The Environment Thread

Shoot.

Or post up any handy tips for being more environmentally responsible.

In recent news, a promising new coalition between peak bodies, organisational and community groups has been created this week to address the water issue/debate. They want to lobby the government (state and federal) to stop the de-sal project.

I agree there are better, sustainable directions to go with this. In light of all policy directives;i.e. employment, financial, environmental, families and communities - governments should be aiming for sustainable infrastructure and resource management anyway!

I spent today cutting down trees.

Mother nature lost at least 30 of her children today thanks to me & mr chainsaw.

 

Give ya'self a pat on the back! (if you haven't already).

Were they too close to your house or something?

 
If you want to save about $40 a quarter on your electricity bill, for example, anything you need to "defrost" in the microwave, put it from the freezer, to the fridge the night before. If you are happy with freezing your loaves of bread/crumpets etc, take the slices out as you need them, and let them "sit" on your plate for a minute or two, rather than chucking them straight in the toaster on full. Boil only the water you need in a kettle, etc etc etc...

the thread's a good idea Cinnamon Girl

gives noddy a chance to show how cool he really is

What argument is there against desalination? We've screwed up the river system and the 'natural' (ie. artificial man made dams) water collections methods so much that it'd be impossible to just fix it overnight.

I'm completely for desalination as an approach towards our water problems. What concerns me is what energy is used to power it, since the plants apparently need a lot of electricity.

Ideally we'd build solar, geothermal, or wind powered systems to run desalination plans. That'd work fine with me. Hooking them up to our existing coal powered electricity grid is not a good idea though...

What about the brine solution that gets pumped back to sea? 

Im happy the plant went in at pt Stanvak (sp?) not outer harbour as originally proposed.  The brine would've had much greater detriment there. 

It doesn't produce the amount of water it needs for the amount of energy put in. The plants are generally so far away from where water is needed the cost to pump it outweighs other options like dams and rain/storm/waste water recovery (ie: better water management)

I don't get why so many people are against using recycled waste water - where the fuck do people think waste goes? Into the sea, you fucking idiots! 

What about it? There are going to be side effects with any solution. At the end of the day it's about choosing the least bad option. The choices are just getting harder and harder as the options are reduced, simply because every day of inaction is another day of damage to the natural systems we've destroyed.


Who measures that though? (the energy put in vs water that comes out). With better energy sources (more renewables) we could ideally come to a point where it was worthwhile.

As far as where the parts are and pumping goes, I don't see how this is a valid point. Sure, ideally we'd rely on gravity and gravity alone for all our water systems, but it just can't go on the way it is now. Anything is worth a try at this point, so why not build plants at places like Port Stanvac?

And yes I agree with your point about using recycled waste water. The first step to reducing the problem would be to take more action on water waste, especially considering the outlay required for any other bigger solutions like desalination.

The people putting the money in to build it.

What's the point in building a huge plant that is intensive on carbon production if you're just going to be whacked with a carbon tax in two years time?


With better renewable energy we can run cars of salt water and starships with dark matter. The issue is when will we reach that point? Again, if you're pouring millions of dollars into a project, and it increases the usable water by only 10% or 20% but fucks up carbon outputs and increases energy output, is there any reason to do it when there are better practices that offer proven results?

Australia has to face some hard facts about water - we're using more water than is being produced through whatever methods, and building more dams and desalination plants and pipelines is just a bandaid. We need to change our water use habits and not just having fewer showers and planting drought resistant plants in the garden. Domestic usage of water is relatively small and relatively stable.

It's agricultural demands which keep going up and we need to address that.

Do we really need to produce so much wine, cotton, rice, feedstock when they main reason we do is not for consumption but for export?

on the ABC a few months ago there was a special which looked at Japan's trade deal with Australia - they import rice at it sits in sheds being eaten by rats. It won't sell on Japanese shelves because it's crap compared to Japanese rice, it can't be used for ethanol production because it's not the right grade, and it can't be given/sold to poor countries for some reason I can't remember...

But Australia has it's money so doesn't care.

Of course, you can't say anything negative about agricultural practices in Australia, otherwise you're a communist and a traitor.

How can the view of the people putting the money in be unbiased in this matter? Of course they're going to say that, they don't want to spend the money.

Read my posts again, I thought I made it clear in my first post on the topic of desalination that I am really only for it if it is powered by renewable energy.


I think we need a mix of the more obvious practices which you have brought up, but an ongoing open attitude towards new technology which could help us significantly when it comes to reducing our impact on the environment.


I completely agree with you. It's our agricultural industry (which is a tiny part of the economy) which is doing the most damage to the country. There are so many areas of the industry which should never have begun where they did.


I agree again, and it is tragic to think that this attitude towards supporting the agricultural industry has become so ingrained into the Australian (political and cultural) mindset that the raw truth is being pushed into the background.

This is my view: If the Federal Government was really serious about helping the MDB, they'd go and over ride the states control of "their parts" of the river system and water usage rights, buy out all of the big agricultural companies/businesses water licenses, and put a program in place to help the many communities which still rely solely on the agricultural industry. It'd be like tearing apart a bees nest for the Nationals and would certainly piss off a lot of people, but like you say we just have to face some hard facts about water on this continent.

