Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.electronics > #32999 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-16 15:12 +1100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-16 22:39 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 74 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.electronics
OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-16 15:12 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-16 16:39 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Chris <c@b.a> - 2017-03-17 14:33 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-17 20:29 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-17 21:20 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-17 04:12 -0700
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-17 23:12 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-19 22:00 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-20 08:18 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-20 08:53 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-20 20:47 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2017-03-21 16:47 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 19:41 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-03-28 00:02 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 03:30 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-28 15:43 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:24 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-28 22:09 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-28 08:27 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 11:06 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-28 11:21 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 13:28 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-28 15:22 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 17:19 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Lucifer Morningstar <Barry@saymyname.com> - 2017-03-28 17:28 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-29 16:44 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 20:16 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 22:06 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 05:20 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-29 06:06 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:34 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-29 22:00 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-28 22:37 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 05:21 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-29 06:07 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:35 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-28 19:21 +0000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 09:37 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-29 04:43 +0000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 19:21 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-29 21:52 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 03:14 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-29 10:53 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-29 21:53 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-29 22:48 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-30 03:17 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-31 20:01 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 05:03 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-04-01 20:01 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 03:01 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-04-02 14:55 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 16:06 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2017-03-28 14:53 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 16:44 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2017-03-28 18:42 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 00:07 -0700
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 00:51 -0700
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-16 19:33 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2017-03-16 19:40 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-16 19:55 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Adrian Jansen <adrian@qq.vv.net> - 2017-03-17 07:38 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-16 22:12 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-16 10:04 +0000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 15:28 -0700
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-17 10:39 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 16:54 -0700
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-17 11:06 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-03-16 17:24 -0700
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-17 12:58 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-16 22:24 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-03-17 14:45 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-16 22:42 +1100
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2017-03-16 22:17 +1000
Re: OT: Snowy Hydro Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-16 22:39 +1100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 11:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejtp08FggacU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33068 |
On 28/03/2017 11:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote > >>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>> should go and fuck themselves. > >> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use anywhere. > > Who cares ? **Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. What matters is that the brown coal is useless for > anything but power generation and so should be used for that. **Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power generation and, therefore, should not be used. The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, because it is non-viable (uneconomic). > >> Hazelwood must be shut down. > > Even sillier than you usually manage. **So you say. > >> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, > > Wrong, as always. **I see. And what, precisely, can the government do? Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > >> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. > > But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them > or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. **You assume that the company wants to sell it. You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money to make the plant viable. > >> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. > > Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. **Name them. > >> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. > > You are just plain wrong, as always. **So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can all decide who the idiot really is. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 13:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eju02oFhm4oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33069 |
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>> anywhere. >> Who cares ? > Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. Even sillier than you usually manage. >> What matters is that the brown coal is useless for anything but power >> generation and so should be used for that. > Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, Its fine for power generation. > which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power generation Irrelevant when we produce sweet fuck all of the world's CO2 production. Even if we were actually stupid enough to shut down all fossil fuelled power generation entirely, the effect on the world temperate wouldn’t even be measurable given that China alone increases its CO2 production by more than we do entirely, ever single year. > and, therefore, should not be used. Even sillier than you usually manage. > The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, because it > is non-viable (uneconomic). Only because we are stupid enough to penalise coal fired power generation and to require levels of pollution control that make them unviable economically. It was perfectly viable economically when it was built and that hasn’t changed now. And it would cost less than HALF of what the new snowy hydro changes will cost and will produce MUCH more power than that. >>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >> Even sillier than you usually manage. > So you say. So anyone with even half a clue knows. >>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >> Wrong, as always. > I see. Nope, you never do. > And what, precisely, can the government do? I already told you, fuckwit. > Cite the legal precedents in your answer. The govt is legally free to hand Engie what it would cost to continue to run Hazelwood and is legally free to make an offer for Hazelwood if it chooses to too. >>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. > You assume that the company wants to sell it. I assume nothing of the sort and the govt is free to nationalise it and pay compensation for doing that if it wants to anyway. And the govt is free to pay Engie to do what needs to be done to continue to run Hazelwood if it wants to too. > You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money to make > the plant viable. I assume nothing of the sort. It is obviously legally possible for the govt to do that if it chooses to. >>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. > Name them. Costs too much so no one is prepared to do it without a subsidy. Fucks the environment with all those wind generators. Fucks the stability of the grid. Not feasible to do it where the power is mostly used. >>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >> You are just plain wrong, as always. > So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can all > decide who the idiot really is. We've already decided its fools like you. That’s why you lot don’t even get double digit percentages of voters voting for the mindless silly shit fools like you want to see.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 15:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <eju738Fira4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33070 |
