Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[Val Keating]

limited spots means the biggest pockets get the slots rather than better climbers.

Are you a climber?

 

[koshari]

Are you a climber?

hell no, killi is as adventurous as i have ever been.

 

[Val Keating]

hell no, killi is as adventurous as i have ever been.

Me either. I shit myself going out on the swing stage.

 

[koshari]

Me either. I sh*t myself going out on the swing stage.

you wanna try a bosuns chair, had to repair about 20 inaccessible burnt cables on a cable riser from a bosuns chair years ago.

 

[1975]

Walsh retired.
Guaranteed Collingwood is gone, Walsh is an AFL mercenary with a massive ego (not a put down that’s what makes him so good at his job) no way he would walk on a team on the verge.

 

[Agenda 21]

This. Just because he was a fat fu** who was heavily into food and drugs, there is no correlation between that and a heart attack.

Gives new meaning to the term ''Food Junkie''.

 

[Lomas]

This. Just because he was a fat fu** who was heavily into food and drugs, there is no correlation between that and a heart attack.

Yep. Don't get me started on Elvis...

 

[Usayed Givashe]

At what point do we start selling India Uranium?

 

[StiffArm]

At what point do we start selling India Uranium?

For what?

Nuclear would have been a good option 10-15 years ago. Time has passed it by as an option. Renewables are now cheaper and much quicker to get into operation.

 

[koshari]

For what?

Nuclear would have been a good option 10-15 years ago. Time has passed it by as an option. Renewables are now cheaper and much quicker to get into operation.

What we should be selling them is coking coal and iron ore, Tata already have bought the port talbot steel works in Wales years ago,

 

[StiffArm]

I tip us to be selling them green hydrogen some time soon if our leadership has a modicum of foresight.

 

[Usayed Givashe]

For what?

Nuclear would have been a good option 10-15 years ago. Time has passed it by as an option. Renewables are now cheaper and much quicker to get into operation.

Shits and giggles, I want to see how truly pathetic they are.

Yes, I'm across alternative energy sources, thank you. For the record, we will still need firming capacity until the storage technology catches up and allows 8 or even potentially as high as 16 hour release. At the moment, 4 hours is as much as you can get.

I tip us to be selling them green hydrogen some time soon if our leadership has a modicum of foresight.

Ahhh good man.

You do know your stuff.

 

[Tas]

For what?

Nuclear would have been a good option 10-15 years ago. Time has passed it by as an option. Renewables are now cheaper and much quicker to get into operation.

I am not sure why it would be a good option 15 years ago but not now. When you factor real construction costs (not subsidised vs unsubsidised) and you compare costs over the lifetime then nuclear is the cheapest source of power when you maximise the output. It is much less cost effective to make smaller reactors.

I think the best outcome would be to build a single high output nuclear reactor then supplement that with renewable energy, particularly solar.

We currently have 3 coal plants in Victoria with 2200 megawatts, 1050 megawatts and 1480 megawatts plus 7 gas turbines for a total of approximately 1,900 megawatts. These ten plants could all be replaced by one nuclear plant that produces more power than all of those combined. it would provide a lot more power for a lot cheaper over the lifetime of the plant and produce way less emissions than even renewable energy.

The other major problem we have with a dispersed energy generation is the power grid isn't designed to carry such loads over the entire grid, we only have a small amount of renewable energy generation and none of our solar farms are allowed to run at 100% output because it would overload our grid and cause long blackouts. We would need to rebuild our entire energy grid to basically be able to just plug in solar farms anywhere into it. Most solar farms are forced to operate at such low outputs for the stability of the network that they are not economically feasible, which is why so many operators have pulled out of solar power generation in Australia.

When you have centralised power stations it is a lot cheaper/easier to just have that part of the grid that has to take that kind of power load than it is to have a system be able to take high loads anywhere along it.

ideally, it would be better to have a more robust grid, but it isn't cost effective.

