Jump to content


No Lunar New Year special?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

AchiIles #41 Posted 24 January 2020 - 10:25 AM

    Private

  • Member
  • 2182 battles
  • 6
  • [FLEX] FLEX
  • Member since:
    12-03-2014
Vindi denying something established as fact? Well I, for one, am totally stunned by this revelation.

mttspiii #42 Posted 24 January 2020 - 10:48 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33795 battles
  • 17,210
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 23 January 2020 - 02:05 PM, said:

 

Making PV cells is not hugely labour intensive, and in any case China ran out of peasants quite a while ago and is relatively expensive for labour. They have been outsourcing low paid labour tasks to SE Asia for quite a while now.

 

The world is entering robotic manufacturing where labour costs are becoming a lot less relevant. Reliable and low cost energy locations are where industry will move to. Which is the reason why China has been building a large fleet of new HELE coal plants - short term Western analysts have been talking about low utilisation and how terrible it is without discussing the long term relationship between energy and manufacturing. It doesn' make sense in the 3 month horizon of the West, but when you are talking about multi decade plans makes a fair bit. Its also why China has been aggressively buying up coal projects around the world. 

 

Australia has a huge strategic advantage in low cost and reliable energy sources. We could be a metals processing powerhouse, turning our own ores into metals for use in manufacturing and capturing the value add. Instead we plunge headlong into the most expensive power in the world, where it is so unreliable we have to ask the value adding energy users to "load shed" and wonder why we can only sell raw products and then buy finished goods back.

 

We are about to lose aluminium smelting on the mainland, and instead ship most of our bauxite to Mozambique where that industry is now about 30% of their economy.

 

A pity SEAsia doesn't have as much energy reserves as China; those PV cells might contribute but the capital is just too much and the political will isn't there.

 

Curious though, does PV manufacturing also have waste products that are a pain in the arse to contain and dispose, like most other mining industries? Another nice thing about China is their lax environmental policies which makes waste disposal really cheap.

 

View PostK4BeeTee, on 23 January 2020 - 09:22 PM, said:

I remember in the 70's how the doomers were screaming about the coming ice age by 2020 or something. Spock even narrated one....its somewhere on YT....worth a giggle

 

It's those worse-case-scenario folks that are ruining the credibility of mainstream science. Of course, we did stop CFC's (mostly) which would've accelerated climate change more than coal would ever do.


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Ezz #43 Posted 24 January 2020 - 11:02 AM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 73775 battles
  • 36,882
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View PostAchiIles, on 24 January 2020 - 12:25 PM, said:

Vindi denying something established as fact? Well I, for one, am totally stunned by this revelation.

Flabbergasted. So out of character. Normally he's a finger on the pulse sort of guy.


Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


FramFramson #44 Posted 24 January 2020 - 12:21 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 49581 battles
  • 3,674
  • [FLEX] FLEX
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015
The best part of Vindi's post is that it's just the same ice picture - with no reference. Could be from 1988 for all he knows. But it's not like he cares about details like that.

LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


FramFramson #45 Posted 24 January 2020 - 12:41 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 49581 battles
  • 3,674
  • [FLEX] FLEX
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

Here's the grade 5 version if anyone wants actual current data, but if you already think NASA is lying, I doubt this will make a difference.

 


LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


Puggsley #46 Posted 28 January 2020 - 08:17 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

I'd guess manufacturing of PV cells has some waste issues to manage, but don't really know. Actual PVs are pretty nasty things and are as expensive as hell to dispose of due to the toxic metals which leach out of them. Be wary of buying a house with older cells on the roof, you will be up for a fortune in getting rid of them. 

 

Most mining processes (I'm guessing you mean different minerals?) have issues with Acid Mine Drainage - much more common in metalliferous mines (due to the higher levels of sulfides) and not really much of an issue for coal (salinity is more often the major problem). Its the unfortunate byproduct of producing the materials we need each and every day. We are not going to go back to a pre-stone age civilisation, so we need to get better at managing the waste. 

 

Management of these issues is a lot better these days, its the legacy mines which are the real problem as no-one has any money to clean them up - many of them closed a hundred years ago. For new projects I would stop them needing to buy up a heap of land and lock it away into private national parks (creating unmanaged fire risks) to offset areas disturbed, and instead get them to clean up an old minesite.  

 

 



mttspiii #47 Posted 29 January 2020 - 03:02 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33795 battles
  • 17,210
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostPuggsley, on 28 January 2020 - 08:17 AM, said:

I'd guess manufacturing of PV cells has some waste issues to manage, but don't really know. Actual PVs are pretty nasty things and are as expensive as hell to dispose of due to the toxic metals which leach out of them. Be wary of buying a house with older cells on the roof, you will be up for a fortune in getting rid of them. 

