, making it hugely dependent on gas. Fracking is effectively banned in Britain, which is also moving to a ban on other gas exploration. Ditto other west European nations.
The greening democratic West is crippling its own energy production while in reality still relying overwhelmingly on fossil fuels. This has left much energy production, and therefore huge strategic leverage, to dictatorships which couldn’t care less about green issues, namely Russia, China and the regressive regimes of the Middle East.
@Smurf1976 and I have been going on about this endlessly in this thread, 5 to six years ago people were convinced it was just a case of throwing a switch, from fossil fuel to renewables.
Mainly because the media were feeding out nonsense, that all it required was solar and wind farms to be thrown in, not that the whole HV transmission network was the wrong way around, where power feeds out not in and storage wasn't even being mentioned back then.
Most were actually holding the EU up as an example of how it should be done, they will end up a mess over there, the only ones that will be o.k are the Scandinavian countries, France and the U.K.
Scandinavian countries, eg Norway, SwedenCountries with majority hydro will go OK too. Not sure who that is, apart from Tassie.
Scandinavian countries, eg Norway, Sweden
Norway pretty close to 100% hydro.
Sweden is interesting approx 50% hydro, 50% nuclear.
These industrialised countries, that are tying themselves to imported fossil fuels, are leaving themselves very exposed. If the tension with Russia continues I can see Germany doing a backflip on nuclear.Add Canada and NZ to the list among developed "Western" countries but also most of the South American countries have at least a significant use of hydro though not fully reliant on it.
Austria's another one with substantial but not full reliance on it. Roughly 60% or so.
Add Canada and NZ to the list among developed "Western" countries but also most of the South American countries have at least a significant use of hydro though not fully reliant on it.
Austria's another one with substantial but not full reliance on it. Roughly 60% or so.
These industrialised countries, that are tying themselves to imported fossil fuels, are leaving themselves very exposed. If the tension with Russia continues I can see Germany doing a backflip on nuclear.
That is true a lot of our LNG is pre sold and I would guess they don't have extra LNG tankers sitting in a shed, waiting for someone to order a $hit load of gas, seriously how much LNG would the EU consume? Heaps is my guess.Yes, I think there's some national security meetings going on in Berlin and Brussels about how to solve it on security concerns. The US have offered some short term supply if required, and even Australia has, but it's not just a tap you can turn on and off.
They are starting to put a bit of pumped hydro in the North of Queensland.We could have more in the mix if the tropical northern rivers had have been damed and a proportion of that water sent south through hydro systems that then irrigated central QLD and fed into the Murray Darling. No emission power (apart from the development) and no more drought in the South East. Would probably cost $50b and destroy some of the environment in the short term, but long term a nation changing project.
We could have more in the mix if the tropical northern rivers had have been damed and a proportion of that water sent south through hydro systems that then irrigated central QLD and fed into the Murray Darling. No emission power (apart from the development) and no more drought in the South East. Would probably cost $50b and destroy some of the environment in the short term, but long term a nation changing project.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?