Australian Politics Forum - Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21507
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #15 - Aug 8^th, 2022 at 1:36pm

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 8^th, 2022 at 3:37am:

It receives funding from the fossil fuel industry, and has accepted
financial donations from organisations in that sector such as the American
Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, the American Energy Alliance, and ExxonMobil.

And how many of them have their hands on renewables?

https://theconversation.com/who-benefits-from-renewable-energy-subsidies-in-texa...

https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.html

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-renewable-energy/

Back to top

IP Logged

AusGeoff

Gold Member

Offline

Sage of Gippsland

Posts: 6025
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #16 - Aug 9^th, 2022 at 4:57am

The wind turbine rotating gracefully on the ridge line has long been the iconic
image of carbon free, renewable power. But on the horizon (just beyond that
ridge) is a problem that could put a sizeable dent in the wind industry’s clean,
sleek image. By 2050, it’s estimated that 43 million tonnes of decommissioned
turbine blades will reach their end of life and need to be managed through the
global waste stream.

Explainer: What happens to old wind turbines?

Like a couple of others here, I favour nuclear, but I can't see it ever taking off
in Australia due to its poor—but undeserved—bad image.

Nuclear power is already one of the most efficient types of energy available today.
An average capacity factor of 90% beats other energy forms by a substantial margin.
Natural gas produces an average of 50% while coal produces energy at 45%. Wind
power operates with a poor 32% efficiency. Nuclear power offers a number of
benefits to consumers, but first and foremost is its high efficiency rating.

Back to top

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20837
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #17 - Aug 9^th, 2022 at 11:53pm

whiteknight wrote on Aug 6^th, 2022 at 6:48am:

Offshore wind energy locations unveiled

New Daily
Aug 5 2022

Energy Minister Chris Bowen has flagged six possible locations for offshore wind energy as the government looks to increase the amount of renewables in the grid.

Offshore wind is a stupid idea.

We don't have any boats capable of installing these bird choppers so we can add the cost of building a few ships to the bill.

If the weather is anything other than dead calm maintaining them will have to wait for a nice day.

Since we don't have any electric boats capable of doing anything with these bird choppers they will be diesel powered. With the large ships required to instal and maintain them the diesel bill wil be enormous.

Putting them on the coast is the best option we can start putting them in the electorates that voted for TEALS.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

AusGeoff

Gold Member

Offline

Sage of Gippsland

Posts: 6025
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #18 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:32am

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 9^th, 2022 at 11:53pm:

...Offshore wind is a stupid idea.

I have to disagree that offshore wind is "stupid". Unfortunately it's
probably the best green energy solution we have, considering there's
no way the tree-huggers would ever okay nuclear power stations—
despite nuclear being not only cleaner than coal or gas, but also its
90% efficiency rating, versus wind's 35% efficiency.

Personally, I favour nuclear, but considering the opposition by the wider
public who're not technically educated, I can't see it ever happening.

Back to top

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20837
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #19 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 9:03am

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:32am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 9^th, 2022 at 11:53pm:

...Offshore wind is a stupid idea.

I have to disagree that offshore wind is "stupid". Unfortunately it's
probably the best green energy solution we have, considering there's
no way the tree-huggers would ever okay nuclear power stations—
despite nuclear being not only cleaner than coal or gas, but also its
90% efficiency rating, versus wind's 35% efficiency.

Personally, I favour nuclear, but considering the opposition by the wider
public who're not technically educated, I can't see it ever happening.

Putting it offshore is stupid it will more than double the cost which will then be passed on to consumers.

Put them on land on the coast quicker and cheaper to instal and maintain.

We really need nuclear or Hydro as a reliable source for when wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 121978
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #20 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 9^th, 2022 at 4:57am:

Like a couple of others here, I favour nuclear, but I can't see it ever taking off
in Australia due to its poor—but undeserved—bad image.

Nuclear power is already one of the most efficient types of energy available today.
An average capacity factor of 90% beats other energy forms by a substantial margin.
Natural gas produces an average of 50% while coal produces energy at 45%. Wind
power operates with a poor 32% efficiency. Nuclear power offers a number of
benefits to consumers, but first and foremost is its high efficiency rating.

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:
Chernobyl,
Fukushima.

However - they happened.