On 28/03/2017 1:28 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote > >>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is >>>>> useless for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like >>>>> that, they should go and fuck themselves. > >>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>> anywhere. > >>> Who cares ? > >> Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. > > Even sillier than you usually manage. **Nonetheless, a fact. Morons can't see a problem. Everyone else can. You, Barnarby, George Christensen and the others are morons. > >>> What matters is that the brown coal is useless for anything but >>> power generation and so should be used for that. > >> Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, > > Its fine for power generation. **No, it is not. It is VERY poor. Brown coal, as mined in Victoria releases around 8.4Mj/kg. Black coal is more like 35Mj/kg. Brown coal is a spectacularly poor choice of fuel. > >> which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power >> generation > > Irrelevant when we produce sweet fuck > all of the world's CO2 production. **That old chestnut. Listen very carefully, moron: EVERY SINGLE human on the planet will need to make adjustments to deal with CO2 production. That includes every single Australian. > > Even if we were actually stupid enough to shut down > all fossil fuelled power generation entirely, the effect > on the world temperate wouldn’t even be measurable > given that China alone increases its CO2 production > by more than we do entirely, ever single year. **If every nation shuts down fossil fuel power generators, the effect would be substantial. Since Australia has enormous reserves of renewable energy, then it makes sense for us to make use of those reserves. > >> and, therefore, should not be used. > > Even sillier than you usually manage. > >> The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, because >> it is non-viable (uneconomic). > > Only because we are stupid enough to penalise coal fired > power generation and to require levels of pollution > control that make them unviable economically. **Pollution is bad. In case you don't know. > > It was perfectly viable economically when > it was built and that hasn’t changed now. **Not quite. Hazelwood has reached the end of it's effective life-span. Like automobiles, power stations do not last forever. > > And it would cost less than HALF of what > the new snowy hydro changes will cost and > will produce MUCH more power than that. **The Snowy hydro changes are just a desperate attempt by Trumbull to be seen to do something, other than investing in real renewables. > >>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. > >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >> So you say. > > So anyone with even half a clue knows. **It seems you don't. > >>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, > >>> Wrong, as always. > >> I see. > > Nope, you never do. > >> And what, precisely, can the government do? > > I already told you, fuckwit. **No, you didn't. > >> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > > The govt is legally free to hand Engie what it would > cost to continue to run Hazelwood and is legally free > to make an offer for Hazelwood if it chooses to too. **Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > >>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. > >>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. > >> You assume that the company wants to sell it. > > I assume nothing of the sort and the govt is free to nationalise > it and pay compensation for doing that if it wants to anyway. **Except that no one in their right mind wants Hazelwood to continue. Only pollution-loving, climate deniers like you think it should remain in operation. > > And the govt is free to pay Engie to do what needs to be > done to continue to run Hazelwood if it wants to too. > >> You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money to >> make the plant viable. > > I assume nothing of the sort. It is obviously legally > possible for the govt to do that if it chooses to. **And again, provided the government is prepared to pay. > >>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. > >>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. > >> Name them. > > Costs too much so no one is prepared to do it without a subsidy. **Nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source > > Fucks the environment with all those wind generators. **There are many other renewable sources available. > > Fucks the stability of the grid. **Geo-thermal (aka: 'Hot rock') technology deals with that. As does Solar/thermal and Solar PV/battery technologies. All are cost competitive and either zero or very low CO2 emission. Best of all, for such a dry place like Australia, minimal to zero water is consumed. > > Not feasible to do it where the power is mostly used. **You need to learn (a lot) more before you discuss these things with the adults. > >>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. > >>> You are just plain wrong, as always. > >> So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can all >> decide who the idiot really is. > > We've already decided its fools like you. **Sorry Roddles, it's just you. You and your climate change denier buddies are a rapidly shrinking species. > > That’s why you lot don’t even get double digit percentages of > voters voting for the mindless silly shit fools like you want to see. **And how many vote for those climate change denying morons in the Hanson party? 5%? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 17:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejudj5Fjv2dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33072 |
Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>> anywhere. >>>> Who cares ? >>> Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. >> Even sillier than you usually manage. > Nonetheless, a fact. Claiming its a fact doesn’t make it a fact. > Morons can't see a problem. Everyone else can. How odd that sweet fuck all are actually stupid enough to vote for the sort of shit you clowns want to see. > You, Barnarby, George Christensen and the others are morons. Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart. >>>> What matters is that the brown coal is useless for anything but power >>>> generation and so should be used for that. >>> Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, >> Its fine for power generation. > No, it is not. Corse it is. > It is VERY poor. Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. Even the stupid krauts managed to work that out. > Brown coal, as mined in Victoria releases around 8.4Mj/kg. Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. > Black coal is more like 35Mj/kg. Irrelevant when we can flog that to those who need to buy it. > Brown coal is a spectacularly poor choice of fuel. Wrong when we can have the generators right next to it and its no use for anything else. >>> which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power >>> generation >> Irrelevant when we produce sweet fuck >> all of the world's CO2 production. > That old chestnut. Corse you never ever manage anything like that yourself, eh ? > Listen very carefully, moron: > EVERY SINGLE human on the planet will need to make adjustments to deal > with CO2 production. That includes every single Australian. You can repeat that mindless silly shit till the cows come home, it stays mindless silly shit. Those who already use just hydro obviously don’t. >> Even if we were actually stupid enough to shut down >> all fossil fuelled power generation entirely, the effect >> on the world temperate wouldn’t even be measurable >> given that China alone increases its CO2 production >> by more than we do entirely, ever single year. > If every nation shuts down fossil fuel power generators, Not going to happen, they aint that stupid, even if you clowns are. > the effect would be substantial. Irrelevant to what would happen if Haselwood wasn’t closed. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MEASURABLE. > Since Australia has enormous reserves of renewable energy, then it makes > sense for us to make use of those reserves. Not when even if we closed all power generation entirely and banned all modes of transport entirely would produce no measurable effect on climate what so ever. >>> and, therefore, should not be used. >> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>> The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, because >>> it is non-viable (uneconomic). >> Only because we are stupid enough to penalise coal fired >> power generation and to require levels of pollution >> control that make them unviable economically. > Pollution is bad. Not when it blows away from where it is produced it aint. >> It was perfectly viable economically when >> it was built and that hasn’t changed now. > Not quite. Fraid so. > Hazelwood has reached the end of it's effective life-span. If it was economic in the first place, its even more economic to replace the subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be used now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. > Like automobiles, power stations do not last forever. No one ever said they did. But if it was economic to build it in the first place, its even more economic to replace the subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be used now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. >> And it would cost less than HALF of what >> the new snowy hydro changes will cost and >> will produce MUCH more power than that. > The Snowy hydro changes are just a desperate attempt by Trumbull to be > seen to do something, other than investing in real renewables. Even sillier than you usually manage. The Snowy system has always been about pumped storage, by far the best way to do something about the inevitable intermittency of what renewable power generation we have and to allow the coal fired power generation to work at maximum efficiency. >>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>> So you say. >> So anyone with even half a clue knows. > It seems you don't. Easy to claim. >>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>>> Wrong, as always. >>> I see. >> Nope, you never do. >>> And what, precisely, can the government do? >> I already told you, fuckwit. > No, you didn't. More of your lies, it was still there in the quoting until you carefully deleted it, you flagrantly dishonest fuckwit. Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs. >>> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. >> The govt is legally free to hand Engie what it would >> cost to continue to run Hazelwood and is legally free >> to make an offer for Hazelwood if it chooses to too. > Cite the legal precedents in your answer. Don’t need any, that has happened before. >>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>> You assume that the company wants to sell it. >> I assume nothing of the sort and the govt is free to nationalise >> it and pay compensation for doing that if it wants to anyway. > Except that no one in their right mind wants Hazelwood to continue. Irrelevant to what is possible. > Only pollution-loving, climate deniers like you think it should remain in > operation. Irrelevant to what is possible. >> And the govt is free to pay Engie to do what needs to be done to continue >> to run Hazelwood if it wants to too. >>> You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money to >>> make the plant viable. >> I assume nothing of the sort. It is obviously legally >> possible for the govt to do that if it chooses to. > And again, provided the government is prepared to pay. Irrelevant to what is possible. >>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>> Name them. >> Costs too much so no one is prepared to do it without a subsidy. > Nonsense: Fact. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source Have fun listing even a single example of a major renewable power generation system done in this country without a subsidy. >> Fucks the environment with all those wind generators. > There are many other renewable sources available. Those fuck the environment too. >> Fucks the stability of the grid. > Geo-thermal (aka: 'Hot rock') technology deals with that. Pity that no one is silly enough to build it without a subsidy here. > As does Solar/thermal and Solar PV/battery technologies. Another lie with non synchronous power generation. > All are cost competitive How odd that the only people who pay for them themselves are those who are off grid. > and either zero or very low CO2 emission. Nukes leave them for dead in that regard and don’t have a problem with system stabity or intermittency either. > Best of all, for such a dry place like Australia, minimal to zero water is > consumed. That’s a lie with geothermal and hydro. >> Not feasible to do it where the power is mostly used. > You need to learn (a lot) more before you discuss these things with the > adults. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >>> So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can all >>> decide who the idiot really is. >> We've already decided its fools like you. > Sorry Roddles, it's just you. Is that right ? Not even a single other person who has ever said that its much better to continue with coal fired power generation that piss our money against the wall on renewables eh ? Keep this shit up and your shit and lies and desperate attempt at childish insults will be flushed where it belongs. > You and your climate change denier buddies are a rapidly shrinking > species. Must be why not even a double digit percentage of the voters are actually stupid enough to vote for the clown who want nothing but renewable power generation. >> That’s why you lot don’t even get double digit percentages of >> voters voting for the mindless silly shit fools like you want to see. > And how many vote for those climate change denying morons in the Hanson > party? 5%? Who cares ? They are as completely irrelevant as your fuckwits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lucifer Morningstar <Barry@saymyname.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 17:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <fj0kdcdvv6j0sudt5ln5md2nv5dca7qbhs@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #33075 |
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:19:08 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote > >>>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. > >>>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>>> anywhere. > >>>>> Who cares ? > >>>> Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. > >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >> Nonetheless, a fact. > >Claiming its a fact doesn’t make it a fact. > >> Morons can't see a problem. Everyone else can. > >How odd that sweet fuck all are actually stupid enough >to vote for the sort of shit you clowns want to see. > >> You, Barnarby, George Christensen and the others are morons. > >Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart. > >>>>> What matters is that the brown coal is useless for anything but power >>>>> generation and so should be used for that. > >>>> Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, > >>> Its fine for power generation. > >> No, it is not. > >Corse it is. > >> It is VERY poor. > >Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. > >Even the stupid krauts managed to work that out. > >> Brown coal, as mined in Victoria releases around 8.4Mj/kg. > >Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. > >> Black coal is more like 35Mj/kg. > >Irrelevant when we can flog that to those who need to buy it. > >> Brown coal is a spectacularly poor choice of fuel. > >Wrong when we can have the generators right >next to it and its no use for anything else. > >>>> which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power >>>> generation > >>> Irrelevant when we produce sweet fuck >>> all of the world's CO2 production. > >> That old chestnut. > >Corse you never ever manage anything like that yourself, eh ? > >> Listen very carefully, moron: > >> EVERY SINGLE human on the planet will need to make adjustments to deal >> with CO2 production. That includes every single Australian. > >You can repeat that mindless silly shit till the >cows come home, it stays mindless silly shit. >Those who already use just hydro obviously don’t. > >>> Even if we were actually stupid enough to shut down >>> all fossil fuelled power generation entirely, the effect >>> on the world temperate wouldn’t even be measurable >>> given that China alone increases its CO2 production >>> by more than we do entirely, ever single year. > >> If every nation shuts down fossil fuel power generators, > >Not going to happen, they aint that stupid, even if you clowns are. > >> the effect would be substantial. > >Irrelevant to what would happen if Haselwood wasn’t closed. > >ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MEASURABLE. > >> Since Australia has enormous reserves of renewable energy, then it makes >> sense for us to make use of those reserves. > >Not when even if we closed all power generation entirely >and banned all modes of transport entirely would produce >no measurable effect on climate what so ever. > >>>> and, therefore, should not be used. > >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >>>> The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, because >>>> it is non-viable (uneconomic). > >>> Only because we are stupid enough to penalise coal fired >>> power generation and to require levels of pollution >>> control that make them unviable economically. > >> Pollution is bad. > >Not when it blows away from where it is produced it aint. > >>> It was perfectly viable economically when >>> it was built and that hasn’t changed now. > >> Not quite. > >Fraid so. > >> Hazelwood has reached the end of it's effective life-span. > >If it was economic in the first place, its even more economic to >replace the subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be >used now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. > >> Like automobiles, power stations do not last forever. > >No one ever said they did. But if it was economic to build >it in the first place, its even more economic to replace the >subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be used >now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. > >>> And it would cost less than HALF of what >>> the new snowy hydro changes will cost and >>> will produce MUCH more power than that. > >> The Snowy hydro changes are just a desperate attempt by Trumbull to be >> seen to do something, other than investing in real renewables. > >Even sillier than you usually manage. The Snowy system has >always been about pumped storage, by far the best way to >do something about the inevitable intermittency of what >renewable power generation we have and to allow the coal >fired power generation to work at maximum efficiency. > >>>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. > >>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >>>> So you say. > >>> So anyone with even half a clue knows. > >> It seems you don't. > >Easy to claim. > >>>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, > >>>>> Wrong, as always. > >>>> I see. > >>> Nope, you never do. > >>>> And what, precisely, can the government do? > >>> I already told you, fuckwit. > >> No, you didn't. > >More of your lies, it was still there in the quoting until you >carefully deleted it, you flagrantly dishonest fuckwit. > >Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs. > >>>> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > >>> The govt is legally free to hand Engie what it would >>> cost to continue to run Hazelwood and is legally free >>> to make an offer for Hazelwood if it chooses to too. > >> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > >Don’t need any, that has happened before. > >>>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. > >>>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. > >>>> You assume that the company wants to sell it. > >>> I assume nothing of the sort and the govt is free to nationalise >>> it and pay compensation for doing that if it wants to anyway. > >> Except that no one in their right mind wants Hazelwood to continue. > >Irrelevant to what is possible. > >> Only pollution-loving, climate deniers like you think it should remain in >> operation. > >Irrelevant to what is possible. > >>> And the govt is free to pay Engie to do what needs to be done to continue >>> to run Hazelwood if it wants to too. > >>>> You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money to >>>> make the plant viable. > >>> I assume nothing of the sort. It is obviously legally >>> possible for the govt to do that if it chooses to. > >> And again, provided the government is prepared to pay. > >Irrelevant to what is possible. > >>>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. > >>>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. > >>>> Name them. > >>> Costs too much so no one is prepared to do it without a subsidy. > >> Nonsense: > >Fact. > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source > >Have fun listing even a single example of a major renewable >power generation system done in