Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of button cells & similar go into landfill each year now.

 

Don't think there are many in our block of units disposing of them properly. Me included with about 3 out of 4 batteries eventually end up in the bin.

 

I don't see batteries as a sustainable method of storing power. Maybe a big lacky band or clock spring is an option. We have had 7 day clock springs for decades. Just need a bigger one.

Hydrogen is also a possibility.

I hope some one is thinking outside the box here.

Put your thinking caps on, nothing should be too far left field 

Neil 

 

Like Henry Hoke's clockwork car.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-lost-tools-of-henry-hoke-ep-1---from-the-desert/9627166

This is the elephant in the room, it is not used as domestic fuel, due to several reasons : Hydrogen is not easily available and cost of production is high. Unlike other gases, hydrogen is not readily available in the atmosphere. It requires processes like electrolysis of water for its production. This is a very costly process and time consuming. Thus when does the production become cheaper, firstly it requires electricity just how much Solar,Wind and Battery would be needed to sustain 24/7 production, what happens when those power sources become unavailable.

Presently Wind and Solar plus Battery nationally are generating about 10MW of power, considering it takes 50kWh and 9 litres of water to make 1kg of Green Hydrogen

Mining tailings issues then.

Nuclear - cost effective?

From MIT:

Another option for producing hydrogen comes from a perhaps surprising source: reacting aluminum with water. Aluminum metal will readily react with water at room temperature to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen. That reaction doesnt typically take place because a layer of aluminum oxide naturally coats the raw metal, preventing it from coming directly into contact with water.

Using the aluminum-water reaction to generate hydrogen doesnt produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and it promises to solve the transportation problem for any location with available water. Simply move the aluminum and then react it with water on-site. Fundamentally, the aluminum becomes a mechanism for storing hydrogen and a very effective one

Aussie1 wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

Nuclear - cost effective?

---

 

 

   yes  

 

What is the source of your informatiion?  As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity. 

 

 

 

smwhiskey wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

 As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity.  

---

 But if the conspiracy theory is to believed, we'll need less electricity because people glowing in the dark will negate the need for lighting.

---

 

 

Aussie1 wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

Aussie1 wrote:

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

Nuclear - cost effective?

---

 

 

   yes  

 

What is the source of your informatiion?  As I understand it nuclear is one of, if not the most expensive means of producing electricity. 

 

 

 I have my opinions , and have no interest in quantifying or answering to you or anyone else here to justify them. 

 

---

 

 Yep, of course you have your opinion, but when you posted "Nuclear only way to go. Clean efficient and cost effective." you didn't claim the statement as opinion, but presented it as fact. 

  If making such statements it is not unreasonable to be expected to support them. 

      Regardless of your intention, it is incorrect whether intended as opinion or fact, but yes you are entitled to hold an opinion which is incorrect. Just don't expect others reading it to take you seriously. 

    If I had wanted to 'have a go' I would simply have told you that you were wrong, & provided supporting material, but I was polite & asked you for evidence of what seemed incorrect to me.  Subsequent  googling confirmed what I had thought to be the case. 

      As for your initial dig about my avatar (not an emoji btw) - it was unnecessary.

      Your defensiveness suggests to me that you know you made a statement of fact that you cannot back up. 

  Here is a link to an article about the comparative cost of nuclear power, there are many similar from a variety of sources. 

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-energy-too-expensive-to-replace-fossil-fuels-20220711-p5b0pd

 No need to pursue further undue acrimony, I'm not looking for a blue, just to not allow false facts to pass unquestioned. 

Cuppa whats the point of posting a link that is behind a pay wall ?

Whilst the headline is an attention grabber, perhaps the story line could be head in the sand BS like blackout promotes whichnis factually incorrect.

How many billions of dollars that have been spent on subsidies to build Solar and Wind along with Hydro, and yet power prices continue to rise, the continued narritive  that renewables are cheaper is a bald faced lie.

 

 

 

 

Its easy to find an alternate view that supports your position.

A 2019 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency study, The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs With High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables, found that the integration of large shares of intermittent renewable electricity is a major challenge for the electricity systems of OECD countries and for dispatchable generators such as nuclear. Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh.

However whats never considered in the renewable position is they can never provide 24/7 power, even with battery support. At some point in time you need base load power from fossil fuel.

Cuppa wrote:

---

Your anti renewable stance is one you have made clear. The issue here is the relative affordability of nuclear power generation, & also whether it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. I guessing you also consider climate change to be a worldwide hoax?

---

 And so it is. Can"t be bothered trying teach the sheep, but this will possibly help?  Cheers

 

 

 

Cuppa wrote:

---

Your anti renewable stance is one you have made clear. The issue here is the relative affordability of nuclear power generation, & also whether it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. I guessing you also consider climate change to be a worldwide hoax?  

---

 So okay will you please enlighten me as to how renewables will power Australia with Wind, Solar and Hydro without baseload power 24/7.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-staggering-numbers-behind-australias-82-per-cent-renewables-target/

These included installing about forty 7MW wind turbines every month until 2030, and 22,000 500W solar panels every day for the next eight years, or 60 million by 2030.

They may need to install many more turbines and solar panels than forecast by Bowen. For instance, no 7MW wind turbines have yet been installed in Australia, the biggest is just short of 6MW, although some have been assumed, such as at the green hydrogen project in Western Australia.

A 500 watt panel measures 1m x 2m, therefore 60 million panels will need a minimum of 120 million square meters of agriable land to plant them, dont worry about the lost food production as we can buy that from overseas,