I am totally against stinking coal fired power stations.

See my thread on Thorium power!
That could be the answer to cheap, safe unlimitless power.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 10:21am:


Is that taking into account battery backup to, partially, cover for intermittency?

What should be the mix of fossil fuelled to renewables to cover intermittency for say 95% of the time?

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 11:43am:

well I suppose look at what other countries r doing and see how its working, I think the thing its all about is getting rid of poisons in the air.
This post is do u think the global warming argument smoke screens the fact of poisons in the air ?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:42am:


lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 11:21am:



case in point a quote from another thread today
bring co2 into and argument it is closed, don't mention all the other noxious gases or particles and u have a winner

Ajax wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

Yes I couldn't agree with u more... well until I read about how it is so damaging and back and forth until I die of respiratory disease from smog.
Again if I was a fossil burning company id love you concentrating on that instead of the real issues.
Just remember Low tare cigarettes r much better for u

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 12:29pm:


But it’s not cheaper than coal. When maintenance, spare parts, repairs, shipments, upgrades, re-tooling of bearings, labour costs, licences, registration costs, safety inspections, administrative costs, the laying and maintenance costs of thousands of miles of new cables is accounted for, in the final wash-up it’s WAY more expensive than running coal fired stations that already have all the infrastructure in place and ready to operate at a moment’s notice.

The Greenies’ wet dream comes at a price WAY above that of running coal, and it’s utterly farcical that we export coal to China and elsewhere while we ourself are being prohibited from using it.

Whatever happened to “Australia, the Clever Country” ?

Except for Abbott and Dutton, our political leadership is composed of idiots and ideological drones.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 3:36pm:



Now try to find when Australia last built a coal fired power station.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 3:57pm:


Trust to commonsense that if Coal Power was NOT the cheapest and the most effective power source, the Chinese wouldn't be building them hand-over-fist as they are doing, as is India and in South America.

I lived in mainlaind China and Hong Kong for several years, and they have a whole continent of mountainous country to erect 10s of 1000s of windmills, but they're not doing that, for the simple reason it's not economically viable.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 3:57pm:



How big do you think 110 MW solar plant is?

Desert Dunes solar salt - 296 acres for the array itself. The site area is 1670 acres.

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 4:36pm:


The sad truth about wind-power, solar-power, wave-power, and ebb-and-flow power is that they only produce a pathetically small percentage of the power needed to service First World civilisations.

And I'm with Bob Hawke when he says we should be using our own uranium to provide us with clean and cheap power source for all our industrial, civic, and domestic power needs.

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 4:36pm:


Our local power plant is on 60000 acres I just did a fence around a 20 mw solar plant at the Sunshine Coast and it used about 50 acres so that would be um a 20 Gw plant where our existing coal plant is ,about all the power used by Australia at the moment
So next argument as I answer this one

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 5:42pm:



Now take into account the site area of 1670 acres for the 110Mw.

Perhaps you can provide details of your local power plant.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:


Thanks for the update.

I'll check that out.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 4:52pm:


Im not sure where u get your info but 2016 there was 160 gw on new renewable power and around 80 in fossil that is more than needed for Africa, Australia is about 20 gw . Every dollar spent on renewable was matched by 4 dollars spent on maintaining existing FF plants.
Time to ignore and find a new topic

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 6:36pm:



Yeah. Bugger reliability of supply.  Solar don't output power at night, except for solar salt and they seem to be having troubles with that.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 7:59pm:



You do know that wind has a problem when it blows too hard and when it blows not enough?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 7:59pm:



Not cost effective.

Tidal power MAY have a future. However the salty environment is a problem.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:



Do you know how much is spent on maintenance? It is not an inconsiderable sum.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 5:07pm:

Thorium again 

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:

[color=#ff0000]Lee forgets the market place is government intervened: he pretends it's all a free markets but, of course, lee represents those who know where the bread is buttered!



----> go the dregs of society called lee(s)  [/color

No one has actually said if the think the global warming argument distracts from all the other environmental damages fossil fuels do, id be interested.

TheFunPolice wrote on Apr 18^th, 2018 at 5:15pm:


And yet they sit down a watch them

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 2^nd, 2018 at 6:35am:


Ain't stats wonderful.  Nothing to do with the real world.