this country without a subsidy. > >>> Fucks the environment with all those wind generators. > >> There are many other renewable sources available. > >Those fuck the environment too. > >>> Fucks the stability of the grid. > >> Geo-thermal (aka: 'Hot rock') technology deals with that. > >Pity that no one is silly enough to build it without a subsidy here. > >> As does Solar/thermal and Solar PV/battery technologies. > >Another lie with non synchronous power generation. > >> All are cost competitive > >How odd that the only people who pay for >them themselves are those who are off grid. > >> and either zero or very low CO2 emission. > >Nukes leave them for dead in that regard and don’t have >a problem with system stabity or intermittency either. > >> Best of all, for such a dry place like Australia, minimal to zero water is >> consumed. > >That’s a lie with geothermal and hydro. > >>> Not feasible to do it where the power is mostly used. > >> You need to learn (a lot) more before you discuss these things with the >> adults. > >You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. > >>>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. > >>>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. > >>>> So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can all >>>> decide who the idiot really is. > >>> We've already decided its fools like you. > >> Sorry Roddles, it's just you. > >Is that right ? Not even a single other person >who has ever said that its much better to continue >with coal fired power generation that piss our >money against the wall on renewables eh ? > >Keep this shit up and your shit and lies and desperate >attempt at childish insults will be flushed where it belongs. > >> You and your climate change denier buddies are a rapidly shrinking >> species. > >Must be why not even a double digit percentage of the >voters are actually stupid enough to vote for the clown >who want nothing but renewable power generation. > >>> That’s why you lot don’t even get double digit percentages of >>> voters voting for the mindless silly shit fools like you want to see. > >> And how many vote for those climate change denying morons in the Hanson >> party? 5%? > >Who cares ? They are as completely irrelevant as your fuckwits. Is your middle name Slow? -- There are two types of people in this world Atheists and the mentally ill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 16:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ek10aiF5b9cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33075 |
On 28/03/2017 5:19 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote > >>>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is >>>>>>> useless for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like >>>>>>> that, they should go and fuck themselves. > >>>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>>> anywhere. > >>>>> Who cares ? > >>>> Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. > >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >> Nonetheless, a fact. > > Claiming its a fact doesn’t make it a fact. > >> Morons can't see a problem. Everyone else can. > > How odd that sweet fuck all are actually stupid enough > to vote for the sort of shit you clowns want to see. **Not so odd really. However, Hanson's lot are the only party that denies anthropogenic global warming is a fact. Hanson's lot are the only ones without a climate policy. Labor, Lieberal and the Greens all have climate policies. > >> You, Barnarby, George Christensen and the others are morons. > > Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart. **I just tell it the way it is. > >>>>> What matters is that the brown coal is useless for anything but >>>>> power generation and so should be used for that. > >>>> Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, > >>> Its fine for power generation. > >> No, it is not. > > Corse it is. **Nope. It is MUCH poorer than black coal and is very CO2 intensive. > >> It is VERY poor. > > Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. **Then it just needs to be left in the ground. > > Even the stupid krauts managed to work that out. > >> Brown coal, as mined in Victoria releases around 8.4Mj/kg. > > Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. > >> Black coal is more like 35Mj/kg. > > Irrelevant when we can flog that to those who need to buy it. > >> Brown coal is a spectacularly poor choice of fuel. > > Wrong when we can have the generators right > next to it and its no use for anything else. **Those generators are being shut down, because they're old and require huge amounts to be spent on them. Additionally, they spew huge amounts of CO2. > >>>> which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power >>>> generation > >>> Irrelevant when we produce sweet fuck >>> all of the world's CO2 production. > >> That old chestnut. > > Corse you never ever manage anything like that yourself, eh ? **You keep blathering on with your idiotic, Alan Jones arguments. EVERYONE will need to reduce CO2 emissions, to save what is left of this planet. That includes every Australian. We are not immune to the effects of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. The real question is this: Why do YOU think we are? > >> Listen very carefully, moron: > >> EVERY SINGLE human on the planet will need to make adjustments to deal >> with CO2 production. That includes every single Australian. > > You can repeat that mindless silly shit till the > cows come home, it stays mindless silly shit. > Those who already use just hydro obviously don’t. **Very few people on this planet use only hydro. Of course, those that do may not need to make too many adjustments (provided they have electric vehicles, of course). > >>> Even if we were actually stupid enough to shut down >>> all fossil fuelled power generation entirely, the effect >>> on the world temperate wouldn’t even be measurable >>> given that China alone increases its CO2 production >>> by more than we do entirely, ever single year. > >> If every nation shuts down fossil fuel power generators, > > Not going to happen, they aint that stupid, even if you clowns are. **It has to happen if we are to survive. > >> the effect would be substantial. > > Irrelevant to what would happen if Haselwood wasn’t closed. > > ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MEASURABLE. **Again: EVERYONE needs to act. Even every Australian. > >> Since Australia has enormous reserves of renewable energy, then it >> makes sense for us to make use of those reserves. > > Not when even if we closed all power generation entirely > and banned all modes of transport entirely would produce > no measurable effect on climate what so ever. **Sure it would. A dramatic effect over time. > >>>> and, therefore, should not be used. > >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >>>> The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, >>>> because it is non-viable (uneconomic). > >>> Only because we are stupid enough to penalise coal fired >>> power generation and to require levels of pollution >>> control that make them unviable economically. > >> Pollution is bad. > > Not when it blows away from where it is produced it aint. **Oh, you're one of those. How disturbing. > >>> It was perfectly viable economically when >>> it was built and that hasn’t changed now. > >> Not quite. > > Fraid so. > >> Hazelwood has reached the end of it's effective life-span. > > If it was economic in the first place, its even more economic to > replace the subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be > used now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. **Cite your figures. You make the claims, provide some hard data to back your claims. No data = claim rejected. > >> Like automobiles, power stations do not last forever. > > No one ever said they did. But if it was economic to build > it in the first place, its even more economic to replace the > subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be used > now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. **How long will it take to rebuild Hazelwood? How much will it cost? How much CO2 will it produce? Numbers Roddles. Numbers. And none of your dodgy claims. Let's see the hard data. > >>> And it would cost less than HALF of what >>> the new snowy hydro changes will cost and >>> will produce MUCH more power than that. > >> The Snowy hydro changes are just a desperate attempt by Trumbull to be >> seen to do something, other than investing in real renewables. > > Even sillier than you usually manage. The Snowy system has > always been about pumped storage, by far the best way to > do something about the inevitable intermittency of what > renewable power generation we have and to allow the coal > fired power generation to work at maximum efficiency. **Provided there is sufficient water to maximise the Snowy scheme, yes. In case you had failed to realise, Southern Australia is becoming drier, thanks to AGW. That said, I have no major issues with maximising the Snowy scheme. Trouble is, it will take a MINIMUM of a decade and cost three times the figure Trumbull claimed. It's just a throwaway line so he could pacify the Greens. > >>>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. > >>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. > >>>> So you say. > >>> So anyone with even half a clue knows. > >> It seems you don't. > > Easy to claim. > >>>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, > >>>>> Wrong, as always. > >>>> I see. > >>> Nope, you never do. > >>>> And what, precisely, can the government do? > >>> I already told you, fuckwit. > >> No, you didn't. > > More of your lies, it was still there in the quoting until you > carefully deleted it, you flagrantly dishonest fuckwit. **Wrong. I checked. I see no citations from you to prove your insane claims. > > Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs. > >>>> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > >>> The govt is legally free to hand Engie what it would >>> cost to continue to run Hazelwood and is legally free >>> to make an offer for Hazelwood if it chooses to too. > >> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. > > Don’t need any, that has happened before. **Cite your legal precedents. > >>>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. > >>>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. > >>>> You assume that the company wants to sell it. > >>> I assume nothing of the sort and the govt is free to nationalise >>> it and pay compensation