1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

But your assertions take no account of the stunning decline in battery costs which is expected to continue. In addition, hydro is not the only commercially used storage system. There's molten salts and compressed air.  Moreover, when computing costs of power generation, account also has to be taken of the massive externalities incurred by the use of fossil fuels, with coal being the worst offender.

Do you have any electrical engineering qualifications, any experience in generation and/or grid control? Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

First you quote Tesla batteries; the 10kWh was heavily discounted at $3500 (B120,000) and WAS good for 500 cycles. If used in a home system at full cycle, it would save B40/night, or B20,000 over its life. You buy one, I won't.

Molten salts and compressed air. Give me ONE commercially viable site. Why not Hydrogen, that's always good for a bloody big bang?

Australia doesn't have terrorist attacks to the same level as UK, France and Germany because we have a much smaller percentage of muslims in the population. But we are working to overcome that. Now those refugees we accept may well be perfectly nice people who appreciate their new country, they have memories of the shithole they left, but they will have children indoctrinated with the same garbage, and a small percentage of them will be subject to radicalisation.

Isn't that something to look forward to?

Just now, Smarter Than You said:

I see you have pathetically avoided the question.

The question wasn't worthy of consideration. Why should I worry about something over which I have absolutely no control?

1 minute ago, Smarter Than You said:

When exactly should we humans begin to start worrying about our effect on the planet?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't just worry about it, do something. They say suicide is the sincerest form of self-criticism.

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

You might want to ask Tesla about that. Or other storage technology companies.

Asked and answered, post #32. I will repeat it for you.

"You really have no bloody idea, do you. The battery shown is discontinued as proved to be an expensive WASTE OF MONEY. In industrial terms, it is tiny.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Tesla-Discontinues-10kWh-Powerwall-Home-Battery"

There is only one known method of storing large amounts of energy, pumping water uphill for hydro use when required. Oz does just that with the Snowy scheme which was initially for overnight production from base-load fossil fuel stations. It is now projected to be expanded and could be used for solar storage. BUT the amount of energy storable and available is limited, and is used for peak load periods, not base load.

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This doesn't really explain why renewable energy sources have allowed India to drastically cut its need to build solar plants.  And it really doesn't make sense to say the because a solar plant can reach a capacity of 23 percent, that 77 percent of the time you need other energy sources.

Your 1st senence doesn't make sense, how about an edit? If you can explain to me where the energy of solar plants will be stored for the 15 or so hours per daythey are producing SFA, you have an argument; otherwise you're talking through your Rs. Industry doesn't work office hours, and doesn't shut down because it's raining.

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

So apparently commercial viability of an energy source only counts when it's renewable.

What are you rabitting about? Renewables are heavily subsidised, the prime mover of the price rises all the leading countries have forced on consumers. The Adani mine has been offered a DEFERMENT of royalties for 6 years, expected to be repaid with interest. any suggestion that it might not be commercially viable is yours alone, unless you have some proof.

5 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

"And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why".

 

You're being a little dishonest here by omitting some facts.

Why can't they secure financing?

Why is the Australian Government putting up $1 billion of tax payer money?

Why should I bother with the financial issues? The announcement of the mine go-ahead is expected TODAY.

6 hours ago, Smarter Than You said:

We are expected to abandon no current human activity.

What we need to do is start the process of transitioning to a more environmentally friendly existence whilst we still have that option.

That means investing in green industries, even if they are loss makers now, so that we have a future.

It is going to cost a hell of a lot less to be proactive on global warming than it will cost being reactive after we have reached a tipping point.

 

 

Well why don't you rush out and buy an expensive battery that will last 2 years, and invest your money in loss making companies. Put your money where your mouth is and stop telling other people how the world should be.

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Climatically and geographically the situation of India is quite different from that of Germany 

In india, solar generated power is already competitive with coal and has resulted in the cancellation of many plans to build coal powered power plants.

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

Yes it is. In a desert, capacity factor of solar can reach 23%. Tell me, what do you think people are doing for electricity the other 77% of the time? Do you think Adani are building a huge coal mine so they can make a loss?

How could he be found guilty when he bought all that merit?

3 hours ago, RobFord said:

 

Ninety Seven percent of scientists agree that climate change is probably due to humans. You're truly are a 3 percenter, and you're hardly a scientists.

