Craig1 wrote:

---

This should be in techies, however.

Our illustrious leader stated yesterday that Australia is the best placed country in the world for Solar. Why you ask ?

" Well we can fry an egg on the footpath in Summer " he said .

---

 If I'm honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in our political "leaders" to actually have the ability to successfully lead this country forward.  

smwhiskey wrote:

---

Craig1 wrote 

 

---

 If I'm honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in our political "leaders" to actually have the ability to successfully lead this country forward.  

---

 But they know how to cook the eggs.

G'day Craig,

Can I have scrambled eggs with chopped up bacon and onion in it on thick Sourdough Toast please! Oh! A cup of Earl Grey Tea as well.

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Australia is the best place in the world for solar, but not for the reason stated.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 That could be contested because I'm lead to believe that solar panels peak efficency is at 25 deg C and for every one degree over that it reduces by 0.05%, therefor sticking big solar farms in parts of the country where daytime temps are often 30+ means they are not the best localities or the need to bigger farms to compensate for losses.

Would that mean a higher costs to compensate for the wrong locality plus additional expenses for poles and wires to connect to the grid. nah that couldnt be right?

Good thing someone is talking about nuclear now, I wonder if the population can get past the Missinformation being spread by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with their 3 eyed fish and Blinky Bill memes.

Gundog wrote:

---

Good thing someone is talking about nuclear now, I wonder if the population can get past the Missinformation being spread by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with their 3 eyed fish and Blinky Bill memes.

---

We don't need any fictitious memes. Nuclear power has a real history. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are just three negatives that come to mind. There are probably many more that we've never heard about.

Gundog wrote:

---

 That could be contested because I'm lead to believe that solar panels peak efficency is at 25 deg C and for every one degree over that it reduces by 0.05%, therefor sticking big solar farms in parts of the country where daytime temps are often 30+ means they are not the best localities or the need to bigger farms to compensate for losses.

---

Even if the temperature at the panel was 50C, that would amount to a loss of 25 x 0.05% = 1.25%. But, of course, your figure is wrong, if you had only bothered to research it. In fact, the real temperature coefficient is about 10 times that much.

https://solarcalculator.com.au/solar-panel-temperature/

Edit: Actually, that site contains errors. For example, the following calculation should be -0.4% x (65C - ambient temperature) = -16%.

In many instances, a solar cell can get as hot as 65°C, causing the panel to become less efficient and therefore produce less power. If a panel with a temperature coefficient of -0.4%/°C were to reach an extreme heat of 65°C, it would reduce output by as much as 26% (-0.4% x 65). However, there are more variables involved than simply the coefficient value, and the equation is a little more complicated.

-- Edited by dorian on Saturday 22nd of June 2024 10:42:54 AM

Gundog wrote:

---

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Australia is the best place in the world for solar, but not for the reason stated.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 That could be contested because I'm lead to believe that solar panels peak efficency is at 25 deg C and for every one degree over that it reduces by 0.05%, therefor sticking big solar farms in parts of the country where daytime temps are often 30+ means they are not the best localities or the need to bigger farms to compensate for losses.

Would that mean a higher costs to compensate for the wrong locality plus additional expenses for poles and wires to connect to the grid. nah that couldnt be right?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The great majority of solar is and will be on house and factory roofs where average temperatures are almost perfect and where additional distribution requirement is minimal.

There is a need for additional local storage.

Maximum, minimum and mean temperature maps, Bureau of Meteorology (bom.gov.au)

In my view, the Australian public will never agree to nuclear.

Cheers,

Peter

smwhiskey wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

---

 someone is talking about nuclear now, I wonder if the population can get past the Missinformation being spread by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with their 3 eyed fish and Blinky Bill memes.

---

Its interesting to note that nobody has mentioned the elephant in the room since Dutton raised the prospect.

Whats happens to the nuclear waste? Be prepared to bet that any potential dumpsite won't be anywhere near Canberra.

---

the people in Canberra now will be long gone from there by the time any thing is operational

the mention of three mile, Chernobyl, fuchishima they where all early technology, which i'm sure has been improved on to avoid repeats. planes trains and automobiles probably result in more deaths/injury in a day than can be attributed to nuclear power.