Now - what about nuclear reactors during a time of war?
We already see a bad situation unfolding in Ukraine -
fighting around nuclear power stations. Shocked

Nuclear power stations are a huge risk from unforeseen events.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #21 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6169
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #22 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:43pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

Your fear comes from ignorance. Once you understand the way the you have been lied to and manipulated by the anti-nuclear lobby over the years you will see that there is nothing to be afraid of.

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #23 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:50pm

Belgarion wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

Your fear comes from ignorance. Once you understand the way the you have been lied to and manipulated by the anti-nuclear lobby over the years you will see that there is nothing to be afraid of.

no, my fear comes from the knowledge that neither I, nor anyone else, is able to predict the future.

Ignorance is pretending you can.

There are ALWAYS unforeseeables. ALWAYS. Especially when talking over thousands of years. No matter how knowledgeable you are or how accurate your psychic pretends to be, we are not able to predict every possible eventuality that will occur next week, let alone in a thousand years.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 121978
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #24 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:50pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

That's true:

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life    24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life       432 years
Radium 226    Half life    1,600 years
Uranium 236 Half life 15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life 80 million years
Uranium 235 Half life 704 million years
Uranium 238 half life    4.5 billion years

Back to top

IP Logged

Belgarion

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6169
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #25 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:34pm

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:50pm:

Belgarion wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

Your fear comes from ignorance. Once you understand the way the you have been lied to and manipulated by the anti-nuclear lobby over the years you will see that there is nothing to be afraid of.

no, my fear comes from the knowledge that neither I, nor anyone else, is able to predict the future.

Ignorance is pretending you can.

There are ALWAYS unforeseeables. ALWAYS. Especially when talking over thousands of years. No matter how knowledgeable you are or how accurate your psychic pretends to be, we are not able to predict every possible eventuality that will occur next week, let alone in a thousand years.

Yes, the unpredictable is always a risk. Earth might be hit by an asteroid, a pandemic may wipe out vast numbers, Aliens may invade.....and the chance of a serious issue with a nuclear reactor or its spent fuel is about as likely as any of these. ( Less so compared to a pandemic)

In 68 years of nuclear power plant operation there has been one major incident, Chernobyl, where the problem was a combination of shoddy workmanship and a system that did not allow for initiative and problem solving. The other two non- incidents beloved of the anti nuclear alarmists, Three Mile Island and Fukushima caused no radiation related deaths or injuries.

There are currently 439 nuclear power plants operating world wide, not only in countries we think of as major players in the nuclear game, but in places like Mexico, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Brazil and others.

The 'waste' problem so beloved of opponents is being solved by reprocessing. Currently around 90% of used fuel can be reprocessed and used again. The technology is improving all the time and the amount of spent fuel requiring long term storage is minimal.

There is no reason that Australia cannot take advantage of this cheap and clean source of energy.

Back to top

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20837
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #26 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:44pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

That's true:

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life    24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life       432 years
Radium 226    Half life    1,600 years
Uranium 236 Half life 15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life 80 million years
Uranium 235 Half life 704 million years
Uranium 238 half life    4.5 billion years

What is the half life of those elements when they're still in the ground before they're used? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20837
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #27 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:49pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:
Chernobyl,
Fukushima.

However - they happened.

Chernobyl was caused by human error with dodgy Russian design.

Fukishima had a design flaw with backup generator in basement for coolant pumps being drowned with Tsunami after earthquake. If they placed backup genrators higher up the plant would have survived both earthquake and Tsunami.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Bobby. Moderator Online Australian Politics Posts: 121978 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled Reply #28 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:52pm Belgarion, what about nuclear reactors during a time of war? Is Ukraine safe?
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 121978
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Offshore Wind Energy Locations Unveiled
Reply #29 - Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:54pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:29pm:

Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:

and thats the problem with nuclear.

Despite all our knowledge, we can't predict all the risks to current nuclear plants now. Imagine the futility of trying to predict and prevent the risk to materials that have to be stored for thousands of years. There will always be some new or unforeseen event or technology that will make storage of these materials risky

That's true:

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life    24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life       432 years
Radium 226    Half life    1,600 years
Uranium 236 Half life 15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life 80 million years
Uranium 235 Half life 704 million years
Uranium 238 half life    4.5 billion years

What is the half life of those elements when they're still in the ground before they're used? Roll Eyes

The same but most have decayed away in the last 4.5 billion years.
We've made them again. Embarrassed

Back to top

IP Logged