The reality is that agriculture, while a big part of our exports, is only a tiny proportion of the economy as a whole, on the other hand agricultural water usage is well over half of the total water consumption on this continent. It just doesn't make sense to pander to an industry which will squeeze every last drop out of the system until it completely collapses.

I think the situation with the whole MDB is going to get worse before it gets better.

if you place your rubish on something about ground level(say, a fence pole) it's not really littering

they should give it to liam for cooking his chicken! 

Fine I get it, no one gives a shit about the fish (& marine environment)...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but won't the desal plant essentially destroy many of the natural reefs around that area? Possibly even down to Noarlunga?


Also on the subject of the Murray and Lower Lakes, does anyone know where I can obtain scientific research papers in regards to the tests done and the governments decision? I'd like to find out more but it's quite hard to find unbiased information on it all.

I drove past Clayton the other day to watch the sandbar (sorry, regulator) being built. Probably one of the saddest things I've ever seen to see something like this happening in the area I've grown up in. From what I've heard it's going to be the best thing to do for now, I just find it sad that it actually had to come to this. The way most of this has been handled is pathetic. It also seems that the people with the money (the boaties in Goolwa) have won the government over.

I must say I have to commend Kym McHugh (local Mayor) for handling it all so well. Did a pretty good job for a local dairy farmer.

Yup, dunno bout Noarlunga though, depends on the direction of currents and how quickly the brine is dispersed. 

Yeah that sandbar has been handled shockingly. 

Natho - maybe try here: http://www.publish.csiro.au/

what irritates me with this and the federal governments attitude to water and energy is that there is very little incentive for people to try and do things on the micro level.

we're wanting to spend over $10K putting in a 13,600L underground rain tanks, fully plumbed to our house, maximum water saving features etc to reduce our water consumption by about 80% of a normal house, but you can bet we'll still have to pay some fucking stupid desal plant levy.

SA health department also wont allow us to do a lot of things re treating our waste water and using it for irrigation, that you can easily do in other (higher rainfall) states, so we then also cant disconnect from sewer and have to pay the connection fees, yet putting out about 1/3 as much into the system.

i want more 'user pays' dammit

Scientists from around the world recently converged in Adel to raise awareness and their concerns about the rare Cuttle (sp?) fish population which ONLY LIVES near the PT. Stanvac de-sal site... And yeah, the reef and vegetation system they thrive on.

You're so right wing.

 

 

When I read Jayar's post I just KNEW that something like your post would come soon after.

THIS!!!

Just quietly, because Queenslander's brains are inferior. 

I feel my blood raging as much as storm water rages to it's terrible waste down the drain... Catchments FTW too!

Pump the brine into lake eyre! thats just a salty mud pool!

I don't get the issue with run off and recycled water cant we use both and yet we dont and the first thing we throw money at is desal?
I think destroying the ocean should be our last resort. cause lets face it were going to fuck up the first few goes at it!

Hi Natho the lower lakes project is within DEH

Here is the link to the projects site- there is plenty of info there & you may be able to get hold of some impact statements. I would recommend emailing a proect officer there too if you have some queries. Alot of experts are working in this project and this will be the best way of you getting answers to these queries. http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/cllmm/

Another way you are able to find out info is by writing to the Minister for Environment and conservation- your questions will filter down the department to the appropriate responsible officer in charge of looking after the issues you want answered.


bahahaha i.e. a beer bottle

For once we agree Melvin  

Desal isnt new and it wont ruin the ocean on a wide scale.  I just think we couldve worked a little harder to come up with a better solution.  IMO it is a quick solution that was hurried by the government because they have no forward planning abilities.  

brine  
It's just laziness. That salt can be used for so many things that won't re-pollute the water cycle.
one example http://cdt-global.com/project.aspx?id=4
another example, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1496029.html
and another, http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2560004
and another, http://www.springerlink.com/content/gw41m105t8j42wh1/
and another http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/molten_salt_as.php
And this, promising... http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/radioprogrammes/earthbeat/090423-blue-energy-green-mc-redirected
The Council House in Melbs uses a saline solution in their air cooling chambers. They pump room temp water into them and the saline solution (encased in sealed Aluminum spheres) freezes at that temp , changing the temp of the chamber and emitting colder air at the end.
Anyway, this link has interesting stuff, re: MDB and all the proposals been offered etc.
http://www.nationbuilder.com.au/assets/States/SA/Default.html

But because no Government had made this type of thing ( making it a closed loop cycle, re-using EVERYTHING that was needed to achieve the ends in the first place) mandatory in the proposal/approval/implementation process, it's up to the public to slap the government down until they realise it's what WE want...
And I'm pretty sure, salt would be able to be used for building materials and such. If it's rendered to a innate/dormant state. The waste from De-sal, if it WAS all powered by RE, would close the loop somewhat. These ding-a-lings just need to think about shit a bit more. As Oli said, they got all the band-aid solutions to a problem, but nothing totally unique and something to be truly proud of as a human being. It can be done, the only thing stopping it is crappo politikin'... It ain't all about whips and chicken heads

Dont get me wrong, I do think that people should be concerned with the new SA Water Pt. Stanvac plant..... however after reading this thread, it appears that people have forgotten that there will be TWO desal plants.