I know we are building solar batteries but the amount of power they will hold is pretty trivial to what we would need for it to be an alternative. Batteries are also insanely expensive and very harmful to the environment to make.

I still think renewables will and should play a significant role in our plans, I think it is desirable to reduce how much we utilise fossil fuels, globally. The major issue with nuclear is it is very expensive to establish, this isn't a realistic option for much poorer nations.

I think it is kind of stupid for us to be digging up all this uranium, selling it to foreign countries and not using it ourselves for power. We already use uranium to produce much needed isotopes for medical needs, we produce and store nuclear waste in several places already.

If nuclear is bad we need to stop being hypocrites and selling it. If it is good enough to sell to half-arsed countries to use in power generation it is good enough for us to do it properly. We need to grow up as a nation, we need to be less reliant on other nations, we need to be at the forefront of latest technology and research.

 

[see see]

There's no privacy now.

There is where I live.

Can you see the light reflecting off its eye in the middle of the front of its head? They have another one in the middle of the head and if you can get the angle right with a flash it glows a gold colour. Looks trippy as.

I hate to break it to you Ferbs but those aren't eyes, they're cameras.

**Adjusts tinfoil hat and climbs back into spider proof bunker **

 

[Usayed Givashe]

I am not sure why it would be a good option 15 years ago but not now. When you factor real construction costs (not subsidised vs unsubsidised) and you compare costs over the lifetime then nuclear is the cheapest source of power when you maximise the output. It is much less cost effective to make smaller reactors.

I think the best outcome would be to build a single high output nuclear reactor then supplement that with renewable energy, particularly solar.

We currently have 3 coal plants in Victoria with 2200 megawatts, 1050 megawatts and 1480 megawatts plus 7 gas turbines for a total of approximately 1,900 megawatts. These ten plants could all be replaced by one nuclear plant that produces more power than all of those combined. it would provide a lot more power for a lot cheaper over the lifetime of the plant and produce way less emissions than even renewable energy.

The other major problem we have with a dispersed energy generation is the power grid isn't designed to carry such loads over the entire grid, we only have a small amount of renewable energy generation and none of our solar farms are allowed to run at 100% output because it would overload our grid and cause long blackouts. We would need to rebuild our entire energy grid to basically be able to just plug in solar farms anywhere into it. Most solar farms are forced to operate at such low outputs for the stability of the network that they are not economically feasible, which is why so many operators have pulled out of solar power generation in Australia.

When you have centralised power stations it is a lot cheaper/easier to just have that part of the grid that has to take that kind of power load than it is to have a system be able to take high loads anywhere along it.

ideally, it would be better to have a more robust grid, but it isn't cost effective.

I know we are building solar batteries but the amount of power they will hold is pretty trivial to what we would need for it to be an alternative. Batteries are also insanely expensive and very harmful to the environment to make.

I still think renewables will and should play a significant role in our plans, I think it is desirable to reduce how much we utilise fossil fuels, globally. The major issue with nuclear is it is very expensive to establish, this isn't a realistic option for much poorer nations.

I think it is kind of stupid for us to be digging up all this uranium, selling it to foreign countries and not using it ourselves for power. We already use uranium to produce much needed isotopes for medical needs, we produce and store nuclear waste in several places already.

If nuclear is bad we need to stop being hypocrites and selling it. If it is good enough to sell to half-arsed countries to use in power generation it is good enough for us to do it properly. We need to grow up as a nation, we need to be less reliant on other nations, we need to be at the forefront of latest technology and research.

We don't actually sell much Uranium, Tas, considering our reserves are enormous.

Batteries are expected to be commercially viable (4y ROI) and have increased capacity and much longer release by 2025.

Purchasing Solar Power comes in at 6c per kWh, conventional sources is closer to the 18c mark when factoring in DLF,TLF, Supply, Demand and Environmental (VEEC/LGC/SGC) charges. The decommissioning of Loy Yang #2 will drive pricing up again and the push toward net zero is not simply a scenario, but a reality.