for doing that if it wants to anyway. > >> Except that no one in their right mind wants Hazelwood to continue. > > Irrelevant to what is possible. > >> Only pollution-loving, climate deniers like you think it should remain >> in operation. > > Irrelevant to what is possible. > >>> And the govt is free to pay Engie to do what needs to be done to >>> continue to run Hazelwood if it wants to too. > >>>> You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money >>>> to make the plant viable. > >>> I assume nothing of the sort. It is obviously legally >>> possible for the govt to do that if it chooses to. > >> And again, provided the government is prepared to pay. > > Irrelevant to what is possible. > >>>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. > >>>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. > >>>> Name them. > >>> Costs too much so no one is prepared to do it without a subsidy. > >> Nonsense: > > Fact. > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source > > Have fun listing even a single example of a major renewable > power generation system done in this country without a subsidy. **Why bother? Coal has been subsidised from day one. They're all subsidised one way or another. Even your precious nukes are subsidised by every government that uses them. > >>> Fucks the environment with all those wind generators. > >> There are many other renewable sources available. > > Those fuck the environment too. **No where near as bad as brown coal. Brown coal is really, really bad. > >>> Fucks the stability of the grid. > >> Geo-thermal (aka: 'Hot rock') technology deals with that. > > Pity that no one is silly enough to build it without a subsidy here. **Again: NO power station gets built without a subsidy. Not one. > >> As does Solar/thermal and Solar PV/battery technologies. > > Another lie with non synchronous power generation. **In what way do you imagine it is a lie? Be specific for a change. > >> All are cost competitive > > How odd that the only people who pay for > them themselves are those who are off grid. **And yet, that is untrue. > >> and either zero or very low CO2 emission. > > Nukes leave them for dead in that regard and don’t have > a problem with system stabity or intermittency either. **Sure. Nukes are great, except for: * The fact that one would take 20 years to become operational, IF a decision to build was made today. * No one has figured out what to do with the waste. The US has managed to secure 2 years' worth of it's nuclear waste. Only 48 years' worth to go. Even then, who will guarantee the security of the waste for the next 20 million years or so? Will you? * The taxpayer will have to stump up the insurance costs if something goes wrong. No insurance company on the planet will insure a nuke. That should tell you something. * There's less than 100 years' of cheap uranium left. We've got about 5 BILLION years of Sunlight left. And that's free and pollution free. > >> Best of all, for such a dry place like Australia, minimal to zero >> water is consumed. > > That’s a lie with geothermal and hydro. **Obviously, though geothermal uses a lot less than coal or nukes. > >>> Not feasible to do it where the power is mostly used. > >> You need to learn (a lot) more before you discuss these things with >> the adults. > > You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. **LOL. > >>>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. > >>>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. > >>>> So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can >>>> all decide who the idiot really is. > >>> We've already decided its fools like you. > >> Sorry Roddles, it's just you. > > Is that right ? **You, Barnaby, George and the other morons. Not even a single other person > who has ever said that its much better to continue > with coal fired power generation that piss our > money against the wall on renewables eh ? **Only those with an IQ that barely reaches double digits. Someone much like you, in fact. > > Keep this shit up and your shit and lies and desperate > attempt at childish insults will be flushed where it belongs. **Of course. I expect nothing less from you. No citations, no proof and scurry away when asked to provide proof. Typical. > >> You and your climate change denier buddies are a rapidly shrinking >> species. > > Must be why not even a double digit percentage of the > voters are actually stupid enough to vote for the clown > who want nothing but renewable power generation. **Wrong: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940 > >>> That’s why you lot don’t even get double digit percentages of >>> voters voting for the mindless silly shit fools like you want to see. > >> And how many vote for those climate change denying morons in the >> Hanson party? 5%? > > Who cares ? They are as completely irrelevant as your fuckwits. **They're the only bunch who don't accept AGW theory and the only bunch who don't want a CO2 limit for Australia. Labor, Lieberal and the Greens all want CO2 limits. Only Hanson's bunch of clowns don't accept any of it. IOW: You and Hanson's bunch of misfits, liars and criminals are a good fit for you. Happy voting. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 20:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ek1cb1F7kjoU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33092 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:ek10aiF5b9cU1@mid.individual.net... > On 28/03/2017 5:19 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >> >>>>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is >>>>>>>> useless for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like >>>>>>>> that, they should go and fuck themselves. >> >>>>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>>>> anywhere. >> >>>>>> Who cares ? >> >>>>> Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain. >> >>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >> >>> Nonetheless, a fact. >> >> Claiming its a fact doesn’t make it a fact. >> >>> Morons can't see a problem. Everyone else can. >> >> How odd that sweet fuck all are actually stupid enough >> to vote for the sort of shit you clowns want to see. > Not so odd really. We'll see... > However, Hanson's lot are the only party that denies anthropogenic global > warming is a fact. Just another of your bare faced pig ignorant lies. > Hanson's lot are the only ones without a climate policy. Just another of your bare faced pig ignorant lies. > Labor, Lieberal and the Greens all have climate policies. Pity about all the rest that don’t. >>> You, Barnarby, George Christensen and the others are morons. >> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart. > I just tell it the way it is. Just another of your bare faced lies. >>>>>> What matters is that the brown coal is useless for anything but >>>>>> power generation and so should be used for that. >> >>>>> Brown coal is an exceptionally poor type of coal, >> >>>> Its fine for power generation. >> >>> No, it is not. >> >> Corse it is. > Nope. Yep. > It is MUCH poorer than black coal Which we can flog to those who have enough of a clue to use it for power generation. > and is very CO2 intensive. Who gives a flying red fuck ? EVEN IF THIS COUNTRY WAS ACTUALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO SHUT DOWN ALL POWER GENERATION ENTIRELY AND BAN ALL VEHICLES, IT WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHAT SO EVER TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORLD. >>> It is VERY poor. >> Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. > Then it just needs to be left in the ground. How odd that not even a double digit percentage of the voters are actually stupid enough to buy that line. You get to like that of lump it. >> Even the stupid krauts managed to work that out. >> >>> Brown coal, as mined in Victoria releases around 8.4Mj/kg. >> >> Irrelevant when its no use for anything else. >> >>> Black coal is more like 35Mj/kg. >> >> Irrelevant when we can flog that to those who need to buy it. >> >>> Brown coal is a spectacularly poor choice of fuel. >> >> Wrong when we can have the generators right >> next to it and its no use for anything else. > Those generators are being shut down, because Because fuckwit polly have required them to reduce the what they emit. > they're old and require huge amounts to be spent on them. In fact HALF what is is being spent on the enhancement of the snowy system. > Additionally, they spew huge amounts of CO2. EVEN IF THIS COUNTRY WAS ACTUALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO SHUT DOWN ALL POWER GENERATION ENTIRELY AND BAN ALL VEHICLES, IT WOULD MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHAT SO EVER TO THE TEMPERATURE OF THE WORLD. >>>>> which produces far more CO2 than almost any other kind of power >>>>> generation >> >>>> Irrelevant when we produce sweet fuck >>>> all of the world's CO2 production. >> >>> That old chestnut. >> >> Corse you never ever manage anything like that yourself, eh ? <reams of your shit flushed where it belongs> > EVERYONE will need to reduce CO2 emissions, Wrong with those that produce no net CO2 emissions. > to save what is left of this planet. Even sillier than you usually manage. > That includes every Australian. Wrong with those that produce no net CO2 emissions. > We are not immune to the effects of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. Irrelevant to whether those who already produced no net CO2 emissions need to produce less CO2 than they currently do. > The real question is this: Wrong, as always. > Why do YOU think we are? Having fun thrashing that straw man ? >>> Listen very carefully, moron: >> >>> EVERY SINGLE human on the planet will need to make adjustments to deal >>> with CO2 production. That includes every single Australian. >> >> You can repeat that mindless silly shit till the >> cows come home, it stays mindless silly shit. >> Those who already use just hydro obviously don’t. > Very few people on this planet use only hydro. Irrelevant to the FACT that some do and even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should be able to grasp that THOSE don’t need to 'make adjustment to deal with CO2 production' Plenty will do better with higher levels of CO2. > Of course, those that do may not need to make too many adjustments Those who do better with high CO2 levels obviously don’t need to make any adjustments at all, fuckwit. > (provided they have electric vehicles, of course). Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. >>>> Even if we were actually stupid enough to shut down >>>> all fossil fuelled power generation entirely, the effect >>>> on the world temperate wouldn’t even be measurable >>>> given that China alone increases its CO2 production >>>> by more than we do entirely, ever single year. >> >>> If every nation shuts down fossil fuel power generators, >> >> Not going to happen, they aint that stupid, even if you clowns are. > It has to happen if we are to survive. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. >>> the effect would be substantial. >> Irrelevant to what would happen if Haselwood wasn’t closed. >> ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MEASURABLE. > Again: EVERYONE needs to act. Even every Australian. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. >>> Since Australia has enormous reserves of renewable energy, then it >>> makes sense for us to make use of those reserves. >> >> Not when even if we closed all power generation entirely >> and banned all modes of transport entirely would produce >> no measurable effect on climate what so ever. > Sure it would. A dramatic effect over time. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage given that China adds more CO2 production EVERY SINGLE YEAR than we produce in total. >>>>> and, therefore, should not be used. >> >>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >> >>>>> The bottom line is that the Hazelwood generator was shut down, >>>>> because it is non-viable (uneconomic). >> >>>> Only because we are stupid enough to penalise coal fired >>>> power generation and to require levels of pollution >>>> control that make them unviable economically. >> >>> Pollution is bad. >> >> Not when it blows away from where it is produced it aint. > Oh, you're one of those. How disturbing. Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself or sumfin. >>>> It was perfectly viable economically when >>>> it was built and that hasn’t changed now. >> >>> Not quite. >> >> Fraid so. >> >>> Hazelwood has reached the end of it's effective life-span. >> >> If it was economic in the first place, its even more economic to >> replace the subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be >> used now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. > Cite your figures. Don’t to do anything of the sort, it was obviously profitable for decades otherwise it couldn’t have been sold, fuckwit. >>> Like automobiles, power stations do not last forever. >> >> No one ever said they did. But if it was economic to build >> it in the first place, its even more economic to replace the >> subset of what was built to allow it to continue to be used >> now that the price they get for the electricity is much higher. > How long will it take to rebuild Hazelwood? Irrelevant. > How much will it cost? Less than half of what the enhancement of the snowy system will cost. > How much CO2 will it produce? Same as it did before. >>>> And it would cost less than HALF of what >>>> the new snowy hydro changes will cost and >>>> will produce MUCH more power than that. >> >>> The Snowy hydro changes are just a desperate attempt by Trumbull to be >>> seen to do something, other than investing in real renewables. >> >> Even sillier than you usually manage. The Snowy system has >> always been about pumped storage, by far the best way to >> do something about the inevitable intermittency of what >> renewable power generation we have and to allow the coal >> fired power generation to work at maximum efficiency. > Provided there is sufficient water to maximise the Snowy scheme, yes. The enhanced system doesn’t consume water, its just pumped up and down. > In case you had failed to realise, Southern Australia is becoming drier, > thanks to AGW. Irrelevant when no water is consumed by the enhancement. And you don’t even know that the rainfall in the snowy catchment will drop anyway. We have in fact seen the WETTEST 5 months ever recorded. > That said, I have no major issues with maximising the Snowy scheme. It isnt being maximised. > Trouble is, it will take a MINIMUM of a decade and cost three times the > figure Trumbull claimed. Those numbers are straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell. > It's just a throwaway line so he could pacify the Greens. The greens are completely and utterly irrelevant. >>>>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >> >>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >> >>>>> So you say. >> >>>> So anyone with even half a clue knows. >> >>> It seems you don't. >> >> Easy to claim. >> >>>>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >> >>>>>> Wrong, as always. >> >>>>> I see. >> >>>> Nope, you never do. >> >>>>> And what, precisely, can the government do? >> >>>> I already told you, fuckwit. >> >>> No, you didn't. >> >> More of your lies, it was still there in the quoting until you >> carefully deleted it, you flagrantly dishonest fuckwit. > Wrong. Nope. > I checked. More of your lies as everyone can see for themselves. >> Keep this shit up and your shit will be flushed where it belongs. >> >>>>> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. >> >>>> The govt is legally free to hand Engie what it would >>>> cost to continue to run Hazelwood and is legally free >>>> to make an offer for Hazelwood if it chooses to too. >> >>> Cite the legal precedents in your answer. >> >> Don’t need any, that has happened before. > Cite your legal precedents. Don’t need legal precedents when it has been done before. >>>>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >> >>>>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >> >>>>> You assume that the company wants to sell it. >> >>>> I assume nothing of the sort and the govt is free to nationalise >>>> it and pay compensation for doing that if it wants to anyway. >> >>> Except that no one in their right mind wants Hazelwood to continue. >> >> Irrelevant to what is possible. >> >>> Only pollution-loving, climate deniers like you think it should remain >>> in operation. >> >> Irrelevant to what is possible. >> >>>> And the govt is free to pay Engie to do what needs to be done to >>>> continue to run Hazelwood if it wants to too. >> >>>>> You assume that the government is willing to spend even more money >>>>> to make the plant viable. >> >>>> I assume nothing of the sort. It is obviously legally >>>> possible for the govt to do that if it chooses to. >> >>> And again, provided the government is prepared to pay. >> >> Irrelevant to what is possible. >> >>>>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >> >>>>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >> >>>>> Name them. >> >>>> Costs too much so no one is prepared to do it without a subsidy. >> >>> Nonsense: >> >> Fact. >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source >> >> Have fun listing even a single example of a major renewable >> power generation system done in this country without a subsidy. > Why bother? To make money, fuckwit. > Coal has been subsidised from day one. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. > They're all subsidised one way or another. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. > Even your precious nukes are subsidised by every government that uses > them. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. >>>> Fucks the environment with all those wind generators. >> >>> There are many other renewable sources available. >> >> Those fuck the environment too. > No where near as bad as brown coal. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. > Brown coal is really, really bad. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. >>>> Fucks the stability of the grid. >> >>> Geo-thermal (aka: 'Hot rock') technology deals with that. >> >> Pity that no one is silly enough to build it without a subsidy here. > Again: NO power station gets built without a subsidy. Not one. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. >>> As does Solar/thermal and Solar PV/battery technologies. >> Another lie with non synchronous power generation. > In what way do you imagine it is a lie? Already did, THE STABILITY OF THE GRID, fuckwit. > Be specific Already did, THE STABILITY OF THE GRID, fuckwit. > for a change. More of your bare faced lies. >>> All are cost competitive >> How odd that the only people who pay for >> them themselves are those who are off grid. > And yet, that is untrue. And yet you just just lied thru your fucking teeth that no power generation is ever done without subsidys. Those who are off grid have been doing that forever without subsidys, fuckwit. >>> and either zero or very low CO2 emission. >> >> Nukes leave them for dead in that regard and don’t have >> a problem with system stabity or intermittency either. > Sure. Nukes are great, except for: > * The fact that one would take 20 years to become operational, IF a > decision to build was made today. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. The chinese do them MUCH faster than that. > * No one has figured out what to do with the waste. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. We keep used fuel rods until it makes economic sense to reprocess them instead of using newly mined nuclear material. > The US has managed to secure 2 years' worth of it's nuclear waste. Don’t need to secure it, its useless to anyone that matters. > Only 48 years' worth to go. That’s what is the result of nuclear weapons, you flagrantly dishonest arsehole. > Even then, who will guarantee the security of the waste for the next 20 > million years or so? Don’t need to. Its no worse than what was dug out of the ground much sooner than that. For some odd reason we don’t actually see too many terrorists furiously digging around in this country and making off with lots of what they dig up in their underwear. Can't imagine why for the life of me. > * The taxpayer will have to stump up the insurance costs if something goes > wrong. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. No point in insuring anything, just pay for what happens if it ever does. > No insurance company on the planet will insure a nuke. No point in insuring anything, just pay for what happens if it ever does. > That should tell you something. Yep, that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever. > There's less than 100 years' of cheap uranium left. Pity that even when it isnt dirt cheap as it currently is, that its still dirt cheap compared with the alternatives and the use fuel rods which have had sweet fuck off of the uranium in them actually consumed. And the vastly more thorium trivial available. > We've got about 5 BILLION years of Sunlight left. And that's free and > pollution free. Pity its only there for less than 40% of the day strongly enough to be useful for power generation. >>> Best of all, for such a dry place like Australia, minimal to zero >>> water is consumed. >> >> That’s a lie with geothermal and hydro. > Obviously, though geothermal uses a lot less than coal or nukes. Pity about hydro and where the geothermal is. >>>> Not feasible to do it where the power is mostly used. >> >>> You need to learn (a lot) more before you discuss these things with >>> the adults. >> >> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. > LOL. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. >>>>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >> >>>>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >> >>>>> So you keep saying. Let's hear your moronic responses, then we can >>>>> all decide who the idiot really is. >> >>>> We've already decided its fools like you. >> >>> Sorry Roddles, it's just you. >> >> Is that right ? > You, Barnaby, George and the other morons. Cant even manage a consistent line in mindless silly bullshit and lies. > Not even a single other person >> who has ever said that its much better to continue >> with coal fired power generation that piss our >> money against the wall on renewables eh ? > Only those with an IQ that barely reaches double digits. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. > Someone much like you, in fact. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. >> Keep this shit up and your shit and lies and desperate >> attempt at childish insults will be flushed where it belongs. <reams of your shit and lies and desperate attempt at childish insults flushed where it belongs> >>> You and your climate change denier buddies are a rapidly shrinking >>> species. >> >> Must be why not even a double digit percentage of the >> voters are actually stupid enough to vote for the clown >> who want nothing but renewable power generation. > Wrong: > http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate-change-csiro-report/6909940 Just because some fool claims something... >>>> That’s why you lot don’t even get double digit percentages of >>>> voters voting for the mindless silly shit fools like you want to see. >> >>> And how many vote for those climate change denying morons in the >>> Hanson party? 5%? >> >> Who cares ? They are as completely irrelevant as your fuckwits. > They're the only bunch who don't accept AGW theory Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. > and the only bunch who don't want a CO2 limit for Australia. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. > Labor, Lieberal and the Greens all want CO2 limits. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. > Only Hanson's bunch of clowns don't accept any of it. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. <reams of your shit and lies and desperate attempt at childish insults flushed where it belongs>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 22:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ZsrCA.395797$0k4.174644@fx37.am4> |
| In reply to | #33068 |
On 28/03/2017 11:06, Rod Speed wrote: > Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote > >>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>> should go and fuck themselves. > >> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use anywhere. > > Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for > anything but power generation and so should be used for that. At the risk of raising the tone in this newsgroup... If you found a box the size and shape of a loaf of bread, with a hole in the end, and the box were clearly labelled "dick guillotine" and the writing on the side explained that it was completely useless for any other purpose, would you use it? Sometimes something can have only one possible use, but it is still better not to use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 05:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejvnrdFsh41U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33079 |
"Chris Jones" <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ZsrCA.395797$0k4.174644@fx37.am4... > On 28/03/2017 11:06, Rod Speed wrote: >> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >> >>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>> should go and fuck themselves. >> >>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>> anywhere. >> >> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. > Sometimes something can have only one possible use, but it is still better > not to use it. Not the case with brown coal which has been very useful for decades now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 06:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejvqsjFt47mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33082 |
On 29/03/2017 5:20 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Chris Jones" <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:ZsrCA.395797$0k4.174644@fx37.am4... >> On 28/03/2017 11:06, Rod Speed wrote: >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>> >>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>> >>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>> anywhere. >>> >>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. > >> Sometimes something can have only one possible use, but it is still >> better not to use it. > > Not the case with brown coal which has been very useful for decades now. **And now it isn't. Horses and carriages were useful for hundreds of years. Now they're not. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 09:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ek06ohF10rqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33084 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:ejvqsjFt47mU1@mid.individual.net... > On 29/03/2017 5:20 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Chris Jones" <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:ZsrCA.395797$0k4.174644@fx37.am4... >>> On 28/03/2017 11:06, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> >>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>> >>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >> >>> Sometimes something can have only one possible use, but it is still >>> better not to use it. >> >> Not the case with brown coal which has been very useful for decades now. > > And now it isn't. Try telling that to the krauts. Don’t be too surprised when they just laugh in your stupid face, like everyone else does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 22:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ek1lv7F9khsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33087 |
On 3/29/2017 8:34 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message > news:ejvqsjFt47mU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 29/03/2017 5:20 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Chris Jones" <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:ZsrCA.395797$0k4.174644@fx37.am4... >>>> On 28/03/2017 11:06, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> >>>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is >>>>>>> useless >>>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>>> >>>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>>> anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>>>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>> >>>> Sometimes something can have only one possible use, but it is still >>>> better not to use it. >>> >>> Not the case with brown coal which has been very useful for decades now. >> >> And now it isn't. > > Try telling that to the krauts. Don’t be too surprised when > they just laugh in your stupid face, like everyone else does. > > Well you should know all about that, it happens all the time to you, nobody takes you seriously any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 22:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33068 |
On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >> Rod Speed wrote > >>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>> should go and fuck themselves. > >> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use anywhere. > > Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for > anything but power generation and so should be used for that. > >> Hazelwood must be shut down. > > Even sillier than you usually manage. > >> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, > > Wrong, as always. > >> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. > > But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them > or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. > >> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. > > Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. > >> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. > > You are just plain wrong, as always. Much better to put the money in base load solar http://www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-solar-energy-project-tonopah-nevada-2/?pagenum=1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 05:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejvntvFshl5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33081 |
"keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... > On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>> Rod Speed wrote >> >>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>> should go and fuck themselves. >> >>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>> anywhere. >> >> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >> >>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >> >> Even sillier than you usually manage. >> >>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >> >> Wrong, as always. >> >>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >> >> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >> >>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >> >> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >> >>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >> >> You are just plain wrong, as always. > > Much better to put the money in base load solar Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most and isnt even the time of day its needed most.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 06:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ejvr09Ft47mU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33083 |