Will you shut your gob hole and inane posts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

And if we agree it is, are we going to stop using petroleum based vehicles, stop making steel, stop making plastics, stop making aluminium (aka solid electricity)?

Just how much current human activity are we expected to abandon for the CO2 worriers?

2 hours ago, billmichael said:

I read a book titled, "4,000 Days" describing the adventure of a young drug courier from Australia who was taken into Thai custody and then spent 12 years in a very bad prison there.  I cannot imagine how anyone would risk being put into a Thai prison.  If Thai prisons are one step next to a NAZI prison camp (as described in the book) how could anyone even dream about handling illegal drugs.  Oh, well, desperate times, desperate people...???

The moron should consider himself lucky. Not that long ago they would have tied him to a post and introduced him to the business end of a M-60.

That said, I agree going into a Thai prison is not to be risked lightly.

34 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Won't it be confusing for the US and AUS to have any military exercises with Thailand when Thailand uses Chinese military hardware? But maybe the intent is to have Thailand play the role of China.

Oz could send its subs, and pretend it's Sweden. Gidday, I'm Olle, he's Sven.

A few years ago, he would have been on a boat to Oz. Seems that policy is working.

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"That is a truly extraordinary argument. Make a guess at the amount of "environmental damage", state that it should be added to the price of fuel, then claim that because it wasn't added, that amounts to a subsidy. That's the kind of economics the Soviet Union used for bogus production figures in tractor plants."

The noted communist, Milton Friedman, disagrees with you. In economics its called externalities and relates to issues of the commons.

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/10/12/what-would-milton-friedman-do-about-climate-change-tax-carbon/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

As for your repeated demonstrations of  ignorance about renewable energy. It's already more economical than coal in many parts of the United States.

This interactive map shows why renewables and natural gas are taking over the US

The University of Texas Austin’s Energy Institute has put out an incredibly useful interactive map showing what types of power plants are cheapest to build in every county in the continental United States. (No, really, it’s fascinating.)

 

Playing around with the map, you can see why natural gas and renewables are likely to provide much of America’s new electric capacity going forward. It also shows why, despite Trump’s promises, it will be extremely difficult to build new US coal plants anytime soon. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/12/13914942/interactive-map-cheapest-power-plant

 

And here's some data which you continue to ignore:

Indian solar power prices hit record low, undercutting fossil fuels

Wholesale solar power prices have reached another record low in India, faster than analysts predicted and further undercutting the price of fossil fuel-generated power in the country.

The tumbling price of solar energy also increases the likelihood that India will meet – and by its own predictions, exceed – the renewable energy targets it set at the Paris climate accords in December 2015.

India is the world’s third-largest carbon polluter, with emissions forecast to at least double as it seeks to develop its economy and lift hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/10/indian-solar-power-prices-hit-record-low-undercutting-fossil-fuels

 

 

And yet, the Indian company Adani is set to develop Australia's biggest coal project. I wonder why.

" The standard measure of that shortfall in electricity production compared to nameplate capacity is the “capacity factor”: the amount of electricity a generator produces in a year divided by the amount it would produce if it ran at nameplate capacity for all 8,760 hours. In 2012, German solar electricity production rose to 28 TWh from the 2011 figure of 19.3 TWh. But those solar panels would have produced 254 TWh had they run at full power for all 8,760 hours in the year, so they had a capacity factor of just 11 percent. Production from wind power, despite all the new turbines, actually declined to 46 TWh from the 2011 figure of 48.9 TWh. (Sun and wind anti-correlate, so the solar surge came at the expense of wind.) That puts the capacity factor of German wind at 17 percent. By comparison, fossil-fueled plants can achieve capacity factors of 80 percent or more. And electricity production from Germany’s 12 GW of nuclear capacity in 2012 was 99 TWh, a capacity factor of 94 percent. Even though Germany’s nuclear nameplate capacity was just one-fifth the size of its solar and wind nameplate capacity, those few nuclear gigawatts produced 35 percent more watt-hours of electricity than did all the wind and solar generators put together. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

Sorry to start getting technical on you, but ti is important to understand the difference between GW and GWh.  GW are what an energy plant, of whatever type, CAN produce, GWh is a reflection of it DOES produce. At 11% capacity factor, you need a lot more GW to produce the same GWh.

