Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > aus.electronics > #32999 > unrolled thread

OT: Snowy Hydro

Started bySylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
First post2017-03-16 15:12 +1100
Last post2017-03-16 22:39 +1100
Articles 20 on this page of 74 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to aus.electronics


Contents

  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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →


#33095

Fromkeithr0 <user@account.invalid>
Date2017-03-29 21:52 +1000
Message-ID<ek1lgeF9hk5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33093
On 3/29/2017 6:21 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "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.

Interesting speedrithmetic

  The 260-MW Copiapó project in Chile, with 14 hours of storage, plans 
to bid its power at under $70/MWh, without subsidies

ie USD0.07/Kwh = aud0.091/Kwh

Face it speed, you're irrelevant these day, you're still stuck in 1980s 
thinking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33099

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-30 03:14 +1100
Message-ID<ek24s5Fcm4dU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33095

"keithr0" <user@account.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ek1lgeF9hk5U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 3/29/2017 6:21 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "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.

> Interesting speedrithmetic

We'll see...

>  The 260-MW Copiapó project in Chile,

That aint the one you waved around. And 260MW
is nothing even remotely what Hazelwood produces.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33090

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-29 10:53 +1100
Message-ID<ek0bcrF1qm2U1@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

Nope.

> http://www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-solar-energy-project-tonopah-nevada-2/?pagenum=1

Pity about the stupid price of electricity from that, 15cA/KWH, no thanks.

Cost more than keeping Hazelwood going, for only 60% of the
capacity and a decent hail storm would wipe it out completely.

Pity about the transmission line required to it. Already there with 
Hazelwood.

Completely fucking barking mad. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33096

Fromkeithr0 <user@account.invalid>
Date2017-03-29 21:53 +1000
Message-ID<ek1lidF9hk5U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33090
On 3/29/2017 9:53 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
>
> Nope.
>
>> http://www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-solar-energy-project-tonopah-nevada-2/?pagenum=1
>>
>
> Pity about the stupid price of electricity from that, 15cA/KWH, no thanks.

No it ain't read the link properly and learn some basic arithmetic.
>
> Cost more than keeping Hazelwood going, for only 60% of the
> capacity and a decent hail storm would wipe it out completely.
>
> Pity about the transmission line required to it. Already there with
> Hazelwood.
>
> Completely fucking barking mad.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33098

FromF Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com>
Date2017-03-29 22:48 +1000
Message-ID<58dbad15$0$39533$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to#33090
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
>
> Nope.
>
>> http://www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-solar-energy-project-tonopah-nevada-2/?pagenum=1
>>
>
> Pity about the stupid price of electricity from that, 15cA/KWH, no thanks.
>
> Cost more than keeping Hazelwood going, for only 60% of the
> capacity and a decent hail storm would wipe it out completely.
>
> Pity about the transmission line required to it. Already there with
> Hazelwood.
>
> Completely fucking barking mad.
The owners must have thought it could be kept going, they asked the govt 
for $25 million to keep it going but were knocked back

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33100

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-30 03:17 +1100
Message-ID<ek250tFcn6fU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33098

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:58dbad15$0$39533$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com...
> 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
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> http://www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-solar-energy-project-tonopah-nevada-2/?pagenum=1
>>>
>>
>> Pity about the stupid price of electricity from that, 15cA/KWH, no 
>> thanks.
>>
>> Cost more than keeping Hazelwood going, for only 60% of the
>> capacity and a decent hail storm would wipe it out completely.
>>
>> Pity about the transmission line required to it. Already there with
>> Hazelwood.
>>
>> Completely fucking barking mad.

> The owners must have thought it could be kept going, they asked the govt 
> for $25 million to keep it going but were knocked back

And that is a tiny fraction of the cost of that terminal
stupidity that that fuckwit pom waved around and
would produce an electricity cost of nothing even
remotely like what that fuckwit  pom waved around. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33121

Fromkeithr0 <user@account.invalid>
Date2017-03-31 20:01 +1000
Message-ID<ek6nn1F9qr3U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33100
On 3/30/2017 2:17 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:58dbad15$0$39533$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com...
>> 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
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> http://www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-solar-energy-project-tonopah-nevada-2/?pagenum=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pity about the stupid price of electricity from that, 15cA/KWH, no
>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> Cost more than keeping Hazelwood going, for only 60% of the
>>> capacity and a decent hail storm would wipe it out completely.
>>>
>>> Pity about the transmission line required to it. Already there with
>>> Hazelwood.
>>>
>>> Completely fucking barking mad.
>
>> The owners must have thought it could be kept going, they asked the
>> govt for $25 million to keep it going but were knocked back
>
> And that is a tiny fraction of the cost of that terminal
> stupidity that that fuckwit pom waved around and
> would produce an electricity cost of nothing even
> remotely like what that fuckwit  pom waved around.