The desal plant people should actually be most concerned about (which is the most unenvironmentally friendly) is the one which is going to be built for the BHP Olympic Dam mining site. I guess however, most of the public just see what they see in the news and in the media and because it isnt highlighted as much, the community dont place as much attention on it. Slips under the radar.

All the hoo-haa about the Pt.Stanvac plant is exactly what the government wants- distracts the public with what is actually happening up north. From what I have heard the Olympic dam project is a disgrace to our environment.

Yeah the Olympic dam one was the major cuttlefish destroyer wasn't it.

Cheers for the link as well. I have to do a field study at uni this semester, so might try and do it on this.

that one got canned a few weeks ago i believe.

desal = big government project to make themselves look like they are doing something about the problem
(even if it is the most expensive, provides least water and is the most environmentally damaging of all the options)

 

Yeah, similarly to what they are spinning about health, law and order!

Julian, what you were saying about the Agricultural industry is something that is being looked into. I am going to the Aussie grain trade conference on monday, which is run by the governing body for all Australian grains, oilseeds and pulses, import, export, ex-farm, delivered to silo etc etc etc.
There are a few seminars on the environment and outcomes for various commodities. At the moment there is a massive wave towards more eco-friendly methods as the growers and most people involved within this industry have realised that they need to sustain their land and refine their methods in order to have a future. This includes cotton farmers changing to other crops, those with heavy water consumption trying to find other way to water and so on. But this conference isn't only for farmers. Indeed it's mostly people from agricultural companies such as AWB, ABB, grain packers, trucking companies, export companies, brokers etc who will be going, who then can influence the ground level growers.

Oh yeah, I realise lots of farmers are working environmentally sound and water conservatively... they have to, to survive!

And there have been some huge improvements to farming methods over the last 10-20 years which probably have seen Australia survive one of the worst droughts in history with less impact than if they were to have done nothing.

But my point was that there are so many farmers and produce - most of which is being traded due to trade deals and not actually part of proper economic supply and demand.

I realise Australia is a primary industry export country, but our first concern should be ourselves and our environment, not trade schemes which we have little say in making and applying where the goods produced are left sitting in store rooms to rot.

If it was proper supply and demand farmers would be a lot better off than they are. As long as a major comapny controls supply and demand the concept is thrown all out of whack.

Cut down a heap more trees today.

Although one fell on me and now I have a huge gash on my arm so that should keep you greenies happy.

Trees fighting back! If only the fuckin whales would do that things would be sweet!

Whales are useless animals arent they?

They're big enough to protect themselves and if they don't they deserve to be sushi.

Dunno if they could defend themselves but they could definately put up a better fight than the whining they do now. 
Some full Moby Dick anger is what I wanna see!

Can you clarify this gibberish? I'm sure it doesn't read as it is supposed to read


Someone has been messing with the idea balls in your tank, this has less relation to reality than usual. How exactly does a major company control supply and demand? Especially demand? Still, being that we are vaguely in the realm of a competitive market, and you are talking about an area of that market that is relatively well saturated, how the fuck does a major company control supply? They aren't just purdy words, they actually mean something.

If it was supposed to read as a shot at corporatism, with Big Ag. in bed with Big State, sending incorrect signals to the market through unnecessary legislation that squeezes the smaller producers out of the market, then I am on board; but it takes a lot of bending of syntax to arrive at that inference.

Ha haaha This is more aggressive than usual Pseud's do you have a vested interest?

I think supply and demand are controlled in various ways where agriculture is concerned.  I think a supermarket definitely controls  demand. They do this by price control.  Elevating and dropping prices changes levels of demand regardless of supply. 

  You implied that they control it in such a way that it throws the concept out of whack. Which would mean sending dirty signals to the market. If, in fact, there is any meaning to be taken from your original post. Supermarkets changing the price of a good does not effect the natural demand for the good at that particular price. You will also find that supermarkets generally price at the most profitable price according to supply and demand estimations, if they do not, they leave themselves open to being beaten by competitors. None of this is unnatural so far, so you haven't answered my question, or you meant something else with your original post.

You will find the most common problem with getting a real price is that Big Ag. usually lobby for regulations and taxes that keep other suppliers overheads too high for them to exert any pressure on, or in some cases even enter, the market, which does in fact unnaturally control prices, and send incorrect signals to the market. It is a shame you didn't mean that.

surely supermarkets controlling the availability and price to the population has the same effect at the supply end?
My point is more if supply and demand were in natural effect the people who supplied the product would benefit alot more than they are.

You haven't shown how they are unnaturally controlled! If a perfectly constructed supply and demand chart shows that a certain demand will exist at a particular 'less than optimal' price and a supermarket chooses to sell at that particular 'less than optimal' price, and the perfectly predicted demand does in fact exist at that particular price, how is the concept "out of whack"?

 I'm still not sure why this supermarket is selling at a less profitable price anyway; I wonder whether they will change their business model when they don't profit as highly as their strongest competitor at the end of the quarter. I wonder if they will have issues when suppliers are happier to deal with Optimal Markets Inc. in the future.

I have given you a reason why SOME agriculturalists don't profit as highly as they could, and it accurately reflects reality.