The main issue with those solar farms not being switched on, in addition to the lack of infrastructure capability - is that the have failed to sell the offtake in the form of (FOM) Front of Meter PPAs.

One of the businesses I'm involved in takes companies off grid, where practical through a combination of Solar, Batteries, CarPort Solar w Charging Stations, Gas and/or Diesel Co-generation - the main issue we have is the controls to export during Peak Demand Events aren't quite at the standard they need to be (Siemens will need to step it up).

 

[WD Roo]

War hero Teddy receives VC

World War II hero Teddy Sheean has received his posthumous Victoria Cross, exactly 78 years after his death.

www.news.com.au

Took far too long but bloody well deserved. RIP Teddy and thanks for your service and sacrifice.

 

[Tas]

We don't actually sell much Uranium, Tas, considering our reserves are enormous.

We are the third largest producer in the world.

Batteries are expected to be commercially viable (4y ROI) and have increased capacity and much longer release by 2025.

The problem is with lithium and the environmental damage of extracting it from the salt, if the plan is to move away from using fossil fuels because of the environmental damage, heavily relying on lithium is not a great long-term solution.

Purchasing Solar Power comes in at 6c per kWh, conventional sources is closer to the 18c mark when factoring in DLF,TLF, Supply, Demand and Environmental (VEEC/LGC/SGC) charges. The decommissioning of Loy Yang #2 will drive pricing up again and the push toward net zero is not simply a scenario, but a reality.

Solar power is heavily subsidised. That isn't how much it costs for us to produce it.

Some renewable energy, like Hydro, is extremely efficient, relatively consistent and it has good availability night and day. Some countries that can get most or all of their power needs from Hydro are in a pretty good position, like Albania, that get 100% of their power from Hydro and it costs them less than half what we pay.

Germany who has invested a lot in renewable energy has the most expensive electricity in the civilised world, despite heavy subsidisation there as well. They are in a lot more strife than France who gets about 70% of their power from nuclear reactors.

Even if you invest heavily in solar, you still need an alternative power source. Could you get it all from renewables? Sure, but the variability of most renewables is so high that you would need to chronically oversupply to be able to generate the base load during the worst conditions and that would make it very expensive to build that kind of margin, and underutilised the rest of the time.

The entire world simply can't rely on storage with existing technology, even if we would ignore the environmental damage it takes to mine lithium from salt. If we go through lithium reserves at the current pace we will run out by the end of the 21st century. If the whole world is going to rely on battery power, we are going to blow that well before them.

One way or another, we will either solve our looming energy crisis or nature will solve it for us by running out of natural resources.

The main issue with those solar farms not being switched on, in addition to the lack of infrastructure capability - is that the have failed to sell the offtake in the form of (FOM) Front of Meter PPAs.

One of the businesses I'm involved in takes companies off grid, where practical through a combination of Solar, Batteries, CarPort Solar w Charging Stations, Gas and/or Diesel Co-generation - the main issue we have is the controls to export during Peak Demand Events aren't quite at the standard they need to be (Siemens will need to step it up).

I am sure we will improve on a lot of the current limitations. It makes a lot of sense to utilise solar here given how much land we have, generally low cloud cover and good supply of sunshine.

It has limitations though.

 

[Usayed Givashe]

We are the third largest producer in the world.



The problem is with lithium and the environmental damage of extracting it from the salt, if the plan is to move away from using fossil fuels because of the environmental damage, heavily relying on lithium is not a great long-term solution.



Solar power is heavily subsidised. That isn't how much it costs for us to produce it.

Some renewable energy, like Hydro, is extremely efficient, relatively consistent and it has good availability night and day. Some countries that can get most or all of their power needs from Hydro are in a pretty good position, like Albania, that get 100% of their power from Hydro and it costs them less than half what we pay.

Germany who has invested a lot in renewable energy has the most expensive electricity in the civilised world, despite heavy subsidisation there as well. They are in a lot more strife than France who gets about 70% of their power from nuclear reactors.

