General Climbing Discussion

Author	OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!
cruze 1-Sep-2009 3:34:46 PM	"It's also expected to be a drier spring than usual, especially in the south of the country." At the risk of sounding like a wanker - awesome. Winter was way too dreary for me.
Wendy 2-Sep-2009 6:54:52 AM	That dry warm spring hasn't started yet - I get to work in 14 and showers tending to rain this week. Followed by similar on the w/e.
cruze 2-Sep-2009 8:49:54 AM	Yeah we are thinking of going rogaining this weekend instead of climbing... Would I be right in saying that this past winter has been less sunny than normal in the Wimmera? (not necessarily wetter) Post Edit: I just checked the BOM stats - the last four months (May-Aug) were significantly wetter in Horsham than average. The previous four months (Jan-Apr) were significantly and substantially drier than average.
salty crag 2-Sep-2009 9:20:27 AM	Small point re Cape Bridgewater. Locals opposed development due to it's impact on the coastal vista, would have liked to see it moved a few km's away. Locals won court battle. On leaving courtroom we were informed by smirking rich developer and slimy local councilor that we would lose next time as they were going to change by laws and play dirty. They won, so much for democracy. Wouldnt mind if they contibuted to environment but they only run at 31% efficiency, cost of building them is never recovered in their 35 year lifespan.
evanbb 2-Sep-2009 9:25:51 AM	On 2/09/2009 salty crag wrote: >Small point re Cape Bridgewater. Locals opposed development due to it's >impact on the coastal vista, would have liked to see it moved a few km's >away. Locals won court battle. On leaving courtroom we were informed by >smirking rich developer and slimy local councilor that we would lose next >time as they were going to change by laws and play dirty. They won, so >much for democracy. Wouldnt mind if they contibuted to environment but >they only run at 31% efficiency, cost of building them is never recovered >in their 35 year lifespan. Thanks for the details. Local councils are corrupt as buggery. The 35 year payback is bullshit. More like 4-6.
jono_1 2-Sep-2009 10:16:46 AM	and what do you think the efficiency of coal fired powerr stations are... 35% bloody percent more or less. So 65% of coal combusted to generate electricity is lost in the process, mostly heat. And this doesnt take into account fugitive emissions from coal mining and the energy consumed and emissions from actually digging the coal up. So this is such a poor arguement that solar, wind have such low generating efficiences. Very similar to coal fired in fact. And wind can be used to provide peaking capacity, similar to gas, such as in evenings. Oh and there is plenty of work going on to store wind energy, when it is not needed, as compressed air, to be used when needed.
evanbb 2-Sep-2009 10:22:11 AM	On 2/09/2009 jono_1 wrote: >Oh and there is plenty of work going on to store wind energy, when it >is not needed, as compressed air, to be used when needed. And other forms of electricity. As compressed air has some interest because you can use it to fire a gas turbine for peaking coverage. Anyway, interested nerds can find out a lot more about energy/electricity storage here: http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/home Check out the technologies section.
pete05 2-Sep-2009 7:29:39 PM	Can some of you tell me anywhere in the world where storage of electricity is working in a mainstream grid? Its certainly not in use in Australia, that is the reason why wind will never work, solar thermal on the other hand will. Advocates of wind power like to stretch the truth, just as the developers who promote it do. Storage of electricity is a good idea, but who is going to pay for it? wind already costs 2-3 times that of coal generated power, plus the cost of back up. Wind power is despised by the communities that it is pushed on, adds huge costs to consumers, does not reduce emmisions from coal like claimed, and makes people sick from the low frequency noise it generates (once again denied by promotors) The arguments that it will replace base load is faniciful, and once again who is pushing that? the developers trying to con the government into giving them more money. If wind power was so good and effective then why does in need the MRET scheme? why not just put them up if they are so efficient? because there not!
