Ultralight aircraft 2 strokes to be banned
---which will take (I understand) some 12 years to repay the energy to mine and produce the materials, make, transport and erect these monsters (and guess where that energy comes from), then maybe another 8 years producing power (when the wind blows at the right speed), with ongoing servicing and the killing of birds and bats, then at the end of life, rinse and repeat. So inefficient they have to be subsidised by the long-suffering tax payer.
A scam, abetted by the 'useful idiot' greens and socialists.
A scam, abetted by the 'useful idiot' greens and socialists.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 14th Sep 2017 at 02:14.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
---which will take (I understand) some 12 years to repay the energy to mine and produce the materials, make, transport and erect these monsters (and guess where that energy comes from), then maybe another 8 years producing power (when the wind blows at the right speed), with ongoing servicing and the killing of birds and bats, then at the end of life, rinse and repeat. So inefficient they have to be subsidised by the long-suffering tax payer.
Closing Liddell power station is supposed to leave the grid 1,000 M/Vs short.
Last year Mr Adani put up a 648 M/V solar power station in southern India in 8 months for about $888 million AUD. That would make a 1,000 M/V about $1.5 billion AUD (The panels were all made in China)
If they build a new 70% dirty coal fired station of similar size it would cost over $2 billion and about $100 million per year to feed it coal for the rest of it's life- assuming they can obtain quality coal for $40 per ton. If it had a 40 year life that's $4 billion. You could buy a lot of pumped hydro storage or even better ammonia storage for that money. Solar is looking good both environmentally and cost wise. As a bonus I've never heard of a human or a bat or a bird getting black lung from solar panels.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we remove the exports we nothing.
But I think the answer is Vickers Viscounts. As a young lad at Essendon aerodrome I loved the whistle of the RR Darts, not that I knew then what they were. Why did we ever bother developing aircraft after they were invented?
Because people back then had imagination.
Renewables can't do baseload? Wait a while, they will. Renewables not as cheap as coal? Wait a (short) while, they will be, if not already.
Climate change is bullsh1t, therefore fossil fuels are infinite? Mmmmm, don't think so.
Maybe replacing fossil fuels on the ground will keep them available for use in the air a bit longer.
Don't care because you will be dead by then? Mmmm, selfish?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan [sic].
You could buy a lot of pumped hydro storage or even better ammonia storage for that money.
And
how much that 1gw battery is going to cost
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how much that 1gw battery is going to cost
Neatly sidestepped Dart's wind comments there, Rootan [sic]
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah they dont at all. 7yrs of an ETEC and can tell you not great on fuel compared to 4stroke and 10 Year warranty?? I wish or I wouldnt be getting rid of mine, they can fix it, again!!!
I have well over a thousand hours behind two-stroke Rotax aircraft engines, and although they are reliable and cheap, they are simply no longer acceptable as an aeroplane powerplant when compared to the Rotax 912-family of engines.
My advice to anyone still flying a two-stroke powered aeroplane is fly it until the engine is worn out and then scrap the entire machine and embrace the world of four-stroke powered aeroplanes. You'll wonder why you persisted with the two-stroke for so long.
My advice to anyone still flying a two-stroke powered aeroplane is fly it until the engine is worn out and then scrap the entire machine and embrace the world of four-stroke powered aeroplanes. You'll wonder why you persisted with the two-stroke for so long.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Flying Binghi - can't you find another forum for your climate change skeptic fruit cake rants?
That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.
Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?
That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life
#3 is VERY important
My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am another climate change sceptic.
That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.
Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?
That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life
#3 is VERY important
My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
That said, I am an environmentalist, on the lower scale.
Peter can you show us the studies that compare the environmental impact of Coal/Gas emissions Vs Renewable Energy technology?
That would be, 3 fold.
Environmental Impact at...
1 Production
2. lifespan
3. end of life
#3 is VERY important
My understanding from the few studies so far conducted, that the end of life impact of renewables (solar panels, batteries and the like) with a ten year life span, is greater than the emissions of a coal fired power plant with a 40 year life span, over the whole course of the power plant life!
PV cells are already being recycled in Australia and their numbers, like those of deep storage batteries, will undoubtedly grow exponentially over the next 2-3 decades (both have long expected lives)
Both are already being recycled in small numbers and the industry will grow.
