|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
non-political
« Back to club forum| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 non-political |
||
|
Brig And what about those sounds, huh? |
||
|
It has socio-economic and political implications. What is the sun's political and socio-economic implications on planet earth? Life on earth depends on sun's energy which we can use it to grow crops and plants for our consumption. After millions of years the plants and organisms deposited in the earth become fossil fuels which we burn them as fuels for our energy needs. The sun's energy makes the air, water and circulates the earth as wind and rainfall. As we already know, burning fossil fuels pollute the earth and produce global warming/climate change. Harnessing the solar power by solar panels and windmills is very costly and inefficient. It cannot provide and fulfill all of our energy needs. youtu.be If so, why don't we create miniature suns on earth? Yes, we are creating and experimenting nuclear fusion reactors all around the world for several decades, but the successful creation of holy grail fusion reactor is still elusive. It may be 2 to 3 decades away to find the solution. youtu.be World's top scientists are gathering together at France to build the first big nuclear fusion reactor, but so far there are still many technical difficulties to overcome and solve the problem after billions of dollars has been spent. Some believe that the scientists might even abandon the building of this nuclear fusion reactor. For the sake of uplifting the socio-economic condition of the masses, they should keep on doing research and doing it. Until then, there will be no sunshine (cheap energy) from miniature suns on earth. We can sign along together, "You are my sunshine, my only sunshine (from miniature suns) on earth and encourage the scientists to keep on going. |
||
|
Ace 14:06 Ace, you have NO IDEA AT ALL about the relative efficiency or costs of power generation. Twenty years ago the Conservative government of Australia commissioned an expert report on how best to provide future electricity generation needs; but being pro-fossil duels, they set the terms of reference to emphasise reliability over economy, just in case renewables were cheaper than expected. "That should clinch the case, because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow!" Their own experts came back with a Report that said renewables were still cheaper, even if excess capacity was built to provide power for pumped hydro systems that could be re-filled during times of high supply to cover dead spots. Yes, that was twenty years ago, before batteries were as cheap as they are today and when renewable technologies were less efficient! Now the Conservatives are talking about Australia building nuclear power stations. History has shown that they are even more expensive than fossil fuels, plus a damn sight more dangerous, and produce toxic residue that CAN'T be future-proofed until safe. Why do they keep arguing a transparently stupid case? Is it because they are too stubborn to admit they were wrong in the first place? Is it just fear of something different? Nah! It's because every year they manage to delay the inevitable, that's a few billion dollars more their sponsors can make out of fossil fuels. Here are some charts that will show the typical costs of various bulk generation costs... en.wikipedia.org Note that wind and solar are half the cost of coal and a third of the cost of nuclear. Gas for base-load production is comparable to renewables, but base-load means 24/7 production. That's not what the conservatives are implying when they talk about 'when the sun don't shine', so the correct comparison is gas (peak load), which is more expensive than even coal. Also, note that nuclear is not only three times as expensive, but the estimated costs are rising as history has shown that earlier estimates of construction costs and safety protocols have long been under-estimated and those costs are being revised upwards to match reality. Now you're talking about fusion power. Great idea! The only problem is, we don't have it. So sure, let's continue the research as quickly as possible. No argument there! But we have been 'ten years away' from a technology that would supply economic, industrial-scale fusion power for the last forty years. We might still be 'ten years away' in another forty years. So in the meantime let's do what we know can be done with current technology that is cheapest, is cleanest, and avoids the collateral costs that arise from Climate Change. |
||
|
Wind & Solar Harnessing wind and solar is both cheap and efficient. Some people complain about the oil required to lubricate windmills. Yes, they require oil, and even synthetic oil may require some petroleum products for its manufacture. However, lubricant isn’t being burned, and even if we DID burn waste oil for energy instead of using it to make plastics or other products—we burn three billion tons of oil per year now, all of which goes up in smoke. Meeting 120° of our current energy needs with wind exclusively reduces oil consumption by more than two billion tons per year. Where I live they have built many windmills and are building more. The payoff is about 18 months, and the revenue exceeds a wheat field’s taxed harvest. The windmills are built on the hilltops of the Palouse, the least productive soil. They are pretty, and quiet, and make a LOT of money for the farmers who rent out the land on renewable twenty year contracts, which is the windmill lifespan. Yes, we should continue trying to develop fusion, a