Even if you invest heavily in solar, you still need an alternative power source. Could you get it all from renewables? Sure, but the variability of most renewables is so high that you would need to chronically oversupply to be able to generate the base load during the worst conditions and that would make it very expensive to build that kind of margin, and underutilised the rest of the time.

The entire world simply can't rely on storage with existing technology, even if we would ignore the environmental damage it takes to mine lithium from salt. If we go through lithium reserves at the current pace we will run out by the end of the 21st century. If the whole world is going to rely on battery power, we are going to blow that well before them.

One way or another, we will either solve our looming energy crisis or nature will solve it for us by running out of natural resources.



I am sure we will improve on a lot of the current limitations. It makes a lot of sense to utilise solar here given how much land we have, generally low cloud cover and good supply of sunshine.

It has limitations though.

I think you need to get your head around the fact that we are moving to negative 500 or 700 environment, the concept of Net Zero, will be gobbled up by 2035 at the current rate.

Hydrogen will be the next solar in about 10 years. Storing and Transporting Blue Hydrogen, Green Hydrogen, Bio Energy (biomass and biomethane) will be difficult and the massive infrastucture upgrades required to enable this are substantial. However we will, in time be an energy superpower of significant proportions. Especially with undersea cables and ability to safely transport low emission green energy to our trading partners. The beauty being, that we will eventually return to be a cheap location to manufacture and in time these industries will return and spur economic activity.

We aren't called the lucky country for nothing, no wonder China hates us.

 

[Tas]

I think you need to get your head around the fact that we are moving to negative 500 or 700 environment, the concept of Net Zero, will be gobbled up by 2035 at the current rate.

Hydrogen will be the next solar in about 10 years. Storing and Transporting Blue Hydrogen, Green Hydrogen, Bio Energy (biomass and biomethane) will be difficult and the massive infrastucture upgrades required to enable this are substantial. However we will, in time be an energy superpower of significant proportions. Especially with undersea cables and ability to safely transport low emission green energy to our trading partners. The beauty being, that we will eventually return to be a cheap location to manufacture and in time these industries will return and spur economic activity.

We aren't called the lucky country for nothing, no wonder China hates us.

I hope we steer clear of biomass, it isn't really going to help the CO2 problem.

 

[koshari]

not using it ourselves for power. We already use uranium to produce much needed isotopes for medical needs, we produce and store nuclear waste in several places already.

If nuclear is bad we need to stop being hypocrites and selling it. If it is good enough to sell to half-arsed countries to use in power generation it is good enough for us to do it properly. We need to grow up as a nation, we need to be less reliant on other nations, we need to be at the forefront of latest technology and research.

just on nuclear, the kicker is the cost of decommisioning old plants and this part isnt taken into account in a lot of pricing , its also the reason there are a heap of plants around the world in mothballs ( some may never ever get back on line) . I suppose if you have then in operation already you may as well keep generating because they have alreade been constructed and will need to be decommisioned one day anyway so makes sence to keep operating them if they are in serviceable condition. but you would have to be stark raving crazy to commision a new nuke now ( or have the cross subsidy that governments can afford) .


even large thermal powerstation decommisioning is huge, look at the costs of the decommisioning of hazelwood, and thats about to get awhole lot costlier after they cocked up the demolition of the 7/8 boiler house.

 

[ferball]

I hate to break it to you Ferbs but those aren't eyes, they're cameras.

**Adjusts tinfoil hat and climbs back into spider proof bunker **

GULP!!!

 

[koshari]

I hope we steer clear of biomass, it isn't really going to help the CO2 problem.

biomass is interesting, because all that methane in landfills is leaching into the atmosphere anyway, may as well burn it for energy and convert it into co2 which is about 1/8th as harmfull to the ozone layer.

We currently have 3 coal plants in Victoria with 2200 megawatts, 1050 megawatts and 1480 megawatts plus 7 gas turbines for a total of approximately 1,900 megawatts.