In Oz we built the Moree solar farm,. with a plate output of 56MW. " The solar farm is expected to have an operating life of 30 years and generate approximately 4,000 GWh over that time. " https://arena.gov.au/projects/moree-solar-farm/     

They hope. OTOH Bayswater power station with 4 660MW Toshiba units (they actually run at 700MW when required after mods) estimates its ANNUAL output at 17 TWh (17,000 GWh).

6 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Do you have children?

Yes Solar Warrior, I do. Should I tell them "the end is nigh" or "we are all doomed"?

" While wind and solar nameplate capacity represented 84 percent of Germany’s average electric power generation of 70.4 GW, it ultimately generated only 11.9 percent of total electricity (up from 11.2 percent in 2011). There are simple reasons for that discrepancy: night, cloud, and calm. The output of wind and solar generators varies wildly with weather and the time of day; during most hours they produce a small fraction of their nameplate power—or nothing at all. "

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/green-energy-bust-in-germany

Interesting to note that electricity prices have INCREASED by 50% since 2006.

6 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

 

1 hour ago, Skywalker69 said:

Well guess you are proud to be in company with Syria and Nicaragua then?

What is that supposed to mean? Are those countries famous for producing electrical engineers rather than deluded, uniformed onanists?

BTW yes, fossil fuels are a limited resource, but they won't run out for a long time yet. When they do, where does steel and plastics come from? And which will be more expensive gold or aluminium?

5 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

BOOM! CA Gov. Brown Has Had ENOUGH! Says This President’s Recklessness Will “Galvanize … The Whole World”—Trump Is LIVID

 

Donald Trump went to some rather bizarre efforts to make his announcement in the Rose Garden that the United States will be pulling out of the Paris climate agreement seem like a celebratory moment.

 

"California has a very imaginative and aggressive climate action policy. We have a goal of 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030. We’re already about 27 percent now, and we’ll even go beyond that."

 

http://realtimepolitics.com/2017/06/03/ca-governor-brown-president-trump/?utm_campaign=PL&utm_source=PL&utm_medium=FB

 

What brings the world forward? New technology or sticking with the old finite dirty resources?

 

What will in the end create more jobs?

 

Ca governor Brown is a politician. At 27% he's like a guy jumped off a 100 storey building - 27 floors down he's doing fine. But as the percentage rises, grid stability problems start. Germany was one of the front runners - just google Germany grid problems for 24 million hits.

There is nothing wrong with renewables, or any other new technology, but there is a lot wrong with relying on too many uncontrolled inputs into an electricity grid. South Australia, another front-runner, had a recent major blackout because the wind dropped and they didn't have enough fossil fuel generation on standby. And the fossil fuel stations are aging and not being replaced (who needs them, we've got solar!) leading to their own reliability problems. Meanwhile, while we get all this "free" energy, the cost of electricity continues to rise.

1 minute ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Are you thinking and writing under some delusion about the way taxis in LoS operate? As with everything in LoS, what taxis might be legally required to do, and what they often actually do, are two entirely different things. 

I am well aware the taxi industry in Thailand needs much improvement. I was talking about my own experience in Oz.

2 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

It creats jobs, peiod! Isn´t it what it´s all about? 

Try to be rational. The claim is that solar is creating more jobs than fossil fuels without any mention that they are short term construction jobs. If they were building coal fired power stations, there would be a big increase in construction jobs too, but it is not a reason to choose coal over solar, or vice versa.

This is the sort of thinking that drives politicians, because there are thousands of the uninformed calling for solar and batteries with absolutely no idea of the problems involved.

Just now, Skywalker69 said:

So is this jobs or not?

Are workers building a car factory in the automobile industry? Just because a dog was born in a stable doesn't make it a horse.

28 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

US solar power employs more people than oil, coal and gas combined, report shows

 

Last year, solar energy employed 43 per cent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce, while traditional fossil fuels combined made up just 22 per cent, according to report

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-solar-power-employs-more-people-more-oil-coal-gas-combined-donald-trump-green-energy-fossil-fuels-a7541971.html

 

 

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal And Gas Combined

 

In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce in 2016, while fossil fuels combined accounted for just 22 percent. It's a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute Donald Trump's assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American economy.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#111d10332800

I'm sorry to point this out, but the whole basis of the article is BS. Most of those counted as employed in the solar industry are construction workers installing home solar or building solar power stations. Any rational report would acknowledge that they are construction industry workers employed for a short period on solar projects.