It comes down to the risk of billions of dollars of stranded assets. Who wants to take that financial risk ? An insurance company? Private industries?
Not completely off topic. I think this is a thread for engineers so check out how a guy moves huge concrete blocks by hand.
No jacks. No modern technology.
Clever and interesting.
When the ranters and chanters start logics go out the window, "we want it and we want it now", then the media get on board then the loonies join in, then we have situation normal Australia.Looks like the PC brigade has got into the insurance industry now.
Gas may be a fossil fuel but it's a lot cleaner than coal, and I'd rather trust Alan Finkel when he says gas should be an important part of our energy grid.
I suppose insurance companies can do what they like with their money , but I'd rather have scientists and engineers designing our essential services.
Someone is going to have to fund it, be that private or public.We are not going to stop using fossil fuels in the next 5- 10 even 20 years. That's a given.
On the other hand the push to renewables is driven by economics and environment. They don't compete economically and represent a CC risk. In that context the financial risk of backing new fossil fuel projects is very significant.
It comes down to the risk of billions of dollars of stranded assets. Who wants to take that financial risk ? An insurance company? Private industries?
Hardly.
Looks like the PC brigade has got into the insurance industry now.
Gas may be a fossil fuel but it's a lot cleaner than coal, and I'd rather trust Alan Finkel when he says gas should be an important part of our energy grid.
I suppose insurance companies can do what they like with their money , but I'd rather have scientists and engineers designing our essential services.
We are not going to stop using fossil fuels in the next 5- 10 even 20 years. That's a given.
On the other hand the push to renewables is driven by economics and environment. They don't compete economically and represent a CC risk. In that context the financial risk of backing new fossil fuel projects is very significant.
It comes down to the risk of billions of dollars of stranded assets. Who wants to take that financial risk ? An insurance company? Private industries?
Hardly.
In the context of an insurer deciding where to invest money then sure, no problem with them investing in whatever they've concluded makes for a good investment so long as it's legal etc.On the other hand the push to renewables is driven by economics and environment. In that context the financial risk of backing new fossil fuel projects is very significant.
It comes down to the risk of billions of dollars of stranded assets. Who wants to take that financial risk ? An insurance company? Private industries?
Hardly.
Clever guy, but how did he get the block on his device in the first place ?
Here's another one of the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Leedskalnin
From memory he developed an ingenious way of lifting the whole block up using leverage chocks and see saw effect. In the end the concrete block is a metre off the ground resting on supports.
Applied mechanics 101.If you can find a way to effectively gear the task right down well then ultimately it's just a matter of applying energy to raise it up. Gear it down enough and the relatively limited physical abilities of a human are good enough.
It looks as though the loonies and the media have moved on from coal at last.Looks like the PC brigade has got into the insurance industry now.
Gas may be a fossil fuel but it's a lot cleaner than coal, and I'd rather trust Alan Finkel when he says gas should be an important part of our energy grid.
I suppose insurance companies can do what they like with their money , but I'd rather have scientists and engineers designing our essential services.
Professor Steffen said that Australia's Paris climate targets were weak, set politically and had no scientific basis; that even if they were to be met Australia would still not be doing its fair share to mitigate global warming under the agreement, and that the use of gas as a transition energy source was quickly making the situation worse.
.
Gas is one way to do it although I'm sure that Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tas would both be very quick to point out that large scale hydro is another way of doing it.Renewables are great, but we need a backup
From the outside looking in, IMO S.A got way ahead of the curve and are desperately treading water, while their problems are absorbed.Gas is one way to do it although I'm sure that Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tas would both be very quick to point out that large scale hydro is another way of doing it.
Large scale as in capable of running not continuously, that isn't required, but for an extended period not just a few hours.
Meanwhile in SA:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08...olar-panels/12602684?WT.ac=localnews_adelaide
It's a crude solution but one that's unavoidable given that better solutions haven't been implemented and there's simply no time left to do anything.
In layman's terms the idea is jack the network voltage up and that trips off the inverters. Do it gradually and they don't all trip at once. So just trip enough to keep supply and demand in balance.
It's a problem best explained by saying that forecast load in SA tomorrow afternoon, a Saturday with a forecast maximum temperature of 25 in Adelaide, is 400 MW (purely coincidental that it's a round number, the forecast is produced down to the 1 MW accuracy level and wouldn't normally be a nice round number like that).
To put that into perspective, that's well under half the minimum load Tasmania experiences in any 24 hour period despite SA having 3.4 times the population. It compares with maximum load in SA of about 3400 MW, average load of about 1500 MW and minimum load overnight tonight forecast at 959 MW.
Better solutions in my view are encouraging load shifting at the end user level. Water heating's the obvious one but has turned out to be somewhat difficult from a bureaucratic perspective. It'll happen, just not as quickly as would be ideal from a technical or environmental perspective (a statement that of itself seems rather odd, that the engineering and environmental aspects both are optimised with the same approach).
So whilst there's some progress on all this stuff, I do caution that there's a lot still to be done.
From the outside looking in, IMO S.A got way ahead of the curve and are desperately treading water, while their problems are absorbed.
Cheers Smurf; is there a public available link to the SA spot price history?
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?