Second blast at NZ coal mine

[Jovial Monk]

The Greens stuffed up opposing the CPRS and so removing any carbon price. So renewable energy investments stalled.

With thawing tundra set to release huge volumes of methane the time is past for renewables. Nuclear is now the only path open for GHG emissions reduction. You can thank Bob Brown for that, OK?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Forget geothermal: the overburden is too fractured so steam is lost in the rock layers above the hot rocks.

Forget wind. Have a look at output figures some time for solar, wind, 4thGen nuclear. Spain has a huge solar thermal installation, supplies a pitiful fraction of Spain’s electricity.

We should have started much, much earlier with solar. Only nuclear is left, that takes 15 years so we need to get started.

Any waste, the deep lead/silver/zinc mines at Broken Hill are ideal places to store it. Would provide employment there when the last mine stops working.

I used to be against nuclear, but we need to get emissions down quickly and nuclear is now the only way to do that. Oh yeah, and thorium will be the fuel. We got lots of thorium.

I think pro nukers should find their own planet to phuk up and stop imagining they can get something for nothing.
So far not one of your industry parroted claims has ever come to fruition.
The nuke industry quite simply is a ridiculously expensive mutagenic scam upon the taxpayer.
If it was upto me pro nukers would have plutonium pendants padlocked around their neck, should do their thyroid wonders, then we wouldn't have to put up with continually disproven bull$#!+ spuiked by such halfwitted parasites.

Bet someone else (most likely taxpayers) pays for the electricity you use.
If you had to pay for your own energy consumption you wouldn't be putting your hand up to have your bill quadrupeled.

Y'know I've never met or even heard of an honest pro-nuker, they're all LIARS, every single last one of them.

[IQSRLOW]

So far not one of your industry parroted claims has ever come to fruition.

Geo thermal & Hot rock
Solar thermal
Solar PV (cheapest over all)
Solar towers (hot wind tunnel with turbines)
Wind, large and small depending on application
Maglev Turbines.

Neither, it would seem, have any of your parrotted claims- in relation to stand alone base load power.

Facing facts, stand alone base load power is limited to the fossil fuels (coal, gas, diesal) and uranium. Putting untried and untested options on the table is futile

[Outlaw Yogi]

Solar thermal IS stand alone base load power in california.

Nuke is NOT stand alone. It requires another peak load facility to start the reactor.

[IQSRLOW]

Solar thermal IS stand alone base load power in california

How many homes and businesses? What type of industry is it servicing? Link?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Posted them in many of PA's former incarnations.
I could scour the web and post $#!+ loads of links.
Here's one (below) virtually at random, plenty more if you have a look.
Note: California has been using solar arrays successfully for 20 years or so.
In Las Vegas solar is base load, peak load, and generates the majority of electricity for all those pretty lights.

In California’s Mojave Desert, Solar-Thermal Projects Take Off
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2334

We’re providing power for 150,000 homes, and we’re using water for 300 homes. That’s as water-efficient as anything you can do. Fossil plants still use wet cooling and everybody ought to know that. That needs to change. It ought to be a level playing field. It shouldn’t just be renewables that do this. Energy and water are so inextricably linked.

Nuke reactors being large volume water users make it unsuitable for dry places like Australia.

[IQSRLOW]

hmmm...Under construction...not in operation and a shit load of land required

[Outlaw Yogi]

That's just one project in California. They've got several others.
They're popping up all over the place these days .. quite simply because they make the most economic sense.
The best argument against nuke is the economic one.

Solar is cheaper to set up, cheaper to run, and quicker to set up.

[IQSRLOW]

That's just one project in California. They've got several others.
They're popping up all over the place these days .. quite simply because they make the most economic sense.
The best argument against nuke is the economic one.

Solar is cheaper to set up, cheaper to run, and quicker to set up.

But do you need desert conditions? I would imagine that this wouldn't be exactly ideal for colder climates even in our lower south. What happens in winter or you have a week of overcast conditions?

[Outlaw Yogi]

That's just one project in California. They've got several others.
They're popping up all over the place these days .. quite simply because they make the most economic sense.
The best argument against nuke is the economic one.

Solar is cheaper to set up, cheaper to run, and quicker to set up.

But do you need desert conditions? I would imagine that this wouldn't be exactly ideal for colder climates even in our lower south. What happens in winter or you have a week of overcast conditions?

No not really, desert conditions are handy because of unoccupied land, but solar set ups can go virtually anywhere .. eg on the ocean of roof tiles commonly found across Ozzy suburbia, or on the sea of corrugated iron across regional and rural Oz.

Colder climates? well the Swedes and Germans dwell in cold climates but are world leaders in the Solar industry.
Admittedly a week of cloudy days flattens the 12 volt batteries in my pi$$ant set up in the bush, requiring me to charge via my car alternator.

Solar has the advantage of being suitable for decentralised and grid based systems.
Decentralised power is not prone to grid blackouts.
Grids are being slowly abandoned as maintainance costs rise and more people go for self sufficiecy options.