The MASM Forum
General => The Colosseum => Topic started by: hutch-- on May 21, 2022, 04:06:56 PM
-
Went down this morning to have a look at how long the que was and as it went just about around the block so I went home and decided to come back in the middle afternoon. Lobbed at about 3PM to find the que had shifted and was stuck waiting for just on an hour. The normal polling booth I used to use was no longer used, penny pinching bastards, and everyone was forced to wait, sometimes in the rain to vote.
I hope the lousy bastards in office get R_SOULED out the door. We will know later tonight if the result in not really close.
-
Seems our illustrious Prime Minister DID get R_SOULED. :tongue:
-
Anthony Albanese has promised a change of course on climate policy after his Labor Party's victory in the general election. "We can seize the opportunity to make Australia a renewable energy superpower," Albanese said on Saturday night
If you have some spare money, invest in shares of a company that specialises in photovoltaics, or electric vehicles. Have a look at the steep red line, and afterwards at the map of Australia :cool:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png)
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Barr/publication/279304969/figure/fig1/AS:294326790836224@1447184383255/Climate-zones-and-the-location-of-the-most-populous-cities-within-Australia-The-map-was_W640.jpg)
June 22, 2021 (https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Jun/Majority-of-New-Renewables-Undercut-Cheapest-Fossil-Fuel-on-Cost) – The share of renewable energy that achieved lower costs than the most competitive fossil fuel option doubled in 2020, a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) shows. 162 gigawatts (GW) or 62 per cent of total renewable power generation added last year had lower costs than the cheapest new fossil fuel option.
-
One thing that is missed, OZ has massive amounts of uranium and modern nuclear is much cleaner and much safer than the old junk like Chernobol and Fukushima. You don't have to design clapped out, leaky and unreliable technology from the 1950s. Renewables are great as long as the sun shines, the wind blows but if you want base load power and don't want dirty old coal (we have plenty of that too) then clean modern nuclear is the way to go.
Batteries are getting better but they are a long way from being able to provide base load power in conjunction with renewables.
-
Your "clean nuclear" costs at least 3x more, per actually produced kWh, than the equivalent amount of wind or solar energy. It's a thing of the past. The only reason why some people are still talking about nuclear is that every single plant is an incredible source of income. To be paid by the gullible taxpayer, of course :badgrin:
BBC on Albanese (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61539426)
-
If you imposed the same cost structures on other energy systems, their cost would go up as well. Of course they are expensive to build the old way but the French did it right and they have had no meltdowns but the new technology is smaller, modular and much cheaper and safer as its not based on 1950s technology. Any technology will be crippled if it is attacked financially and subject to massive delays and ongoing costs. Turn off the coal and nuclear in countries that depend on it and you will see the level of renewable support dwindle as people go cold.
-
Batteries are getting better but they are a long way from being able to provide base load power in conjunction with renewables.
Why don't produce kinda voyager probes electric power with all uranium?
Like a battery that last a life time
Radiation particles charge outer shell electric
Must be much easier to produce than full-size nuclear power plants
Was the change in power better or worse?
-
Batteries are getting better but they are a long way from being able to provide base load power in conjunction with renewables.
Why don't produce kinda voyager probes electric power with all uranium?
Like a battery that last a life time
Radiation particles charge outer shell electric
Must be much easier to produce than full-size nuclear power plants
Was the change in power better or worse?
I heard (rumour) that 'diamond' batteries are around the corner, with a 28,000 year lifespan - Yes, you read that right.
I'm curious as ever.. we'll see. :skrewy:
-
Hi Van,
They look great but the current output is very low, fine for some electronic equipment but it won't run a car, not even vaguely enough power.
-
it won't run a car
It depends (https://www.bridgestone.com/bwsc/) :cool:
-
JJ,
They are just solar powered cars, a diamond battery uses nuclear waste as its power source but the current is very low.
-
Batteries are getting better but they are a long way from being able to provide base load power in conjunction with renewables.
Why don't produce kinda voyager probes electric power with all uranium?
Like a battery that last a life time
Radiation particles charge outer shell electric
Must be much easier to produce than full-size nuclear power plants
Was the change in power better or worse?
I heard (rumour) that 'diamond' batteries are around the corner, with a 28,000 year lifespan - Yes, you read that right.
I'm curious as ever.. we'll see. :skrewy:
Hi Van
sound more like the battery for make reality of the dream of transfer your mind into a robot which has 28,000 year lifespan,eternity compared to humans fraqile body ca 100 years and many times the last years brain gets disorders etc so it doesnt function like it was at productive age