Bog standard speed shit. The usual fossilised thinking from and 
irrelevant and boring old fart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33123

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-04-01 05:03 +1100
Message-ID<ek7jvsFfbo8U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33121
Some fuckwit pom desperately cowering behind
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> spewed the usual
desperately cowering pomshit.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33131

Fromkeithr0 <user@account.invalid>
Date2017-04-01 20:01 +1000
Message-ID<ek9c3uFpfb5U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33123
On 4/1/2017 4:03 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Some fuckwit pom desperately cowering behind
> keithr0 <user@account.invalid> spewed the usual
> desperately cowering pomshit.

Bog standard speed shit. The usual fossilised thinking from and 
irrelevant and boring old fart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33133

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-04-02 03:01 +1000
Message-ID<eka56fFudjiU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33131
Some fuckwit pom desperately cowering behind
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> spewed the usual
desperately cowering pomshit.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33138

Fromkeithr0 <user@account.invalid>
Date2017-04-02 14:55 +1000
Message-ID<ekbeimF7d6mU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33133
Some irrelevant old fart cowering behind the unlikely alias of "Rod 
speed" spewed up his usual irrelevant shit desperately trying to have 
the last word as usual.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33139

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-04-02 16:06 +1000
Message-ID<ekbintF83ivU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33138
Some fuckwit pom that can't even manage 
its own lines, desperately cowering behind
keithr0 <user@account.invalid> spewed 
the usual desperately cowering pomshit.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33071

FromGordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid>
Date2017-03-28 14:53 +1100
Message-ID<94njdc9tv2397gggcn7k1e52ljog7447ld@4ax.com>
In reply to#33064
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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,  

No doubt you think that the federal government should start making
axes and other tools out of stone instead of wasting the stones that
are just left lying on the ground. I suggest you spend your time
worrying about all the wind that is not being used to make electricity
and is useless for anything else.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33074

From"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-28 16:44 +1100
Message-ID<ejubhjFjjpjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33071
Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> wrote 
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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,  

<reams of your shit flushed where it belongs> 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33078

FromXeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
Date2017-03-28 18:42 +1100
Message-ID<obd3vg$es9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#33071
On 28/03/2017 2:53 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> 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,
>
> No doubt you think that the federal government should start making
> axes and other tools out of stone instead of wasting the stones that
> are just left lying on the ground. I suggest you spend your time
> worrying about all the wind that is not being used to make electricity
> and is useless for anything else.
>
They have a surfeit of *wind* in Queensland just at the moment!   ;-)

-- 

Xeno

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33001

FromPhil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-16 00:07 -0700
Message-ID<7822f04d-f48f-43d5-9d76-6d597b0c0d40@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#32999
Stupider than anyone Else
 
>
> "In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour 
> expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government, 
> but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.
> 
> I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe 
> he was misquoted.
> 
  ** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.


> That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much 
> water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power 
> output, it can do so for less time. 
>

 ** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night. 

  With water from the lower ones. 

   It's a huge "water battery". 

> 
> Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only 
> during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts. 
>

** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day. 


> That wouldn't use much 
> of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether 
> the proposal is the cheapest solution.
> 

** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousand batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.



... Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33002

FromPhil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>
Date2017-03-16 00:51 -0700
Message-ID<3b9b6c6b-23e7-4ef0-979c-6e68ff0112b5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#33001
 Phil Allison wrote:

Typo correction:


 ** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousands of batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.



 ... Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33003

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2017-03-16 19:33 +1100
Message-ID<eiv0ucFbnndU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33001
On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
> Stupider than anyone Else
>
>>
>> "In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
>> expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
>> but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.
>>
>> I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
>> he was misquoted.
>>
>    ** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.
>
>
>> That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
>> water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
>> output, it can do so for less time.
>>
>
>   ** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.
>
>    With water from the lower ones.
>
>     It's a huge "water battery".
>
>>
>> Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
>> during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.
>>
>
> ** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of excess power in the grid at any time of day.

There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity. 
During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I 
doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that 
water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.

At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does 
make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used 
later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of 
generation for a less polluting one.

In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short 
of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All 
building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will 
achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a 
significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme 
peak capacity issue.