Gundog wrote:

---

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Australia is the best place in the world for solar, but not for the reason stated.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 That could be contested because I'm lead to believe that solar panels peak efficency is at 25 deg C and for every one degree over that it reduces by 0.05%, therefor sticking big solar farms in parts of the country where daytime temps are often 30+ means they are not the best localities or the need to bigger farms to compensate for losses.

Would that mean a higher costs to compensate for the wrong locality plus additional expenses for poles and wires to connect to the grid. nah that couldnt be right?

Good thing someone is talking about nuclear now, I wonder if the population can get past the Missinformation being spread by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with their 3 eyed fish and Blinky Bill memes.

---

 

 

X2   

When opponents are unable to put up sensible arguments they resort to "weak" responses (childish scare tactics) we are receiving from the poor old anti nuclear crowd    

I wrote to the respective email addresses of Dutton and David Littleproud.

Stated I was against Nuclear. Mainly on the nuclear waste issue. Sure, they can envelope it in huge cement coffins and store it onsite.
Though with all the blue and green sites shown above, over a long period of time there are going to be a lot of these over an extended period of time.
I think in this day and age, over time there are enough suitable power solutions without the need for Nuclear.
Have also given thought to ALL of us using power more prudently rather than have every light and power source blaring all day in the home/office?

Like everything, Nuclear coffins age and diminish, well I guess dopes of our current era don't give a rats about that, none of us will be around to deal with the problem when we are gone.
When you look at it, we humans are the worst blight on the planet in history. You only have to look at the U.S. presidential candidates to work that out.
It is my personal choice to oppose Nuclear, just like we are all allowed our own opinion on all matters.

In the emails I told Messrs Dutton and Littleproud (offices of course) I was a long term Country Party/Nats voter but in the next election I will not vote in their favour purely and singularly on their Nuclear stance.

I got a response from both offices the next day, The usual generic emails they like to send.

In it they then asked for some monetary donations to put toward their Nuclear policy.

I wrote back......

Told them to stick their donation and their Nuclear policy in the nearest available crevice.

IN conjunction with this discussion the force feed BS that eminates from the climate change cohort, sure wind and solar can power a portion of the nation with favorable conditions. Last night around 9pm I checked the NEM Watch website for the what was powering the nation, around 76% of power was being generated by Coal, Gas, and other fuels, the majority of the rest was comming from hydro.

How in the hell are we going to get to the governments 2030 target, where it will require 22,000 solar panels a day and 40 7MW wind turbines to be online per month, let alone 28,000 km of poles and withes to connect them to the grid, how many big batteries are going to be needed.

Now CFA in Victoria has advised the government that members will not attend fires at batteries, solar arrays and wind generators, because of the danger they present to their members, next I can see there will be a ban on attending EV fires.

 

Strangely enough O' great Aussie (like your jokes) the only decent, informative email responses I have ever received have been from One Nation.

Also some responses 20 plus years ago from the late Peter Andren. He stood in parliament once and presented some papers from the CSIRO (I think) regarding the positive prospects of solar power. Little Johnny stood and p**- p**ed his comments, in some ways made a fool out of the late Mr Andren. L.J. must have had some decent big donors from the coal industry to look after?

Peter Andren was a man before his time so it seems, he was right about solar and L.J. was very very wrong history has proven. I received two emails from Mr Andren that night, starting with an apology for the delay in response!!!! They were his words too, not one of these awful generic emails sent nowadays.

One can imagine the generic mind altering propaganda rubbish one would receive from the Greenies. Apart from the fact, why would anyone bother to contact that barn full of loonies. I think I spotted on the news last week there are now 72 different identifiers for gender now, weird that, here I am thinking there were only two?

Sadly Aussie, Greenies, referendums, gender I.D. and all of the other madness we have had thrust upon us in recent decades, it is not likely to stop soon!!!!
One ponders what sort of a mess the joint will be in for coming decades. Surely from 300 million people the U.S. could find two sensible, grounded, middle aged candidates and the same came be said about OZ, have a go at the ordinary choices we have and what is in the ranks below them.

By the looks of things we're into another scare campaign based on ideology rather than science.

When Australians weigh up the pros and cons we generally disregard scare campaigns and the ideology that goes with them.

History is on our side and I see nuclear power generation forthcoming. Baseload power at 0% emissions. Why argue with that?

It looks like we'll soon be using the Hajj as a measure of climate change:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Hajj_disaster