As previously noted len, you don't have to change the 'peak' time, you just have to store the renewable energy in a way that can be reused - and obviously look at the cradle to grave energy cost associated with that. In fact that may already have been the case with using brown coal for pumping water as previously mentioned. It may in fact be the lowest economical, social and environmental cost to capture and store that energy - maybe but doubt it, but then again neither of us know for sure it isn't. Have a read of ATA's (Alternative Technologies Association) submission on demand side pricing and usage from last year "ATA Submission to Power of Choice Draft Recommendations Supplementary Paper One Pricing Principles". That submission and similar work by them has shown that it is cheaper to use renewable to provide peak power than the infrastructure costs of approximately $11billion needed to supply power for only 100 hours per year (peak time total for year) You are correct, so get out there and educate people to make better choices - I have yet to see the man in the moon change his ways by simply being yelled at But also be aware that things are changing. Developers I know of do a lot of work to make sure there are social areas available for residents, common garden areas and water recycling along with some even looking at zero energy housing which leverages the PassivHaus concept. One even dedicates at least 25% of the development to zone 4-5 type areas. For him it's a win-win as he gets people to buy his houses that respect their surrounds, which keep prices stable and makes people that miss out of that development to pre-book for his next one. So don't despair, we are getting there slowly.
I hereby apologize to the whole world for caring about the health of a fellow human being, one I never met, one that is across the sea, one that both science & philosophy tells me is related to me & my environment. MY BAD. =(
ngcomm, not my quote: "which now constitutes around 40% of energy investment to fix and upgrade this infrastructure (and consequently around 40% of your electricity bill)." i will say the infrastructure was quiet fine before it was privetised, and since privetisation s/e qld had a power outage that went from 12 hours(the lucky one's) to 5 days(the unlucky one's) people about 2k away had 3 days and a cousin about 20k away with lots of kids had 5 days. we all also had issues with telephone lasting up to 5 days, cannot remember anything like this pre-privetisation. want to really care about the health of others? include dental(as i again for one sit her with an aching tooth), then get public health and dental in high order, how can people continue to let the masses suffer in a rich country without caring. our state is heading into private health just like the US did. len
All these problems are one big tangled web. For national health to work, you need to worry about the overall health of your people. Industrial Ag and all the other poisons going in to the food reduces your people's health. Coal fired power plants reduce your people's health. Most economic reasoning ruins you people's health. So if you worry about your people's health, the economy constricts and you can't afford to pay for all the previous health problems from a the old booming economy. To go to renewables, you need to lower the standard of living which people don't want to do. To produce better food, you need to lower the standard of living, which people don't want to do. Catch 22. There are choices to be made and there are always trade offs, it's up to each individual to make that decision. People don't like to make decisions so the status quo keeps on trucking. Simply put, plant a garden. Even the smallest apartment can grow something if you think outside the box.
unmutual, not sure how you work out coal fired power stations cause bad health, our emit very little visible output and are situated right away from cities, we have none anywhere near this part of qld.,. so dunno where that furphy came from, not like early times when power plants were right in the city. the overall health of people has a lot more to do with poor agricultural practices led by science, but they really aren't about to go there can you imagine the hew and cry, many farmers suffer from the applications they use but it is all on the qt. len
How do you equate reduced visible exhaust with safety? Distance isn't a safety factor either considering England gets sand blown in from the Sahara desert in Africa(~3000 miles). Even "clean coal" is still one hell of a polluter.
they all are factors, the other is most of the south east qld trade winds come from the s/east the power stations are to the north west or west. and whatever winds they get in england is some other factor, i'm talking about here, and yes all sorts of variables can be bought in, especially by the science. len
Indian coal power plants 'kill 120,000 people a year', says Greenpeace https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/10/india-coal-plants-emissions-greenpeace
Just for interest sake: my partner just told me that in the last 5 days of production our local abattoir processing 700+ cattle/day used 293,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, 9000 kilolitres of water and 48000 litres of natural gas. Staggering.
They do collect rainwater but the amount (although large) is minute in relation to how much is used every day. Recently heard about another abattoir on the east coast somewhere that is fitting out a methane digester. Hopefully their success will lead to further use of the technology more widely.
The only thing that worries me about that recent guardian segment is the reduced profit of PV solar and the increased profit of biofuel. Reduced profit meaning reduced interest in making it. I'm still far from convinced that biofuel is in-any-way-shape-or-form a good thing. This probably means that the economy will be pushing biofuels down our throats. Man this stuff is depressing. At least I have (2) 3-day weekends in a row to work in my garden to cheer me up!
Something just coming to light on the cost of a nuclear accident: https://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-03-14/potential-cost-nuclear-accident-so-high-it’s-secret