 

Most mining processes (I'm guessing you mean different minerals?) have issues with Acid Mine Drainage - much more common in metalliferous mines (due to the higher levels of sulfides) and not really much of an issue for coal (salinity is more often the major problem). Its the unfortunate byproduct of producing the materials we need each and every day. We are not going to go back to a pre-stone age civilisation, so we need to get better at managing the waste. 

 

Management of these issues is a lot better these days, its the legacy mines which are the real problem as no-one has any money to clean them up - many of them closed a hundred years ago. For new projects I would stop them needing to buy up a heap of land and lock it away into private national parks (creating unmanaged fire risks) to offset areas disturbed, and instead get them to clean up an old minesite.  

 

 

 

You might be thinking of the thin-film PV cells, they're made of nasty metals and are rather expensive for what they do. Mass-production PV is mostly just silicon though, so disposal shouldn't be too hard for them. Batteries though are the main problem with most green energy, with most of the funky metals going towards better batteries; incidentally, China's control over rare metals also makes green energy easier for them.

 

PV or wind integrated into the grid supported by hydro, geo, fossil, or nuclear sources when either wind or sun is available, is the best choice IMHO.

 

As for mines, was thinking of metal mines; coal mines aren't as hard to clean up compared to metal mines, where cleanup or containment are very, very expensive (or very ineffective). Personally in terms of mining waste, I'd waver silicon PV is the cleanest, followed by geo or hydro (though reservoirs are a different issue), then wind, then oil, coal, then the batteries. Nuclear is last.


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Puggsley #48 Posted 29 January 2020 - 08:01 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

Its not just the batteries its the bearings and magnets in wind turbines which require rare earths.

 

China only controls current rare earth production because of the pretty non-existent regulations about radioactive waste from the processing of ore. Makes it very cheap compared to the west. 

 

Could be, though I have a colleague in Japan where there are 80kt of silicon pv waiting for something to enable them to be handled safely.

 

That would be a hugely expensive choice. Wind and solar have incredibly low costs, as long as all users are happy to have power only when it suits the generator. Modern societies cannot tolerate this type of supply. The grid needs to meed the demands of the customers.

 

The inescapable issue is that a hugely intermitent generation source needs a way of providing baseload (I know its an unsexy term but it means exactly the same thing as Firm generators). That comes at huge expense in the form of batteries (hydro in Aus being a battery) which waste approx 20% of the original energy generated - you have to install a lot of additional wind and PV to cover this loss.

 

Geo in Australia has been proven to be a giant economic black hole. Our resources here are "dry" so you need a large water source to pump water down to the hot zone, and the drilling required to achieve that is high cost. Where it works is in places where natural water comes to the surface. And some geothermal sites experience a reduction in temperatures as they are used.

 

Using fossil fuel and nuclear to provide back up is best explained with an simple analogy. Imagine they are cars and you want to drive from Melbourne to Sydney. They run very cheaply when you just sit on 100km per hour. Its easy mechanically on the car as well.

 

Now imagine using this car like fossil and nuclear power stations would need to operate when the grid is tied to large scale solar and wind. 

 

Drive at 100, slam on the brakes to zero, accelerate hard up to 50, now slam on the brakes back to 20, now accelerate up to 100. This is hugely expensive way of driving a car, and running these types of plants. Its why we are likely to enter a perverse situation (like Germany) where we subsidise wind and solar to get rid of coal, and also now pay large subsidies to coal to help cover the huge costs of using plants not designed to be back up as backup.

 

Nuclear is a non starter in Australia - I am friends with a senior Labor shadow minister and nuclear is almost completely off the table. 

 

China has invested hugely in coal fired plants and is planning to build ultra high voltage lines from northern China to Europe. They will be able to supply electricity to Eastern and central Europe at about 1/3rd the cost of Europe's renewable fleet. They are also buying up enormous amounts of coal assets around the world. Because of the destabilising and high "real" cost of making renewables reliable, they have almost stopped subsidies for any more renewables. 

 

I think we will ed up with something like you say, but with a large amount of load shedding from the grid. Large energy users will relocate to locations where power is cheaper. Either overseas, or to places in Aus where private coal fired plants are built and produce extremely low cost energy which never enters the main grid.

 

As an interesting aside I was talking to a couple of professors who were testing the rehabilitation surface proposed for the Ranger Uranium mine. It had to be shown to be stable for 10,000 years before it would be approved. Was really interesting finding out how they modelled things like 1 in 10,000 year storms. Apparently they had some research done on a site in the Northern Territory which they were able to work out storm events with 4m of rain in a day. It was late in the night and there had been a few brews consumed cause I would have loved to found out how they worked that out. 