evanbb 2-Sep-2009 8:08:14 PM	On 2/09/2009 pete05 wrote: >Can some of you tell me anywhere in the world where storage of electricity >is working in a mainstream grid? Good work Pete, you've written yourself off completely here as someone who has absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. Have you heard of Australia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bendeela_hydroelectric_pumping_station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Valley_hydroelectric_pumping_station I'd be surprised if there's a grid in the world that doesn't use storage. Read this too: http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/home/ >Advocates of wind power like to stretch the truth Seems to me that opponents of wind like a little truth stretching as well. >Wind power is despised by the communities that it is pushed on You're putting words into a lot of other people's mouths here. Why not just say 'I don't like it'? >If wind power was so good and effective then why does in need the MRET >scheme? why not just put them up if they are so efficient? because there >not! Fortunately you've made it clear you don't know what you're on about here, so I'm not going to bother with the rest of this. I'd really love to argue with you about it though. So, do some more reading and get back to me. It's like wrestling a one armed man at the moment.
pete05 2-Sep-2009 8:27:18 PM	Evan, sounds to me like you have no comback. So you say hydro is storage now? well i spose it kind of is, yes you can pump water back up the hill, but is there anywhere where another type of renewable is used on site to provide the energy to do this? or is it more paper shuffling from energy generators? By the way i wouldnt believe everything on wikipedia either. Im not putting words in anyones mouth in regards to the popularity of wind power in rural communities where it is being pushed. Maybe you need to get out a bit more and ask some questions, why would anyone want it next to their or friends home? we've all seen whats happened at waubra, who on earth would want their neighbours or freinds subjected to that? You seem to be so in love with wind that you even deny it needs a subsidy to exist, I guess this is why the wind industry are so happy with the 20% MRET , just so they can make more easy money at everyone elses expense. But of course its not a subsidy because its called mret! I doubt if one single turbine would be put up without it. You tried to bait me into the nuclear argument i see, you better find someone who knows a bit more about it than i do to chat with there!
pete05 2-Sep-2009 8:47:13 PM	evan i just looked into the pumped storage at kangaroo valley and as i expected they are using electricity from coal to pump with. The placement of wind turbines near dams is possible, but it would need to be on the grid or close to it, to make it viable. The other problem is that most of the decent dams are in valleys where wind is limited. None the less the idea has merit, but why would you use expensive wind produced power when you could use cheaper power from another source to pump with? and what if the wind isnt blowing when you want to pump?
GravityHound 2-Sep-2009 8:48:01 PM	On 2/09/2009 pete05 wrote: >Wind power is despised by the communities that it is pushed on tried to stay out of this but there is an element of bullshit to this. Plenty of farmers that have the Bungendore turbines on their place were happy to have them, plenty of famers that had the Taralga turbines on them were happy to have them and plenty of farmers that could have the Errowanbang towers on their place are happy for them to be there. I know this because I have spoken to them. There are people in the community that dont like them, sure, but for many farmers they are a godsend. One of the farmers who would have towers from the Errowanbang farm 5km from my place is hoping the development goes ahead. $50K guaranteed income regardless of how much rain he gets and a road through the most inaccessible part of his property. According to the Taralga publican, the people bitching a moaning about the Taralga towers were city people that didnt want the view from their country getaway ruined (dont want to destroy the serrated tussock covered landscape at Bannaby). And on that note, those towers only went ahead because a referendum said 75% of the local ratepayers were in favour. So in summary, despised by the communities my arse. your posts might be better if you have some factual material to back up what your saying otherwise it just seems like you are on a propoganda mission. and please no pictures of submarines. been there, done that.