I do agree with your basic point that if supermarkets screwed up their prices it would effect everybody in that area of the market negatively, but that doesn't throw the concept of supply and demand "out of whack", it just highlights the importance of paying attention to the perfectly salient concept; and the wonder of a proper free market with well managed companies.

I never said they'd sell for less than optimal but by selling for more than its worth and by how much changes the items value. The carrot they paid 8 cents for could potentially be sold for anywhere from 20 cents to a buck! Maybe my view of what supply and demand is is out of whack here and thats what you seem to be having an issue with

So you are saying that they are selling for higher than optimal? No matter, Optimal Markets Inc. will learn of this madness, sell for less, make more profit, and everybody will be happy again. Once this happens your oddly irrational supermarket will look quite ridiculous, selling above the market price just to piss consumers off. Either way, they still aren't throwing the concept of Supply and Demand out of whack by using a faulty business model.

I believe your view of Supply and Demand may be out of whack here.

Japan don't want rice. They make enough for themselves, and are fucking snobby anyway and don't like the taste of foreign rice. But they're forced to import it because of the trade deals done the 80s, I think, could be earlier... The trade deal was something to do with Japan's main export being technology that countries like Australia and the US want, but we don't actually have much they want to import, at least on similar scales.

I saw it a while ago, and it was on the ABC, so probably just communistic propaganda. I'm trying to find the show I saw it on. It was either Landline or Stateline or 730 Report or maybe 4 Corners, but I'm having trouble. I'm astounded at how many stories the ABC has done on rice! I never knew it was such a hot topic!

But it makes sense - why DO we export rice to Japan?

Also, somehow the fact Japan protects it's rice farmers is also tied up with all this...

But here's a big long wordy essay to occupy your time until I find the fucking thing...

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Japan+still+the+top+customer+for+U.S.+farm+products.-a013600273

Oh...In that case, my complaint is more to do with the "most of which" part of your post then, as it seems like extreme, argument altering, hyperbole. As someone who heavily indulges in hyperbole I guess it is hypocritical to complain, but I'm alright with that. Most of which?

I am interested in the story though, as it sounds retarded, and I would love to know more. Let me know what you find, as I will be searching as well. Even the communists make salient points from time to time.



The more I consider it, the more I want clarification. Who makes stifling trade agreements that can't be broken after a few decades? Certainly ones controlling the supply of individual goods. That seems closer to Communism than a market economy anyway.

Most of our agricultural exports.

OK, that is hyperbole

Hey I can't find it, but it doesn't matter... it's a little off topic.

Fact is, I believe that we rely too much on agricultural exports in this country, and that was one example of silly decisions we are may be locked into

It's all fine and good to export our wheat to Iraq and rice to Asia for a balance of trade in accordance with GATT treaties (or not, as the case may be ), but the amount we sell is not sustainable considering the water situation in Australia.

We The Government and industry need to take a good hard look at the situation and make some hard decisions about our production and our trade. All the desalination plants in the world aren't going to help the River Systems if we keep exploiting it to the degree we are.

Because what happens when we can't produce stuff at the levels we are now? Ignoring the environmental for a moment, what happens when water gets so low that we can't produce the rice to sell to Asia as well as produce to feed ourselves - what is the trade off?

I agree J, I think processes which involve excess water usage should be outlawed in Oz. Especially when so many water conservative methods are available for almost anything. So many vineyards and fruit growers use such bad and outdated of methods to grow its ridiculous and the fact that we even grow rice or cotton in our climate is astounding.

I don't think it should be outlawed. That's extremist thinking and I'm a realist. I understand I lot of farmers do grow using environmentally sound practices, and moreover, we need to trade to make profit, and that agriculture is important in this process.

I think it should be better regulated, based on conserving water supply and not maximising profit margins for trade, it should be based on protecting our interests and not the interests of corporations or even governments (because governments are ruled in the interests of parties, not of the people of Australia).

to a point though
im still amazed whenever i go to visit my rellies around Mildura, that there are STILL open irrigation channels and plenty of overhead sprinklers (going in the middle of warm days no less).

now i know that it costs a farmer a fair amount to change that over to under-tree drip irrigation, but for fucks sake, my uncle managed to do it well over a decade ago and even my grandfather eventually only did overhead watering at night time before they changed over to drip irrigation. overhead sprinkler farmers should have a period within which they change or they lose their water licences.

there really is ZERO excuse anymore. there needs to be more both carrot and stick for these farmers.
shape up or fuck off.

Spacey, Michy and I are going to chip in for some chooks together woot woot!

Have been thinking of getting some chooks again myself. Would require cleaning out the old shed (still has chook shit in it from a good 7 years ago. Been a lot of foxes around lately as well, so a bit of proofing (or shooting) might be in order.

Just lock up their coop at night.

 Keep a close out for this guy too

 [video: www.youtube.com]

Tobias - I hope you watched the 7:30 Report tonight...

That was exactly what I was talking about, this time related to gas.

what was it about J?

I missed it. Link?

Nice, share-house rocks when everyone's on the same page.... congrats !!!

Exporting natural resources (gas) to foreign nations when
a) it raises the prices we pay for it
b) we don't have enough to share


http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2644941.htm

Something like 5% of energy produced is lost in transmission. There's a reason power sources are spread all over the country. The more you move it around the more waste you're going to have.