On 29/03/2017 5:21 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message > news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>> >>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>> >>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>> anywhere. >>> >>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>> >>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>> >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>> >>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>> >>> Wrong, as always. >>> >>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>> >>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>> >>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>> >>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>> >>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>> >>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >> >> Much better to put the money in base load solar > > Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most > and isnt even the time of day its needed most. > > **Try reading the link, ignorant cunt. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 09:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ek06q2F115gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33085 |
"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message news:ejvr09Ft47mU2@mid.individual.net... > On 29/03/2017 5:21 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message >> news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> >>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>> >>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>>> >>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>>> >>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>>> >>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>>> >>>> Wrong, as always. >>>> >>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>>> >>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>>> >>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>>> >>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>>> >>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>>> >>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >>> >>> Much better to put the money in base load solar >> >> Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most >> and isnt even the time of day its needed most. > Try reading the link, Read it, its just more mindless silly shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <obed3i$v3r$2@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #33083 |
On 2017-03-28, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message > news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>> Rod Speed wrote >>> >>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>> >>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>> anywhere. >>> >>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>> >>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>> >>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>> >>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>> >>> Wrong, as always. >>> >>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>> >>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>> >>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>> >>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>> >>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>> >>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >> >> Much better to put the money in base load solar > > Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most > and isnt even the time of day its needed most. All that sun light falling on the desert is, as you put it, "only good for one thing". base-load solar includes storage so that it can put power on the grid durng the night. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 09:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ek06tgF11nnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33086 |
"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message news:obed3i$v3r$2@gonzo.alcatraz... > On 2017-03-28, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> "keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message >> news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>> >>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>> >>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>>> >>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>>> >>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>>> >>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>>> >>>> Wrong, as always. >>>> >>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>>> >>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>>> >>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>>> >>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>>> >>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>>> >>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >>> >>> Much better to put the money in base load solar >> >> Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most >> and isnt even the time of day its needed most. > All that sun light falling on the desert is, > as you put it, "only good for one thing". That’s just plain wrong. Its good for a lot more than just electricity generation. > base-load solar includes storage so that it can > put power on the grid durng the night. Pity about the stupid cost of doing it like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 04:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <obfe1n$49l$2@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #33089 |
On 2017-03-28, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:obed3i$v3r$2@gonzo.alcatraz... >> On 2017-03-28, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>> >>>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is useless >>>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>>> >>>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>>> anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>>>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>>>> >>>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>>>> >>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>>>> >>>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, as always. >>>>> >>>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>>>> >>>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>>>> >>>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>>>> >>>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>>>> >>>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>>>> >>>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >>>> >>>> Much better to put the money in base load solar >>> >>> Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most >>> and isnt even the time of day its needed most. > >> All that sun light falling on the desert is, >> as you put it, "only good for one thing". > > That’s just plain wrong. Its good for a lot more than just electricity > generation. a: such as what, hot sand is not useful for much. b: same for that coal - eg preventing a hole in the ground >> base-load solar includes storage so that it can >> put power on the grid durng the night. > > Pity about the stupid cost of doing it like that. same for that coal, but moreso. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-29 19:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ek194vF6vpuU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #33091 |
"Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message news:obfe1n$49l$2@gonzo.alcatraz... > On 2017-03-28, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Jasen Betts" <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote in message >> news:obed3i$v3r$2@gonzo.alcatraz... >>> On 2017-03-28, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:ejv3nnFodakU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 3/28/2017 10:06 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>>> IMO the federal govt should be spending whatever it takes to keep >>>>>>>> Hazelwood going, because its right next to brown coal that is >>>>>>>> useless >>>>>>>> for anything else, and if fools like Trevor don't like that, they >>>>>>>> should go and fuck themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Brown coal is the most polluting energy source presently in use >>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Who cares ? What matters is that the brown coal is useless for >>>>>> anything but power generation and so should be used for that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hazelwood must be shut down. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even sillier than you usually manage. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, there is nothing the government can do about it, >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong, as always. >>>>>> >>>>>>> since it was sold and shut down by a private company. >>>>>> >>>>>> But if the govt chose to, it is free to buy it back from them >>>>>> or to hand them the money to allow it to operate again. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Australia has the capacity to generate huge amounts of clean energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stupid way to generate electricity for all sorts of reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>>> THAT is what the government needs to be investing in. Not coal. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just plain wrong, as always. >>>>> >>>>> Much better to put the money in base load solar >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Its only there for less than half the day at most >>>> and isnt even the time of day its needed most. >> >>> All that sun light falling on the desert is, >>> as you put it, "only good for one thing". >> >> That’s just plain wrong. Its good for a lot more than just electricity >> generation. > a: such as what, hot sand is not useful for much. We don’t actually have any 'hot sand' deserts here. And the 'sun falling on' can obviously be used for more than just electricity generation. > b: same for that coal - eg preventing a hole in the ground Even sillier than you usually manage. >>> base-load solar includes storage so that it >>> can put power on the grid durng the night. >> Pity about the stupid cost of doing it like that. > same for that coal, but moreso. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. That steaming turd of a solars system that fuckwit pom waved around has a cost of electricity of 15cA/KWH Hazelwood produced electricity for nothing even remotely like that cost.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.electronics
csiph-web