PM2.5? Guess what folks terpenes, those lovely things that give the Blue Mountains their name? They are about  PM 2.5. Damn another neighbourhood cleanup. Do what the EPA in the States wanted to do ban anything PM2.5 or less across state boundaries. Yeah, that should work.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 8:09am:



You really are a dill; aren't you? Continually distort what was said. I am guessing you are school age from your level of "sophisticated" argument.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 3^rd, 2018 at 8:09am:



You also don't understand statistics. Do you really think they do post mortems and say "this one died of pollution"?

All those millions that have died of pollution and yet the average age, in China, is on a par with or even better than the States.

You do know how they work out average age of death? Put all deaths and ages into a database and then average. Seems reasonable.

Now how do they work out the deaths due to pollution?

"For the first time, this study has produced a model that links the UK energy system model used by the government and the Climate Change Committee with a sophisticated chemical-transport model for air quality. We then used the resulting concentrations to estimate health impacts and the differential exposures in socioeconomic classes"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30067-6/fullt...


"In one of the most extensive reports of its kind, environmental health experts have estimated that nine million premature deaths worldwide—16% of all deaths—were linked to pollution in 2015, with the majority of deaths coming from air pollution.

The new study, published in the journal The Lancet "

http://time.com/4989641/water-air-pollution-deaths/

"Particularly worrying, the agency added, was that more than 40 per cent of the global population still does not have access to clean cooking fuels and technologies in their homes.

The use of dirty cooking fuel, like burning charcoal, is a major source of household air pollution, which is estimated to cause some 3.8 million premature deaths each year."

https://gulfnews.com/leisure/health/nine-out-of-10-people-breathing-polluted-air...

Now which countries are most affected? Those without "clean cooking fuels and technologies". Like gas or electric stoves.

Burning unventilated coal and biomass.

And you want to save people from themselves by using intermittent power. That may or may not be there when people want to cook, warm their accommodation.

You want to put them on already scarce land that currently feeds them.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 5^th, 2018 at 7:38am:



You are the one keeps banging on about renewables.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 7^th, 2018 at 6:38am:


Deforestion of the amazon is of particular concern to me,,

Jovial Monk wrote on May 7^th, 2018 at 6:40pm:


Very good Monk ,we shall teach you a couple of new words tomorrow 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180413093529.htm

Even the briefest increase in airborne fine particulate matter PM2.5, pollution-causing particles that are about 3 percent of the diameter of human hair, is associated with the development of acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) in young children, according to newly published research.
Increases in PM2.5 levels also led to increased doctor visits for these lung infections.
The groundbreaking study, "Short-Term Elevation of Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Acute Lower Respiratory Infection," is the largest to date on this health concern, involving more than 100,000 patients

Long as fossil fuels are around this will happen.

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2018 at 1:19pm:

Wow lee 

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 7^th, 2018 at 6:38am:

Calm down take a bex and stop spreading alarmist claptrap then.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/05/work-home-cut-car-pollution-deaths-o...

The study examined the health costs of air pollution, concluding that emissions from cars and vans are costing almost £6 billion year in damage - most of it due to diesel vehicles.
The research concludes that more than 10,000 premature deaths a year are being caused by pollutants from cars, such as nitrogen dioxide.
Nearly 90 per cent of all the health costs associated with pollution from cars and vans is down to diesel vehicles.
The authors of the report called for radical changes in lifestyles, even if that meant being confined to the home.
They said the “inconvenient truth” was that individuals needed to do more to reduce reliance on cars, and should stay at home more if they could not find a “cleaner travel mode”.
“Options you can do today include tele-shopping, tele-working, tele-conferencing or tele-socialising,” the study recommends.
Overall, around 40,000 premature deaths a year have been linked to all forms of air pollution.

Chris Large from charity Global Action Plan said: “Swapping one in four car journeys in urban areas for walking or cycling could save over £1.1 billion in health damage costs per year. Switching 1 million cars from diesel to electric would save more than £360 million per year in health costs from local air pollution.”

Wow that's 2 billion AUD and just walking and cycling, basically getting out of the car and exercising.
Ohh wait its just speculation....... all those ppl getting sick and dying but its all speculation.... dam those scientists working out fossil fuel emissions have a link to ppl dying.....how dare they 
hhmm I wonder why there r no reports on How good Fossil fuels are for the human body. how they extend life or the smog clouds in big cities help ppl.....

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 20^th, 2018 at 10:07am:



Was this another one of those statistical surveys?

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 20^th, 2018 at 10:07am:


You mean those fossil fuels that deliver your food to the shops? They don't extend life? Oh dear.

I wonder when you are going to start walking; to save us all?

lee wrote on Jun 20^th, 2018 at 11:06am:



I ride.

Club of Rome again