Last time I checked there are times where the sun is not shining on the whole continent by the way.

Highlights part of the problem right there. IMO it isn't about 'breaking even' or 'ending up ahead' financially, it's about doing your part.

Fuck I sound like a Green, never thought I would see this day.

It is about money you bloody hippy!

Seriously though. It is.

oli's right, if someone has no financial gain from it then they are far less likely to sign up.  We're on green power and that costs a little extra but I know plenty of people who wont sign up purely for the (maybe 10) dollars extra a quarter its going to cost.

Not if we're losing sooo much in transport of power!   

yep
some people always want someone else to do the work for them and complain until it happens without gettig off their fat arses themselves. (not accusing YOU of that btw! )

imo, its got to be a joint effort between the individual, government and the private sector. i feel like im doing as much as i can without it *dramatically* affecting the quality of my life or costing me too much, but even then im limited to what i can do financially and by regulations/laws.

It's OK, I admit that I want someone else to do the work for me. I've probably put on a bit of weight since we last saw one another but I'm still not really "fat". I don't really care enough to complain, I just like debating stuff online.


Joint effort between those three groups? Your sense of humour is fantastic! I love it! Good on you though.

Electricity generation today is only 30-35% efficient at best!  GAF about 5% transmission losses.  The real benefit of localised power production is that it is more than likely renewable.  The problem today is that the energy required to create the renewable unit approaches the amount of energy it will produce in its life, also that this energy is most likely from fossil fuels in the first place.  10 years we will be in a better position (IMO) for distributed power production.  

this
centralised energy generation is not necessarily more efficient by any stretch.
and 5% transmission losses? what with super conductors? arent we normally talking about 20-25% transmission loss on its own? was something along those lines from what i remember reading years ago.


yep, there is still idealism in me
no, didnt mean a joint effort as in together, just every group doing their own bit. governments are heinously inefficient, cant rely on them to do everything for us, let alone much - the individual needs to take some responsibility too.

solar cells have now been made that use 20% of the power required ( usually 40kWh per kilogram) to produce the silicon ( as the silicon cells were refined to a grade that is the same as integrated circuits , which is not necessary to produce solar power ). This significantly reduces the "total" cost, so nyahhh..

And how much is in a US Billion ? Compared to a UK or AUS Billion. I would like to see some links to pages that say de-commissioning a nuclear power plant will cost only one US billion. ( US Billion is not the same as AUS Billion )

Pebble bed reactors are the go, helium cooled, never meltdown and need less material to run.

Geothermal plants exist in Spain, India, Australia, America, China and Canada and have the potential to power at least 20-30 other nations, companies are now doing core-samples of areas that can do this. (the geothermal power actually rejuvenates after a well has been left for 50 years, so the infrastructure is also renewable) DC power cables, in the 100's of kV's, can reduce transmission losses and are the most expensive part (including up-keep) of any renewable energy system. AC transmission eats up power due to the inverter losses at the junction. So with this in mind, most appliances with motors, will probably be made in the very near future ( it's already done ) with DC motors, like fridges, washers and dryers.

Transmission losses are closer to 25% when sending centralised power down the line to other parts of the nation or world. This is a huge secret among the industry and they will deny it. Call AGL and ask them, you'll get tapped

Transmission technology has improved to allow "microwave" transmission of power across vast distances. Also solar thermal can be stored in Hydrogen gas ( which can be "removed" from the atmosphere or split from water (using the same solar thermal plant). The gas can be transported around or used as baseload supply.

that is all for now...
gotta go

By someone in melbourne! Pretty sure they shut down their customer service division in SA.

Go Origin

Pretty sure you're wrong, being that there are members of AM who work for AGL in SA....

spot on


and for the record, AGL produces more "green energy" than any of the other retailers. Yes, even Origin

Yes but do AGL send out invoices in recyclable brown paper envelopes? That is the important question.

ORLY?
maybe things have changed since i last since last audit... or maybe its a ratio or something - whatever it was, made origin pip AGL at the post

http://www.greenelectricitywatch.org.au/results.php?sort=basis&where=sa
?

LOL @ Oli

If I had a garden with a compost heap I'd probably throw my Origin invoices in there!

I know Origin actually purchase alot of their green energy

No idea of the political bent of this website, but typing "cost to decommission a nuclear power plant" into google brings up this link first, which says US $300 Million.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

The wikipedia entry has a whole range of numbers from a variety of different sources and countries, many of them falling short of your US$1 Billion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Obviously you treat simple searching in the same manner as grammar - it's there, you've obviously used it before in your life, but you chose not to use it now just to piss everyone off...

 

teh zing! wow

are you serious??

can you reference some further info on this crazy new scheme for DC transmission?  as far as i knew tesla had it pretty much sussed, i'm fascinated

edit- i keep re-reading this and i'm praying you're gonna prove that you're not crazy, what do you mean most expensive part of a 'renewable energy system'?  why the hell does DC transmission have anything to do with the means of generating the electricity in the first place?  and i'm way off the ball if we're now using geothermal to generate DC?!?!?!?!??!?!?

edit 2 - oh my god i just read the rest of your post, i think i need a tin foil hat.  can you also reference info on this practical implementation of long distance microwave transmission?

