Totally correct about the limitations and expense of battery storage - we are talking about minutes of storage in many cases, not hours and certainly not days. Having said that, there is a lot of research being done on new battery technology and I would take any bets on that.
Hydrogen is spruiked as an alternative but few people seem to consider the cost of the engineering in storing high pressure hydrogen. It is not like gasoline or diesel, which we already have the infrastructure for, that can be stored at ambient temperature and pressure.
Hydrogen embrittlement causes a loss of strength in steel pipes and tanks which adds to the cost and complexity of storage. For bulk and commercial who can install their own storage facilities, hydrogen may be economic, but the idea that anyone can call in at the local gas station and fill a car up with hydrogen is a pipe dream.
From an engineers view, electric transport is the obvious and most efficient solution. Electric cars are simple and efficient and portable batteries on this scale are practical. The problem is going to be the total available energy required for transport, industry and humanity generally. There is never going to be a solution to the intermittent nature of solar and wind generation, so called “renewables “. Even if someone invents a magic bullet for the storage of electrical energy, the total of the renewable power globally ( and I exclude hydro here) is not going to meet the growing global requirement for energy. The obvious solution is nuclear power and most of the world is now seeing this and moving toward nuclear power.
Nick Cater and the people who read him are very much aligned with the Liberal party. The result is a discussion that does not consider the full range of views that we have in Australia. Now that you have said that nuclear power is a sensible option, here is a forum with a progressive/social-democrat audience on that same subject: https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/fifteen-years-after-fukushima . John Quiggin is a respectable economist and it is free to join his discussion.
I see we are never going to have a sensible discussion on this subject so I will leave you with Bowen and the cloud cuckoo fraternity. I wish you good luck.
Nuclear power. See the thread started and terminated by Alan Gluyasy. There is the problem. The Kyoto treaty was negotiated in 1997. Robert Hill signed it for the Australian government. But John Howard thought he knew better and since then the Liberal party has not been able to put denialism behind it. They remain incapable of taking a responsible approach to a matter of great concern to Australia's future.
The right time to move towards nuclear power would have been back then, nearly 30 years ago but the Liberal party was silent. It is not exactly silent now, because it still thinks it can get votes by letting people think climate change is a hoax. The Liberals came up with a nuclear policy at the last election and we really do not if this was serious or a gimmick while they refuse to engage. We need a professionally informed Liberal party, not a populist one, but until it decides to be responsible on serious matters educated people will be and should be reluctant to vote for it.
At the forum that I indicated the preponderance of opinion is that nuclear power is no longer an economic proposition. I am not convinced, but these people on the progressive side are willing to discuss it in a rational manner. That cannot be said for the Liberals and that must change.
Climate change is not the only thing we need to come to grips with by the way. You (Liberal party members) have a long way to go.
Totally correct about the limitations and expense of battery storage - we are talking about minutes of storage in many cases, not hours and certainly not days. Having said that, there is a lot of research being done on new battery technology and I would take any bets on that.
Hydrogen is spruiked as an alternative but few people seem to consider the cost of the engineering in storing high pressure hydrogen. It is not like gasoline or diesel, which we already have the infrastructure for, that can be stored at ambient temperature and pressure.
Hydrogen embrittlement causes a loss of strength in steel pipes and tanks which adds to the cost and complexity of storage. For bulk and commercial who can install their own storage facilities, hydrogen may be economic, but the idea that anyone can call in at the local gas station and fill a car up with hydrogen is a pipe dream.
So what is your solution, may I ask? I would ask Mr Cater, except by now I am convinced that his solution is to ignore the problem.
From an engineers view, electric transport is the obvious and most efficient solution. Electric cars are simple and efficient and portable batteries on this scale are practical. The problem is going to be the total available energy required for transport, industry and humanity generally. There is never going to be a solution to the intermittent nature of solar and wind generation, so called “renewables “. Even if someone invents a magic bullet for the storage of electrical energy, the total of the renewable power globally ( and I exclude hydro here) is not going to meet the growing global requirement for energy. The obvious solution is nuclear power and most of the world is now seeing this and moving toward nuclear power.
Nick Cater and the people who read him are very much aligned with the Liberal party. The result is a discussion that does not consider the full range of views that we have in Australia. Now that you have said that nuclear power is a sensible option, here is a forum with a progressive/social-democrat audience on that same subject: https://johnquigginblog.substack.com/p/fifteen-years-after-fukushima . John Quiggin is a respectable economist and it is free to join his discussion.
I see we are never going to have a sensible discussion on this subject so I will leave you with Bowen and the cloud cuckoo fraternity. I wish you good luck.
That is up to you, but please read my post above which continues on the subject of nuclear power.
Can we precisely define the problem you are referring to?Net zero? Future lack of energy? Climate change?
Climate change. I am trying to engage the Liberal party on this subject.
Nuclear power. See the thread started and terminated by Alan Gluyasy. There is the problem. The Kyoto treaty was negotiated in 1997. Robert Hill signed it for the Australian government. But John Howard thought he knew better and since then the Liberal party has not been able to put denialism behind it. They remain incapable of taking a responsible approach to a matter of great concern to Australia's future.
The right time to move towards nuclear power would have been back then, nearly 30 years ago but the Liberal party was silent. It is not exactly silent now, because it still thinks it can get votes by letting people think climate change is a hoax. The Liberals came up with a nuclear policy at the last election and we really do not if this was serious or a gimmick while they refuse to engage. We need a professionally informed Liberal party, not a populist one, but until it decides to be responsible on serious matters educated people will be and should be reluctant to vote for it.
At the forum that I indicated the preponderance of opinion is that nuclear power is no longer an economic proposition. I am not convinced, but these people on the progressive side are willing to discuss it in a rational manner. That cannot be said for the Liberals and that must change.
Climate change is not the only thing we need to come to grips with by the way. You (Liberal party members) have a long way to go.