XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, sac.politics
XPost: sci.chem.electrochem.battery
From: bruces42@hotmail.com
On 03/10/2017 05:33 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 11/03/2017 2:33 AM, BruceS wrote:
>> On 03/09/2017 09:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2017 3:33 PM, Anton wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/03/2017 10:58 PM, Anton wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/01/2017 2:18 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's 35 Celsius (95 Farenheit) here, and overcast all day. My air
>>>>>>>> conditioner is definitely not running on solar power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And again today, except it's 38 Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>> ]
>>>>>> Where in the blazes are you that it's so hot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Australia.
>>>>
>>>> Ah. Best of luck and cooler temps to ya.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Things have cooled down as we head into Autumn.
>>>
>>> Now there's talk about there being insufficient natural gas to both
>>> supply consumers and gas fired power stations next summer, meaning we
>>> may see rolling blackouts again (not that we did actually get a blackout
>>> this year). Did someone say "third world"?
>>>
>>> Even more reason to get my generator running again.
>>
>> Meanwhile, over here in the U.S. we have so much natural gas available
>> (largely because of widespread fracking), that the coal industry is in
>> dire straits. Maybe what Australia needs to do is to build some
>> coal-fired electric plants, and buy some of our surplus coal for them.
>> Coal is a very reliable source for electric production, not varying
>> with the weather, etc. Alternatively, if you have the sources, start
>> doing some serious fracking to get your own natural gas.
>
> We have more than enough coal of our own - hundreds of years worth at
> current consumption, and most of our current base-load supply uses coal.
> But coal doesn't make economic sense for anything but base load - the
> plant is too expensive.
Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most
economical fuel over here. Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for
its decline, but the real cause is simple economics. At some point,
the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will
be king again. With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it
doesn't burn more coal. Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a
market.
> Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is
> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even
> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves
> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.
That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but
at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas. Of course, the
coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.
> We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in
> nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY
> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of
> thousand kilometres."
I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than
is usual for the U.S. Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.
Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly. I for
one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant. I
just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,
and that's been shut down for years.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
