Given power storage methods (flow batteries) base load capacity is very possible. 

Lots of things are possible, but battery storage opens another can of environmental worms.

As it is, all we need is assistance to the existing system anyway, not a whole new thing. Even if renewables are assistance to base load, that is good and means many extra power stations  do not have to be built.

Assistance will only cover expanding population, it doesn't negate what we need to do now to reduce emissions. Nuclear can replace existing base load power that pumps it's waste into our atmosphere sooner.

Lots of losses occur the further power is transmitted.


Which is why renewables have their own sets of environmental problems. If sustainabilty is to be paramount then ALL inputs and outputs need to be weighed


By allocating renewable systems in more remote locations the energy saved is significant.

In some situations, but the major consumers of energy aren't in remote locations

Yes, the locals at whitecliffs did not want solar power initially. 
It was the most economic method though. Now the locals are more than happy with it. 
With virtually no running costs for a decade and good reliability , I'ld be pretty happy also.


It was the most economic method because they weren't able to connect to the grid. Whitecliff solar was shut down in 2004. The running costs as well as the infrastructure were significant and inefficient

Renewable energies are capable of supplying base load power.

No they aren't

Yes they are. It's just a matter of what we are willing to pay, not technology. 

One big side of this which people seem to be missing is demand management via price signals. The two major parties have a tendency to predict future demand based on current prices and to assume we should build more expensive options based on the demand when electricity is cheap. We should be jacking up the prices first, the building nuclear or renewable energy plants after society has adjusted to the higher prices and indicated with their actions that they still want more power, as opposed to say, just consuming a bit less so we don't have to build new plants.

It is also not the government's role to select between solar electric, wind, solar thermal etc. The industry for these is well established. All they have to do is offer the right price for the product (electricity).

How does a flow battery work? How energy efficient is it? How cost efficient is it?

Could it be we will be forced to take Nuclear power on regardless of the threats to our environment?

I suspect that it may be better than coal, hence our 'next best choice' in cost terms. However there are still no long term waste storage facilities in the world that are running. Until then we won't know how much it really costs and a lot of the 'economy' of nuclear is down to letting our descendants deal with the waste.

Most of the costs of non renewable power are not paid for by anyone.

You mean the 'negative externalities'? ie the environmental and social costs?

freediver wrote on Apr 29^th, 2007 at 7:16pm:


I didn't figure you for being a simpleton.

No..they aren't. Not on a large scale, not without associated costs to the environment, not without significant infrastructure costs and associated problems and not without either directly or indirectly increasing damage to the environment...which brings us back to square one in trying to replace coal fired base load power.

Quote:


This 'Mel' character, you keep harping on about must be one helluva good bloke. I like him already and I've never even interacted with him. I have no idea what 'Cracker' is either.

I only gathered the 'simpleton' comment from an observation of his simple solution coupled with surrounding himself with other, more obvious simpletons

'Fooling' would require some effort on my part. You seem to be more than capable of handling that all by yourself.

In the oil industry, they claim they are producers of oil. The oil is already there, they just tap down to it, take that they want. They don't strictly "produce" anything.

You could make the same argument about renewables or any industry. It doesn't really matter though. The social and environmental costs dod matter.

No..they aren't. Not on a large scale, not without associated costs to the environment, not without significant infrastructure costs and associated problems and not without either directly or indirectly increasing damage to the environment...which brings us back to square one in trying to replace coal fired base load power.

They can produce base load power, it just costs more. They do have some environmental impact, but it is far less than that of coal, even on a large scale. Everything we do has some impact, but renewable energy is pretty far down on the list. It basically comes down to cost.

As opposed to the 'environmentally sound' practice of concentrating radioactive isotopes, dumping their excess heat energy into the atmosphere and oceans and then burying them in the ground? Substances with a half life measured in millennia?

Strawman anyone?

Go look at the chemical composition of modern batteries as well as their lifespan and while your doing that, have a look at all the battery recycling plants within Australia.

Exactly, and renewables use more environmentally sound principles than nuclear power.

Which principles would those be?

Nuclear costs exactly the same as wind and solar plants, but... is less reliable and would require land clearing and reduction of biodiversity on a grand scale to be able to service metropolitan areas. 20% is not base load power