Also if perfectly good power stations weren't blown up, until an alternative had been installed, they wouldn't be in this situation.
Also the S.A Government, refused to take it over, because it didn't fit in with their ideology.Alinta shut a perfectly good power station because they weren't in on AGL's plans to close Torrens Island A or Liddell, they weren't aware of what Engie were doing with Hazelwood, Alcoa with Anglesea or of the SA - NSW transmission line either.
All comes down to it being viewed as a market when in reality it's a system.
As per usual it boils down to who is writing the article.Risks of blackout unlikely in next 10 years says AEMO.
(With fingers firmly crossed).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-23/dont-panic-the-lights-will-probably-stay-on/11439600
There is no need at all to put solar where arable land is. However, there are already solar farms integrating with cropping, with the panels providing essential shading from the severe heat during the hottest months.This article, gives an indication of the issue I brought up earlier, about how much arable land and habitat will be lost by this solar panel installation plan.
That still wont change the backlash, that hasn't picked up pace yet. IMOThere is no need at all to put solar where arable land is. However, there are already solar farms integrating with cropping, with the panels providing essential shading from the severe heat during the hottest months.
In terms of total required for solar to power the whole of Australia i hope you realise that we are talking a small fraction of one percent of the continent's size. However, much of suburbia will, in years to come, be energy sufficient as battery and panel prices continue to decline. Furthermore, an international energy export market will be in play before the end of the 2020s and Australia needs to take decisive action sooner rather than later in order to capitalise.
You realise you are "forecasting" an outcome based on a poor understanding?That still wont change the backlash, that hasn't picked up pace yet. IMO
Just an observation, not an issue to start debating, the outcome will be self resolving.
I agree with you on a technical basis.I think the solar foot print is a non-issue, particularly in Australia. We are currently only scratching the surface of where solar collectors can be located. Solar panels are just the first iteration of solar collectors and even those can have their foot print much reduced by proper design of new buildings and factories. Roof design to optimise solar collection should be a huge factor in all new building design. But there are also advancements being made in alternative collectors such as paint, road surfaces and car roofs. Cost is a huge factor, but that will improve over time. Potentially every surface exposed to the sun can become a collector. It is just a matter of whether it is a cost effective source.
I asked about the backlash, and you offered nothing.Jeez you really do take yourself seriously don't you, is everyone who doesn't say what you want to hear an idiot?
Well I actually did offer something, I said quote:I asked about the backlash, and you offered nothing.
Wind turbines can be unsightly in pristine wilderness environments and the questions Bob Brown has asked are legitimate. The south coast of Australia's mainland - from Albany to Port Augusta - is probably a better option for turbines, but won't win any votes.
Rather than invent problems, how about you stump up with the issues you consider are going to cause concern.
Wow.@sptrawler - please do your maths better.
As to your Bob Brown quote, you need to context it to his overall comments, and you did not.
Very creative maths - or are you talking about a different Victoria?The proposed farm in the N.W of W.A is expected to cover 7,000 sq/Klm, which is nearly 3 times the size of Victoria.
Like I said to Rob, the issue will become self resolving, if renewables can't cut it, then something will be put in be that nuclear or fossil fuel, whether the left like it or not.Yet another report on the viability of nuclear power from the Australia Institute a progressive think tank.
I wonder if we will ever get a truly independent report on our future power needs. (maybe if Smurf writes it)
Ziggy Switowski reckoned we should have 25 nuclear reactors by 2050.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...ower-is-not-the-answer-for-australia/11450850
Hi Rob, I saw this on the internet this morning, just as a point of interest.I asked about the backlash, and you offered nothing.
Wind turbines can be unsightly in pristine wilderness environments and the questions Bob Brown has asked are legitimate. The south coast of Australia's mainland - from Albany to Port Augusta - is probably a better option for turbines, but won't win any votes.
Rather than invent problems, how about you stump up with the issues you consider are going to cause concern.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?