 


  Tesla obviously just wanted to shit all over the environment.

His figure was actually $40 billion, not US$1 billion. Makes his claims even more outrageous.

and unlike your pen15, people are glad you're not using it it's there (but you can't find it without a magnifying glass), you've used it before in your life, ( but weren't using it properly, or thought it was the centre of your universe)...
Anyway a proper reply to come later today... I laugh at how people enjoy provoking others to get answers to questions they're too afraid to find the answer to themselves ( not that people don't know how to get the answers, it's just they claim they're too busy, when in fact, they're just too lazy... )
Maybe you can beat me to the post and answer your own questions ?
you've got three hours before teh most embarrassing moment of your forum life   ( i'm heaps good at threats  )

1) I have no idea what you just said.

2) More importantly, I don't care.

I believe he claimed that people were too fearful and/or indolent to find answers themselves after failing to use the internet to find a simple fact that served to contradict his own beliefs. I believe psychologists commonly refer to this as transference.

I'm still trying to figure out if I've written "It costs a billion dollars to denuke a power plant" anywhere online, because that's the only way he can embarrass me...

Unless he cross-posts a throw away comment I put on this board at 5am whilst drunk onto another board about a girl I fancied...

   ahh, I forgot, it's only about causing embarrassment for people isn't it. ?! Such a waste of time,  all doing a disservice to themselves mostly though
    All I learn from that is, people are insecure enough, to make other people seem like they have problems bigger than yours ...  Is what psychologists call "projection" Pseudo Coup? Or is that also transference ? Either way, we're all "guilty" of both, but are we aware of it and why ?
   Ok, so facepalm number one unto myself for the US Billion / AUD Billion conversion mistake. It's the same, except for the exchange rate, but the long-scale is written differently  
   Facepalm number two ( again to me ), $40 billion is an oversight. However most would rather over budget, than be left short and have their nation fall into its own arse. Interesting though > http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
"Cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Weapons reactor is budgeted at 5.6 Billion dollars but may cost 2 to 3 times this much."
Misread the figure of $40 billion from here (which is the total projected (so far) amount to decommission ALL the plants ) And it does say $300 million OR MORE !! As inflation and cost of services will also rise, oh, and carbon trading
http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/decom_cost.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning Lot of money involved for a long time... think about that, it should be getting cheaper each year compared to inflation...if it's sustainable that is.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html
http://www.allbusiness.com/energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-power-power/12321919-1.html >>
"Companies are required to purchase the maximum coverage--$300 million per reactor--although critics claim that even this amount is inadequate to cover the risks."
   Decommissioning, to me, includes, deconstruction, transport, storage (for the life of the deconstructed materials) of the plant AND the mine in which the nuclear material came from, which would also be decommissioned and have the waste and tailings stored for the life of the radioactive material. Dosimeters for all
Did i mention that YOU will be paying for this via your electricity bill? And your kids will too, much much more
Anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_transmission
yes, it can be done , but what would i know   I can't even type properly !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
HVDC, read up, if you care about what you want your nation to spend it's money on.
"High voltage is used for transmission to reduce the energy lost in the resistance of the wires. For a given quantity of power transmitted, higher voltage reduces the transmission power loss."
DC and AC qzyphus ?
"HVDC systems, however, tend to be more expensive and less efficient over shorter distances than transformers. Transmission with high voltage direct current was not feasible when Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla were designing their power systems, since there was then no way to economically convert AC power to DC and back again at the necessary voltages."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current
Traditionally, all "power" is direct, then converted to AC for commercial use, so all power generating applications USUALLY start with DC  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power

so other than riffing me about my poor grammar skills ON THE COMPUTER and my mistake about $40 billion etc, what else have you got on me ?  
Is that the best you can do !!!  

now i'm off to work again... feel free to just give up and not read my post, it's "easier" that way... saves you making a tin-foil hat (ding-bats !! )

So your big reveal was citing the same sources I did.

Oh my gosh, I'm so embarrassed.

I thought Eddison was more the benefactor of Tesla's work. Thought edison was actually against Teslas work until it paid off for him. I know very little of this though.

Edison and Westinghouse were in competition with Tesla. Although Westinghouse originally supported Tesla. Tesla won the War of the Currents.

Firstly, thanks for that link on HVDC, quite interesting.

I don't even know how to respond to what I've quoted...  Not to mention the incredible relevance of your link.  

I wasn't before but I'm now convinced that you are a complete nutcase .  That's coming from someone who agrees with most of what I think you're trying to say...  Shame for the cause really.

Wasn't alot of Tesla's work opposed by Edison though?  I kinda thought Edison was 'one of the boys' and Tesla was the crazy scientist

Pretty much.  It's an interesting story, the amount of shit Tesla actually came up with while working with various other characters who took the credit is phenomenal.  He was just the crazy scientist, didn't care about making money, and heaps of people got rich off his work, his estate would probably be worth billions today if he was properly credited for all of it...