PV panels and batteries both need to be added to the list of regulated e-waste to ensure that both manufacturers and purchasers dispose of them responsibility.
https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/...es-be-recycled
Solar panel recycler leads Australia in emerging industry - The Lead SA
Best thing I've ever done apart from buying my AUSTER was installing solar panels on my house. My winter energy bill for the last 3 months is less than $110.
Kaz
That's great Kaz. Did you pay full price for the panels, or were they subsidised?
How much do you get paid for the power they put into the grid? And how much do you pay for the power taken from the grid?
How much do you get paid for the power they put into the grid? And how much do you pay for the power taken from the grid?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A post appears to have been withdrawn where somebody suggested that all government subsidies be withdrawn from renewables and let the best man win in the battle between new expensive dirty coal power and new expensive clean power. The writer must have felt a bit of a hypocrite when he realized that most if not all 24 coal power stations were built with government money. It gets worse. After the gov got their money back from the sale of electricity to the taxpayers one would think they would then be able to sell the power at the cost to run and maintain the now paid for station. But no. They then sell or lease it to some big company who just loves a lucrative monopoly and that big company then pays for it all over again by charging whatever they can get away with. Don't give me sob stories about subsidies.
That's a difficult choice. A choice between new dirty expensive coal power that works all the time, and new expensive renewable power that works some of the time.
In the 'Aus' newspaper a week or so ago was an article about a guy who had installed a $30,000 battery ( AGL I think ) that cost him $5,000. Hmmmm I wonder who's paying the rest?
During the next SA blackout, If he thinks all the power in that battery is his to use, then I've got news for him, and it's all bad.
By the way, it was only a month or two old and was going to be replaced.
In the 'Aus' newspaper a week or so ago was an article about a guy who had installed a $30,000 battery ( AGL I think ) that cost him $5,000. Hmmmm I wonder who's paying the rest?
During the next SA blackout, If he thinks all the power in that battery is his to use, then I've got news for him, and it's all bad.
By the way, it was only a month or two old and was going to be replaced.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a difficult choice. A choice between new dirty expensive coal power that works all the time, and new expensive renewable power that works some of the time.
Why is everyone getting their knickers in a knot about intermittent electricity? The technology is there to store enough electricity/energy to see us through the longest recorded no light no wind period for a particular area. What this discussion is about is finding the most effective , economical method known to date for storing power.
I happen to support ammonia for numerous reasons but would drop it in an instant if a superior system came to light.
One thing for sure is that it is a waste of time and intellectual resources to argue that we can keep pumping 50 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year without repercussions.
Clean energy however we choose to do it is our only choice.
Last edited by rutan around; 16th Sep 2017 at 12:37. Reason: clarification
Hey Rutan, I'm no scientist, but I like to try to sort out the wheat from the chaff. But inconvenient things keep on popping up - in favour of both sides. But I don't think people types like Al Gore or Michael Moore help your cause. They seem to think it is their duty ( and make lots of money in the process ) to scare the bejesus out of everyone with overblown rhetoric. Or our very own Tim.
There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie.
There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But inconvenient things keep on popping up - in favour of both sides.
Well each one of the last three years has seen the hottest global average temperatures ever recorded, ice is melting ( your glacier somewhere , ships passing through the Arctic Ocean in summer) and sea levels rising partly through seawater expanding as it warms and partly through ice melting.
Those who don't want to believe our climatologists instruments keep changing their position. One faulty instrument out of thousands is faulty so they must all be wrong. Our earth orbit has moved closer to the sun without a skerrick of evidence that this has happened and even if it did move by the amount they say, the effect would be tiny. They also say climate change has occurred before, when man could not have affected it, so it's not man driven now.
Something drives climate change. Abnormal volcanic activity, a collision with a large meteorite or a near miss with a planet sized object are some things that could cause warming without mans involvement.
As none of these has happened since the industrial age started it's a pretty good bet that we have something to do with the rising temperatures.
There is a receding glacier somewhere ( Alaska I think - reported and pictured recently ) that is revealling 2,000 year old trees trunks. I bet that didn't make it into Al Gore's latest movie.