clean energy source. But fusion will also be hideously expensive. We have been using wind power since the ancient Phoenicians first built sailing ships. Actually, I think many thousands of years before that, even, as the Australians likely arrived on their island via wind power. Bob, as usual, beat me to all the best points—and made many others I hadn’t thought of. But relying on pipe dreams like fusion when we need to combat climate change four decades ago is only a suicidal solution designed to delight old fossil fuel industry executives unlikely to live long enough to suffer the consequences the rest of us will face. As for solar, my neighbor put up a field of panels and eliminated his power bill. He gets more than enough summer credit to cover his winter cost. My power bill is about $1700 a year, and I’m sure he pays more. His panels have already paid for themselves. So where is the inefficiency? Where is the expense? One simple solution is to finance panels by leveraging your current power bill. You pay the same amount for your power until the installation and material are covered, plus a small profit. Then you pay only the difference. The typical payback is less than five years. So you have a guaranteed electric bill that doesn’t exceed your current bill, and then suddenly your payments fall a thousand dollars a year or more. Who doesn’t think an extra thousand sounds nice? Cannot think of anything you might use that money for? Fossil fuel industry executives sure can. |
||
|
|
||
|
Hypocrisy of fossil fuel producing nations. youtu.be 11,593 views Jan 4, 2024 #yahoofinance #stockmarket #youtube The United States' domestic oil production has excelled to a record high while becoming one of the biggest gas exporters. Yahoo Finance Senior Columnist Rick Newman details the state of US energy under the Biden administration while global energy markets contend with disruptions tied to Red Sea conflicts and OPEC+ production cuts. USA's oil production is at record high level of 13.5 million barrels daily. Because of fossil fuel energy independence, US is not in significant recession. I am not against solar and wind renewable energy investment but how can you prove that they are boosting the US economy? What yardstick will you use to measure the improvements? The inflation jumped to as high as 9% after Biden administration took over 3 years ago. We are paying around 20 to 50 percent more in prices on the groceries, commodities and on gas prices that our citizens are spending compared to 1.7% inflation before Biden administration took over. People are living paycheck to paycheck. More people become homeless. LS said: Bob, as usual, beat me to all the best points—and made many others I hadn’t thought of. But relying on pipe dreams like fusion when we need to combat climate change four decades ago is only a suicidal solution designed to delight old fossil fuel industry executives unlikely to live long enough to suffer the consequences the rest of us will face. I will not dispute the fact that burning of fossil fuels cause emission of global warming and climate change CO2 gas. If so, shall we slaughter the cash cow, fossil fuel production? VP Harris said, NO. She will not ban oil and gas production from fracking in USA. I am sure OZ will also echo the same thing not to ban fossil fuel production which is making a lot of profit and money for their nation. We need money from fossil fuel production to do research and invest in alternative energy sources including nuclear fusion, IMHO. Wind and solar energy can desalinate seawater into drinking water fit for human consumption but is not cheap enough to irrigate deserts and grow crops. Our world has many vast wasteland deserts Sahara in Africa, USA, Asia and in Australia. IMO, nuclear fusion will provide cheap energy to do the job of desalination of seawater for agriculture and alleviate food shortage. |
||
|
Ace You might try reading something for a change instead of standing in line to kiss tRUMP's ass. |
||
|
Ace 12:06 Do you think Australians don't know that? And most of them are very angry about it. These contracts were locked in by the previous conservative government, which repeatedly told us that "Climate Change is crap!". All the time the fossil fuel companies were paying BIG dollars to the conservative parties and running very expensive ads on T.V. Even now, after finally realising that Climate Change denial was making them look foolish, the conservatives are agreeing to zero nett emission in principle, some time in the future, but opposing anything that would be a move towards that in the short term. Their latest 'solution' is to push for nuclear, which takes the longest to build of all options and thereby keeps coal production highest for longest. Apart from the fact that no intelligent investor would stump up the capital to build an unprofitable nuclear power station, so the conservatives are now admitting that this would need to be at taxpayer expense. No wonder their representation in Parliament last election reduced them to a basketball team! Their new leader (Peter Dutton) is currently calling for no visa extensions to be issued to Palestinians who are currently here on visitor visas because of the risk to 'national security'. These visitors have ALREADY been vetted for their original visitor visas, and are being re-examined again under exactly the same process as he introduced when he was Minister for Immigration, but he doesn't respond to reminders like that. Instead, the fear card is what it's all about, and rationality is left outside. The Right is becoming a lost cause around the world. |