>
>
>> That wouldn't use much
>> of the water in the scheme of things, but I seriously question whether
>> the proposal is the cheapest solution.
>>
>
> ** Probably is, when you take into account the limited life of the thousand batteries and the electronic converters needed to turn DC into AC.
>
>
>
> ... Phil
>
>
The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33004

FromTrevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
Date2017-03-16 19:40 +1100
Message-ID<eiv1moFbsaiU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33003
On 16/03/2017 7:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>> Stupider than anyone Else
>>
>>>
>>> "In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
>>> expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
>>> but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.
>>>
>>> I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
>>> he was misquoted.
>>>
>>    ** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.
>>
>>
>>> That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so much
>>> water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
>>> output, it can do so for less time.
>>>
>>
>>   ** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.
>>
>>    With water from the lower ones.
>>
>>     It's a huge "water battery".
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
>>> during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.
>>>
>>
>> ** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
>> excess power in the grid at any time of day.
>
> There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
> During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
> doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
> water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.
>
> At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does
> make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used
> later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of
> generation for a less polluting one.
>
> In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
> of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All
> building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will
> achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a
> significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme
> peak capacity issue.
>

**Yeah, it does. It sucks up surplus energy from coal fired power 
stations and stores that energy by raising the level of water. Can it 
deal with the most extreme days? Nope. The extra couple of GWh will help 
though. Trouble is that you can bet Trumbull's idea is at least a decade 
away. We need a solution quicker than that.

> The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.

**Nope. Not even close. Gas is much cheaper.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#33005

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2017-03-16 19:55 +1100
Message-ID<eiv28gFbvi1U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#33004
On 16/03/2017 7:40 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/03/2017 7:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/03/2017 6:07 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> Stupider than anyone Else
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "In one hour it could produce 20 times the 100 megawatts an hour
>>>> expected from the battery proposed by the South Australian Government,
>>>> but would deliver it constantly for almost a week," [Mr Turnbull] said.
>>>>
>>>> I thought he'd know better than to come out with such gibberish. Maybe
>>>> he was misquoted.
>>>>
>>>    ** It's not it not wrong - just a bit awkward.
>>>
>>>
>>>> That aside, Snowy Hydro is energy limited, because there is only so
>>>> much
>>>> water (less in extended dry spells). If it produces a higher power
>>>> output, it can do so for less time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>   ** The high lakes in the Snowy scheme get filled up at night.
>>>
>>>    With water from the lower ones.
>>>
>>>     It's a huge "water battery".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the government intends to use the extra power generation only
>>>> during extreme demand to avert rolling blackouts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** It can do that, but more importantly it allows the storage of
>>> excess power in the grid at any time of day.
>>
>> There isn't an excess of power, there's only an excess of capacity.
>> During the day, the marginal excess capacity is gas generation. I
>> doesn't make economic sense to use gas to pump water just so that that
>> water can be used to displace gas generation on another day.
>>
>> At night, the marginal generation is sometimes coal based. While it does
>> make sense to use coal during the night to pump water that can be used
>> later to displace gas, it also substitutes a more polluting form of
>> generation for a less polluting one.
>>
>> In any case, we're not short of generating capacity per se, we're short
>> of peak generating capacity that's only required in extreme weather. All
>> building additional hydro-generating capacity using pumped storage will
>> achieve is to discourage investment in other capacity for use for a
>> significant part of the day. It doesn't nothing to address the extreme
>> peak capacity issue.
>>
>
> **Yeah, it does. It sucks up surplus energy from coal fired power
> stations and stores that energy by raising the level of water. Can it
> deal with the most extreme days? Nope. The extra couple of GWh will help
> though. Trouble is that you can bet Trumbull's idea is at least a decade
> away. We need a solution quicker than that.

Having the potential energy in the water is one thing. Having the 
generating capacity to use it is another. They're proposing to build 
extra capacity, but if they use it at any time other than when extreme 
conditions are running us out of capacity, then they're displacing other 
capacity. Since they displace the capacity with the highest marginal 
cost, they're displacing gas generation. When potential investors see 
gas generation being displaced on a regular basis, they'll decide not to 
build any more gas generation. So all that's been achieved is to use 
coal fired generation instead of gas generation.
>
>> The cheapest solution to the problem we actually have is probably diesel.
>
>**Nope. Not even close. Gas is much cheaper.

Gas is cheaper as a fuel, but diesel generators themselves are cheaper. 
Since they wouldn't be used much the cost of the generator is more 
significant than the cost of the fuel.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | aus.electronics


csiph-web