As for the Tesla/Edison thing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_currents

That's OK, your honest appraisal of my online status is welcomed and I'll glady take your comments as constructive criticism.
   This following quote is from the very link you posted below >
"The advantages of HVDC over AC systems for bulk transmission include higher power ratings for a given line (important since * installing new lines and even upgrading old ones is extremely expensive) ( third-eye edit < *That's a little something called FORESIGHT, not enough of it around these days !! ) and better control of power flows, especially in transient and emergency conditions that can often lead to blackouts. Many modern plants now use HVDC as an alternative to AC systems for long distance, high load transmission, especially in rapidly developing countries such as China, India and Brazil."
   So, I still don't see what you're trying to get at here. You seem confused as to how DC Electricity Generation is any part of Electricity Generation at all, is that right ?
   And a Renewable Energy System is a Renewable Energy System. Just like a Grey Water Recycling System is a Grey Water Recycling System ? Renewable Energy is often collected far away from a civilization ( well, at least 50km or more sometimes ).
    So building the transmission network ( hopefully HVDC, especially in the case of Geothermal, which is why I put the link below my comment, which you re-quoted) in the most *cost-effective manner ( *high quality infrastructure with low maintenance and future up keep ) would be greatly appreciated by any tax payer I would presume!!
   Check how wind turbine farms achieve this (AC>DC>AC Conversion) http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/indirect.htm All with advantages and disadvantages of course.
   So yes, I do see what your saying, sort of, but hydro-electric power, for example, is fed from a direct current, of water Geothermal is fed from a direct current, of "superheated" fluid (in a closed loop). Solar electricity is fed from a direct current, of sunlight
   I was thinking more along the lines of electricity in its natural form or state, which is DC. Don't let my confusion of my own thoughts and observations confuse you, which I think is what's happening to most other people, who read my typed thoughts or observations.
The funny thing is, You actually thought it was a big reveal ??!! That's what's embarrassing, to all of us... Even going as far as putting words in my mouth, perhaps ? So what if I did what everyone does anyway ! Which is read things too fast and misquoting the info, in my case misquoting $40 Billion. Isn't it "ironic" that the figure I listed ( BEFORE I actually looked for it on the web ) is still "correct" but not for a single decommission, for all nuclear plants in a certain country (which is still an underestimated amount in any case, quoted from the 1970's -1980's no doubt ) If someone else was "guilty" of that, I would have posted the correct observation, instead of slandering, Anyway that's why were all individuals ( i hope !! )

Just because you're completely shit at this whole internet thing, doesn't mean I don't love you Benny...

Please do!

Meanwhile, due to the extent of my confusion, I'd like to clarify a few things before we go on...


Can you clarify what you're trying to say here?  It seems like you're saying...

1) DC power cables are the most expensive part of any renewable energy system
... Is this really what you mean?  If so, why use DC cables?  Or, are you saying DC or AC, transmission lines are the most expensive part?

2) AC transmission eats up power due to the inverter loss
... Sure.  I believe there are losses involved with any conversion.  I presume you're suggesting that for certain scenarios, DC transmission is more efficient.  Are you talking about the example of long distance transmission from remote generator sites to grid?  If so, can you provide some example of the maths involved and the extent of savings?

3) We'd be better off running DC appliances.
... OK.  Presumably this means you think we should convert the power grid to DC.  Here's where I start to furrow my brow a bit more intently.  I see the advantages of long distance HVDC lines from remote generator sites.  This bit I don't really get.  Can you explain a bit better?

Let's see if we can get ourselves on the same page and go from there...

99% of electricity junction boxes don't perform AC-DC rectification so I dont know the relevance of Benny's comment.  Transformers dont convert AC to DC either.  Reading up on HVDC (never heard of it before so it was interesting) it sounds good to me, the unfortunate bit is most heavy duty electrical appliences that i think of use AC power (ie induction motors) and rectification losses may exceed the transmission gain anyway.  If HVDC were economically worthwhile here then it would already be done.  

now there's something new.

pretty much why i don't really bother with the soap box any more other than one or two threads.

I'm officially giving up now as well.

well,  
you're both a bunch of quitters then ?
quitters

anyway,
qzyphus, roost, whoever else

"Relevance" is only a momentary occurrence. Things change all the time, and technology changes all the time. I'm thinking way into the future when I'm sat on a bedpan for the last part of my 90 year old life

Yes, COST, is an issue in itself. As you may have read, "old" technology and "old" ideas are making a resurgence because of the "gaps" in innovation that have been left by the wayside. Only for a bunch of clever "out-of-the-computer-monitor" cats were realising that some of these ideas were set aside for "political" or "economic" reasons.

So, if you spend money, make sure you get REAL (long-term) value for money, HVDC does this. The losses are far less than conventional power transmission and the only reason "why it hasn't been done already" is because people in the position to make it change, think the people who want to make the change, are nutcases, see where this is going ?

Just because it ain't economically worthwhile here and now, doesn't mean it ever will be
and this thread says nothing about limiting our "discussion" to only Australia. So if you haven't been reading up about your sector and what's going on in OTHER parts of the world already... please, do yourself a favour and accumulate the knowledge ( and stop wasting your time "bagging" me )

There's no point spending your entire life researching and studying and practising to make this world a better place for all. Without realising,  you have others who are PAID to shun, ridicule and humiliate anyone who wants progress, innovation, sustainability or g#d forbid, peace.