evanbb 2-Sep-2009 8:52:22 PM	On 2/09/2009 pete05 wrote: >Evan, sounds to me like you have no comback. >So you say hydro is storage now? Of course it's bloody storage, it's called 'pumped hydro storage'. Doesn't that count? Or do you want the actual electrons from the wind turbine stored on the same site for it to count? Why on earth does it have to be on site? Do you have any understanding of electricity markets at all? well i spose it kind of is, yes you can >pump water back up the hill, but is there anywhere where another type of >renewable is used on site to provide the energy to do this? So you want a world wide example of on site energy storage from a renewables project. Or does it have to be wind, to prove that the wind electrons can be stored, and that they can be stored close to the generation point rather than in an enormous cost effective energy storage unit that services the whole grid. Try here for starters: http://www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies/nas_batteries/ "The largest NAS installation is a 34 MW, 245 MWh unit for wind stabilization in Northern Japan." >Why would anyone want it next to their or friends home? Because they can make money and watch energy be generated that doesn't involve digging holes and burning things. Besides, I'm not advocating putting turbines in communities, I agree that the planning laws need work. All I'm trying to do is stop you spreading a load of crap to push your own agenda. >You seem to be so in love with wind that you even deny it needs a subsidy >to exist This is a pretty deep statement really, probably more than you realise. The crux of the issue is how you feel about market economics. Should externalities be included in the price of goods and services? As I've said before, it is NOT A SUBSIDY, but an attempt to put a value on avoiding the externalities. This money doesn't come from the Government, but from the value of traded certificates. The Govt creates the framework, but doesn't supply the cash, hence it is not a subsidy. I'm not necessarily in love with wind, but recognise that it is the cheapest option available right now and we should fire them out. I would rather the MRET didn't exist, and would prefer a proper trading scheme. We're not going to get that while XenoFielding hold the balance of power in the senate, so, MRET it is. >But of course its not a subsidy because its called mret! I doubt if one >single turbine would be put up without it. The Albany wind farm was put up before the MRET.
pete05 2-Sep-2009 9:02:42 PM	Gravity hound, im not sure what the situation is like there, but around the Ballarat area in vic there have been many fierce battles against city developers coming in and trying to plant turbines in inappropriate places. They have been stopped more often than they have gone ahead so far. The problem really boils down to the planning guidelines, of which there are basically none. If the turbines were kept away from homes then i suspect that opposition to them would abate markedly. most of the farmers that have signed up for them have regretted it, i heard a recent comment from one who calls them is "jet engines" in reference to the noise. The flashing red lights and noise that was claimed didnt exist are obviously annoying. The companies running them dont care. I know of at least 3 familys that have left their homes since the turbines at waubra became operational, i know of at least 10 more who have problems with noise, both audiable and low frequency. many of them have turbines on their land and due to contractural agreements cannot do anything about it, they were either mislead or silly to sign up to those contracts. The University of Ballarat have been measuring the noise and found it to exceed 80db, I just hope that farmers in other areas take more time to investigate their contracts with what are often fly by night companies with no paid up capital to back them up should something go wrong
evanbb 2-Sep-2009 9:11:21 PM	On 2/09/2009 pete05 wrote: >evan i just looked into the pumped storage at kangaroo valley and as i >expected they are using electricity from coal to pump with. >The placement of wind turbines near dams is possible, but it would need >to be on the grid or close to it, to make it viable. >The other problem is that most of the decent dams are in valleys where >wind is limited. >None the less the idea has merit, but why would you use expensive wind >produced power when you could use cheaper power from another source to >pump with? and what if the wind isnt blowing when you want to pump? You're miles off the pace. You don't ever 'want to pump'; you pump when there's excess electricity. It doesn't matter where the farms are WRT the storage, you can transmit electricity long distances, through wires and stuff.
Wendy 3-Sep-2009 7:09:55 AM	On 2/09/2009 pete05 wrote: >They have been stopped more often than they have gone ahead so far. I could have sworn that a few pages ago you were saying that only one had ever been turned down and someone had been fired for it? On the topic of "subsidy", I reckon quite a lot of "subsidy" in varying forms have gone into coal. Funding into research, development, plants, mining, grid, roads ... Without any details or figures to back this theory up (Evan, provider of technical details and figures extraordinaire, might have some), I suspect that one of the reasons coal looks cheaper than wind/solar is that the costs of research and development were spent years ago and are out of the equation. Coal had plenty of help getting established and last I knew was getting still more govt $ to research CCS.
pete05 3-Sep-2009 7:47:29 AM	Wendy, to clarify my statement, I said only one windfarm that has gone to planning panels vic has been rejected, this being Yalloak. Every other one has been passed. Around the Ballarat area, numerous proposals have been defeated by locals before the company would take them to planning. As for the subsidy, im not aware of coal getting one, im sure they have had plenty of assistance over the years though. The wind subsidy or whatever you want to call it, is added to the cost of energy, that consumers pay for. This doesnt happen with coal. Also the wind industry is not new, its been going in Europe for years, over 25 comercially. Surely by now it would be developed enough to stand on its feet without intervention from the govt?