Whilst this quote is true its a little bit simplistic, for example the first 2 thermal coal plants you quote (LYA & LYB) are actually 6 units (approx 550mw ea) and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa for example has seven boiling water reactors units to make up the total capacity of 8,212MW so that is in fact 7 nukes of which all will need to be individually decommissioned.

also generators bigger than 600MW are troublesome because they cause big disturbances on the grid at syn/desync.

 

[ChoppyGun]

Any update on condition of Ben The Other Dean?

Hopefully with every day and/or week there might be signs of improvement, fingers crossed I guess.

 

[Tas]

just on nuclear, the kicker is the cost of decommisioning old plants and this part isnt taken into account in a lot of pricing , its also the reason there are a heap of plants around the world in mothballs ( some may never ever get back on line) . I suppose if you have then in operation already you may as well keep generating because they have alreade been constructed and will need to be decommisioned one day anyway so makes sence to keep operating them if they are in serviceable condition. but you would have to be stark raving crazy to commision a new nuke now ( or have the cross subsidy that governments can afford) .


even large thermal powerstation decommisioning is huge, look at the costs of the decommisioning of hazelwood, and thats about to get awhole lot costlier after they cocked up the demolition of the 7/8 boiler house.

The cost of decommissioning a nuclear power plant is factored into the cost of construction, in accordance with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission a trust fund is established with the construction of the plant that is there for the decommission of the plant, that fund is not under direct administrative control of the operating company so they can't drain the fund and the money is there even if they go arse over ****. They periodically re-evaluate the cost of decommissioning and make sure there are sufficient funds in the trust fund, that excess they may have to pay from time to time is factored in the operating cost of the facility.

USA has decommissioned 10 reactors over the years, and have 18 more that are in the process of being decommissioned.

They have more info here: https://nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/decommissioning-nuclear-power-plants

"Under NRC regulations, licensees are required to submit their decommissioning funding estimates to the NRC every two years during operation. The NRC staff reviews the estimates and reports to the commission on the status of funding. Licensees have set aside nearly $53 billion for decommissioning, a 15 percent increase from the previous reporting cycle two years earlier. All but three reactors had enough money set aside to cover their estimated costs, and these three resolved their shortfalls shortly after submitting their reports."

USA has 104 nuclear reactors in operation. American standards have been quite high since the early days of nuclear power. I think if we were to go down that path there is a lot we can learn from other countries, we wouldn't need to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[WD Roo]

We are the third largest producer in the world.



The problem is with lithium and the environmental damage of extracting it from the salt, if the plan is to move away from using fossil fuels because of the environmental damage, heavily relying on lithium is not a great long-term solution.



Solar power is heavily subsidised. That isn't how much it costs for us to produce it.

Some renewable energy, like Hydro, is extremely efficient, relatively consistent and it has good availability night and day. Some countries that can get most or all of their power needs from Hydro are in a pretty good position, like Albania, that get 100% of their power from Hydro and it costs them less than half what we pay.

Germany who has invested a lot in renewable energy has the most expensive electricity in the civilised world, despite heavy subsidisation there as well. They are in a lot more strife than France who gets about 70% of their power from nuclear reactors.

Even if you invest heavily in solar, you still need an alternative power source. Could you get it all from renewables? Sure, but the variability of most renewables is so high that you would need to chronically oversupply to be able to generate the base load during the worst conditions and that would make it very expensive to build that kind of margin, and underutilised the rest of the time.

The entire world simply can't rely on storage with existing technology, even if we would ignore the environmental damage it takes to mine lithium from salt. If we go through lithium reserves at the current pace we will run out by the end of the 21st century. If the whole world is going to rely on battery power, we are going to blow that well before them.

One way or another, we will either solve our looming energy crisis or nature will solve it for us by running out of natural resources.



I am sure we will improve on a lot of the current limitations. It makes a lot of sense to utilise solar here given how much land we have, generally low cloud cover and good supply of sunshine.

It has limitations though.

The worlds lithium needs come from hard rock mines not brine. Again Australia has the highest grade and largest deposit of battery grade lithium.