So there's a bigger (actually it's very small) problem involved with anyone in the industry. They all think that "someone" else is taking care of it.
If anyone works in any Engineering field, for example, they should be keeping tabs on new stuff and not just within their own field, but all the ones that support it. ( Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Computational Engineering ? or is that Software Engineering  etc etc)
In short

1) yes,  they are more efficient over long distances and last longer

2) The maths has been done, got a great article in an INTERNATIONALLY distributed zine called Renewable Energy Focus. They calculate everything from mineral refinement for the cables etc, right through to maintenance costs over time, and then compared that to conventional AC Cabling, DC won. The article is now 3 years old, so many improvements to technology surrounding transformers, inverters, motors, turbines etc etc have been made.

3) If a "grid" is DC, say for example. Take a local block of land that the local community "owns" and the council gives them approval to make it a solar farm. Then the people involved can all run their appliances directly from the "panels" and DC storage ("batteries"). If you have predominately DC appliances, ( they already exist for remote sites ), then all you need is a voltage regulator (dunno the correct terminology for much stuff ! ), therefore making minimal power conversion and efficiency loss. There's places it can be done, and where it can't be done, there are other measures, is a multi-angled, multi-faceted approach. I don't get much sleep because my brain has been in overdrive about all this stuff for the last, oh, ten years or more ? That's why I learnt to breathe properly again, it stops me getting overexcited about the positive potential of all this stuff

IT'S ALL ABOUT ENTROPY PEOPLE !!!
Look the word up and expand it's meaning to everyday life
If we eat up all the nuclear fuel, for example, what are we gonna use if a big eff-off asteroid comes into our gravitational field ? Because we won't have the technology or money to "zoom" everybody off to another planet by then...

When people make "changes", they need to start making them with a longer path in mind. Foresight will give anyone the ability to see how one thing can affect another.
If we make the right decisions now, by thinking every option through to the last point in our minds, weighing up ALL the good and bad those options have to offer, THEN we can decide what's best yeah?

Questions are good, they might make our brains hurt, but who said that's a bad thing, homer simpson,?

happy to be called a quitter if you're happy to be called uncomprehensible and unwilling to listen to other's subjective criticism.

 

That's it. I quit as well.

Goodbye soap box, it was nice knowing you.

Ravers are destroying the planet!

Sure whipits (aka bulbies) are fun, but now nitrous is destroying a lot more than your brain cells. A study published today in Science proves it is the leading cause of ozone layer destruction in the twenty-first century.

Back in the good old days, kids inhaled nitrous oxide out of whip cream canisters without a care in the world. But, according to geochemist A.R. Ravishankara, "manmade nitrous oxide is now the elephant in the room among ozone-depleting substances." It causes more ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere than any other form of emission - and according to the atmospheric models created by Ravishankara and his team, the gas is likely to linger in the atmosphere for the rest of the century.

According to their study, nitrous oxide is dangerous because it comes from natural sources as well as human-made ones:

    Nitrous oxide is emitted from livestock manure, sewage treatment, combustion and certain other industrial processes. Dentists use it as a sedative (so-called "laughing gas"). In nature, bacteria in soil and the oceans break down nitrogen-containing compounds, releasing nitrous oxide. About one-third of global nitrous oxide emissions are from human activities. Nitrous oxide, like chlorofluorocarbons, is stable when emitted at ground level, but breaks down when it reaches the stratosphere to form other gases, called nitrogen oxides, that trigger ozone-destroying reactions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1176985

So now you know. Every hit you take on that nitrous cracker is killing the Earth.

http://io9.com/5347328/nitrous-oxide-is-destroying-the-earth

Nos balloons: The sustainable choice.

What I want to know is who the fuck does bulbies anymore anyway?

So 90's.

Ravers do ! That's why they're ravers, cause they're stuck in the 90's

Yeah I know, stating the obvious, in an over reactive manner

The 20% RET is a good thing by the way ( back onto environment stuff ), this will help people in other "ailing" industries to make the switch to a new career. Many of the current jobs that could go, are done by people with the skills to actually shift the economy's focus toward a sustainable way of going about things. Promising stuff,  

90's or not bulbies are still king.

Especially with the standard of pills these days. Need all the help you can get to make them work.

Thought you were leaving this thread?

After the T4 comment, and now this, my faith in you has vanished.

YOU WERE MY ROCK!

I blame the increase of hot little sports cars.  Twin turbo, nos boost things

You have a point there.

I was sitting on the toilet this morning..... just having a quiet think, wondering, is it actually the lols these days? Are they really that pathetic???... or is it just that I have no serotonin left?

 

great mental picture, thanks for that

No worries

Best place for contemplation IMO 

Latest issue of New scientist, love to get people's opinions on this article, that's what it's for actually !!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327241.000-climate-change-no-eden-no-apocalypse.html?page=1
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327241.000-climate-change-no-eden-no-apocalypse.html?page=2
"...a modernist reading of climate may once have regarded it as merely a physical condition for human action, we must now come to terms with climate change operating simultaneously as an overlying, but more fluid, imaginative condition of human existence."
Mike Hulme

check what he says about the four myths... nail on the head in my opinion... the mid-set being the most domineering thing about any shift in change...