 

 

 

 



mttspiii #49 Posted 30 January 2020 - 02:57 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33795 battles
  • 17,210
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

Wait, China is shifting focus from renewables back to coal? Or simply playing collect-all-resources on a more vast scale than before?

 

We can have a small chat on whether renewables are worth it in Australia, but at the cost of forcing a country as big as China to slide back to coal doesn't seem worth it. Not to worry though, the local air and temp changes will force them to roll back...


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


Puggsley #50 Posted 30 January 2020 - 07:29 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

They simply understand that coal is much cheaper than renewables when you run coal plants as they are designed to run.

 

China never had a focus on renewables for power generation. They stopped nearly all subsidies for renewables in late 2017 because of the high cost and the impact on grid stability.

 

At the height of the installation of renewables in China (2017 - 53GW of solar capacity installed, the global installation was 93GW) they spent almost 4 times the dollars on installing HELE coal plants.

 

They are building connectors into eastern Europe to provide electricity at about 1/3 the cost of local supply. From Jan 2018 to June 2019 they installed another 43GW of new coal plants. Currently there is 121GW under construction. China approved 40 new coal mines in the first 3 quarters of 2019.

 

There are also concerns that the 14th 5 year plan will need more electricity than they have capacity for.

 

China's coal burn decreased from the peak of 4Bt in 2013 down to 3.4Bt in 2016. It has climbed strongly since then to be up to almost 3.9Bt last year.

 

Their main concern is not CO2 but particulate pollution. Its slightly cheaper to run coal plants with the scrubbers turned off, so that is what they did. Now that not acceptable at all so air quality will increase as a result.

 

Local temps are just that, local. I don't think even ER (and they are right out there) suggest that local emissions control local climate. Its a global issue and why its so amusing when people get excited about per capita emissions. Like molecules of CO2 have little flags attached showing the country of origin! :trollface: 



FramFramson #51 Posted 30 January 2020 - 11:26 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 49581 battles
  • 3,674
  • [FLEX] FLEX
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

Wait, are you claiming that local effects are completely divorced from global ones?

 

 


LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


Puggsley #52 Posted 30 January 2020 - 05:56 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 75882 battles
  • 2,151
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2014

Nope, I'm saying that its a global phenomenon. 

 

Local emissions do not drive local climate.

 

UHI drives local conditions to a far greater extent.


Edited by Puggsley, 30 January 2020 - 05:57 PM.


Vindictus_Maximus #53 Posted 30 January 2020 - 08:01 PM

    Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9404 battles
  • 163
  • [BAMF] BAMF
  • Member since:
    12-16-2017

View PostAchiIles, on 24 January 2020 - 10:25 AM, said:

Vindi denying something established as fact? Well I, for one, am totally stunned by this revelation.

 

This fact is all you need to know.

 

<a href='https://i.imgur.com/4XjehWc.jpg' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>https://i.imgur.com/4XjehWc.jpg</a>

Shutting down a few coal mines will stop millions of years climate pattern in it's tracks???  These people that fall for this scam are just idiots, sorry.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Vindictus_Maximus, 30 January 2020 - 08:03 PM.


wasaabi #54 Posted 31 January 2020 - 05:34 AM

    This Dude Abides

  • Senior Moderator
  • 23126 battles
  • 6,954
  • [FIDDY] FIDDY
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012

Thread has gone off topic.  Thread moved.

 

~Wasaabi


 

 

 

 

 

 WoT ANZ Community Contributor http://www.youtube.com/c/BadTanking


MagicalFlyingFox #55 Posted 31 January 2020 - 08:22 AM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 35461 battles
  • 13,828
  • [ATLUS] ATLUS
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostVindictus_Maximus, on 30 January 2020 - 11:01 PM, said:

 

This fact is all you need to know.

 

<a href='https://i.imgur.com/4XjehWc.jpg' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>https://i.imgur.com/4XjehWc.jpg</a>

Shutting down a few coal mines will stop millions of years climate pattern in it's tracks???  These people that fall for this scam are just idiots, sorry.

 

 

 

 

Nice (wrong) graph.

 

 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


mttspiii #56 Posted 04 February 2020 - 07:30 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 33795 battles
  • 17,210
  • [PVP] PVP
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostMagicalFlyingFox, on 31 January 2020 - 08:22 AM, said:

Nice (wrong) graph.

 

Won't be the first time someone drew the wrong graph from the same data...


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users