evanbb 3-Sep-2009 8:40:06 AM	On 3/09/2009 pete05 wrote: >This doesnt happen with coal. Yes, but as I said earlier, there are all sorts of externalities with coal we're trying to put a price on. Wrecking the environment in numerous ways is just one of them. That's why the CPRS is coming. But it's crap. >Also the wind industry is not new, its been going in Europe for years, >over 25 comercially. Surely by now it would be developed enough to stand >on its feet without intervention from the govt? Come on, focus. The market is being rejigged to take into account the environmental damage done by other energy generation options. The Government SHOULD be stepping in, because no one else can do it. Once the market rules are corrected, it will easily stand on its own feet.
evanbb 3-Sep-2009 9:04:50 AM	On 3/09/2009 Wendy wrote: >On the topic of "subsidy", I reckon quite a lot of "subsidy" in varying >forms have gone into coal. Funding into research, development, plants, >mining, grid, roads ... There's actually very little research in coal burning technology. It's old technology, and very primitive. You just dig up rocks and burn them, to make water hot. They're not even oxy-firing or anything sophisticated like that. The heat cycle they use is pretty fancy, but it's still 1850 technology. Hard to find out details of the past, but in the last budget there was a stack of cash for coal. Most notably was the $2.4B (compared to 1.6 for solar) for the Clean Coal Flagships program, plus another $500m for the Lowe Emissions Coal Initiative http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/resources_programs/cei/ccsfp/Pages/default.aspx http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/resources_programs/nleci/Pages/NationalLowEmissionsCoalInitiative.aspx The previous year they also set up the Global Carbon Capture and Storage institute, but I can't find how much cash they put into that. At the same time $100m went into a similar solar research institute. But in my opinion, the big breaks for coal are in infrastructure spending. Infrastructure Australia have released a list of priority projects, of which many $s are spent on improving freight and port facilities. http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/files/National_Infrastructure_Priorities.pdf Most of these are coal transport facilities, but it's hard to put a finger on which. I actually think the coal subsidy is overstated by a lot of people. It looks cheaper because the environmental cost is not included, and because it's an incredibly energy dense fuel. One could also argue that the environmental and planning rules have been 'bent' in the past, to allow access to this burning dirt. But there's scant evidence. So for mind, the best argument against coal is that they are wrecking stuff beyond their scope of providing power. Same as hippies (myself included) are prepared to pay more for organic veges, or better Free Trade coffee and chocolate, people should have to pay more for coal power, to take into account it's damage to the environment.
lacto 3-Sep-2009 9:05:30 AM	Exactly how many of the objectors to your wind farm are the farmers or how many of them are lifestylers hobby farms who dont have to make a living from their land but consider their view and proximity to farms to be their right to preserve. Portland grew because of the aluminium smelter and the people wanted rural lifestyles and then object to wind farms that supply the product that enables them to live there . The portland /west coast of vic plus south east s.a . have a ready market for all the wind power they can produce at portland . This save the power having to be transported hundreds of km from the latrobe valley with its transmission losses . Ballarat can consume all the power produced near it etc. The problem is pete everyone wants to be able to consume power and expect that it will be produced but not in their back yard. Why dont we hear of all these complaints from europe where there is huge wind farm development and years to be able to prove the "noise " effect. I appealed against a house permit for a 2 h lot on my boundary as the site really is unsuited for a house but was over ruled but one of the conditions was that the owner acknowledged that they were moving into an agricultural area and normal farm practices would continue etc. .Well if normal rainfall ever returns his house will certainly become his castle when the hole he built his house ( up 800 mm above the ground ) fills with water he'll have his filled moat as well . So far we have had problems with him dumping noxious weed off his place onto ours, complaints about my fence which is actually our fence , tractors working at night , animals making too much noise and I am certain when the clover flowers this spring the overpowering smell. plus his kids seem to think our farm is their playground. I can just imagine the uproar if I wanted to put a wind turbine up.

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.

Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints