"JohnJohn" > wrote in message
news
>>>I meant any batteries. So we can store daytime solar for use after
>>>dark?
>>
>>Umm, yes You use solar panels to charge the batteries, then an
>>inverter to convert it 230-250VAC (for Aus).
>>
>>Even just a really good truck battery can give you enough power for
>>one night, depending on what you're using, of course.
>>
>>The 'proper' batteries are still very expensive, but nowhere near
>>expensive as they once were, and are far more efficient into the
>>bargain. There isn't a specific 'solar' battery, really.
>
> I had my wires crossed. Of course you can have batteries, otherwise
> you could hardly live off the grid. The problem is or was having
> grid+batteries (+solar). They don't want people filling up their
> batteries during off-peak to avoid buying power during on-peak.

Here in UK we can of course have an independent off-grid system using solar
panels (and/or wind or hydro turbines where appropriate) with a deep cycle
battery bank for storage and either 12v or a 240v system via an inverter,
but the government have also been pushing and subsidising grid-connected
solar systems for individual homes that can cut your electricity bills and
even result in a payment to the householder if they use less than the panels
generate. The problem with those systems is that to safeguard anyone working
on the grid they automatically close down if there is a powercut, and it is
unlawful to install a switching system to get around that, so they don't
provide a backup for those situations. What people who have those panels and
want a backup system are doing is plugging a suitable battery charger into
the standard mains system and charging their battery bank during the day
when the panels are generating and giving cheap electricity then switching
to the backup system after the sun goes down.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"JohnJohn" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading
>>>>>>>>> lies
>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like
>>>>>> moths
>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>
>>> No, it's reality.
>>>
>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>
>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>
>>>
>>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>>
>>>
>>> "All"?
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> You have some polling on that?

Watch your attributions


> I missed this bit. I'm sure there's polling to be googled. But every
> town we drive through has a sign saying "xx% against CSG" (=
> fracking). xx= generally around the 96 mark.
>
>>It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
>>they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
>>where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
>>what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
>>the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how
>>many
>>tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>
> The Australian countryside -and the English from the little bit I've
> seen of it- is way too beautiful to start polluting and poisoning the
> hell out of it to make an extra buck.
>
> --
> JohnJohn
>

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:10:05 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
>>Here in UK we can of course have an independent off-grid system using
>>solar
>>panels (and/or wind or hydro turbines where appropriate) with a deep cycle
>>battery bank for storage and either 12v or a 240v system via an inverter,
>>but the government have also been pushing and subsidising grid-connected
>>solar systems for individual homes that can cut your electricity bills and
>>even result in a payment to the householder if they use less than the
>>panels
>>generate. The problem with those systems is that to safeguard anyone
>>working
>>on the grid they automatically close down if there is a powercut, and it
>>is
>>unlawful to install a switching system to get around that, so they don't
>>provide a backup for those situations. What people who have those panels
>>and
>>want a backup system are doing is plugging a suitable battery charger into
>>the standard mains system and charging their battery bank during the day
>>when the panels are generating and giving cheap electricity then switching
>>to the backup system after the sun goes down.
>
> We have quite a few off grid people - I know one and it was most
> amusing. When they built they would have liked to have had power but
> the power company didn't want to go there. So they built one of those
> houses that faces south but the ground behind it is mounded up over
> the house for insulation. They have solar panels and a small windmill
> and have been totally off grid for somewhere around ten years, no
> problems.
>
> A few months ago the power company contacted them to say they were
> going to be installing power down their way and would they like to
> hook up ? I won't repeat where Derek said they could hook their
> power, but you can imagine

Oh yes!!!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"JohnJohn" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:17:07 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"JohnJohn" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading
>>>>>>>>>>> lies
>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to
>>>>>>>> farmers
>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like
>>>>>>>> moths
>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "All"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> You have some polling on that?
>>
>>Watch your attributions
>
> Sorry, I was trying to reply to two things at a time.

You are a cloggy so i can forgive you most things ;-)


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 2014-09-13 8:28 AM, wrote:

> We have quite a few off grid people - I know one and it was most
> amusing. When they built they would have liked to have had power but
> the power company didn't want to go there. So they built one of those
> houses that faces south but the ground behind it is mounded up over
> the house for insulation. They have solar panels and a small windmill
> and have been totally off grid for somewhere around ten years, no
> problems.
>

Around here it is better to be on the grid because there is program to
encourage green energy and they pay you about 8 times more for the
electricity they get from you the standard rate per kwh. They buy your
power and you buy it back for a fraction of that price.

> A few months ago the power company contacted them to say they were
> going to be installing power down their way and would they like to
> hook up ? I won't repeat where Derek said they could hook their
> power, but you can imagine
>

Not much solar power where the sun don't shine ;-)

Ophelia wrote:
>
> It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
> they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
> where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
> what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
> the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how many
> tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>
> Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!

I think people off the grid can use various natural resources...solar,
tidal, etc. But some use "all natural" wood stoves or coal stoves for
heat. Have you ever been in some mountain valley in the winter where
they use wood or coal? Smoke and smell will choke a normal person.
Asthmatics will just fall over and die. ;-o

Also so many people live in cities or suburbs where self-contained
options just won't work. They need to be on the grid.

IMO, nuclear power is the best option. It's cheap and safe for the
environment (unless it breaks down). I feel this should be the one to
concentrate on since humans breed like rabbits. Most R&D time should
be on making these even safer. There's no such thing as "fail safe"
but conditions can be improved.

Bottom line problem though is that there are just too many humans and
we are consuming resources that took millions of years to produce. At
some point in time, not our lifetimes, the resources WILL run out.

A 3rd world war, an out of control virus (ebola?), how about a giant
meteor strike could solve or slow down this problem. Even better would
be to arm all rabbits with assault weapons and turn them loose to each
kill 600 humans each night for awhile. Paybacks are hell.

G.

wrote:
>
> I find when you get these huge corporations, they are in it to make a
> buck and could give shit about what they destroy.

Every business in the entire world only starts up to make the most
money they can. Once you incorporate to expand the business, you then
have to answer to the stock holders. Naturally, they invested in you
and are only out for the money. Most of the "greedy people" are
normal people like me and you that invest our savings in a large
company and demand the most return on their investment.

Big business is NOT the problem. It's all of us. Without big business
we would all be hurting or lacking in something that we love.

All this crap just boils down to class envy. You hate someone that
makes more money than you do.

G.

wrote:
>
> We have quite a few off grid people - I know one and it was most
> amusing. When they built they would have liked to have had power but
> the power company didn't want to go there. So they built one of those
> houses that faces south but the ground behind it is mounded up over
> the house for insulation. They have solar panels and a small windmill
> and have been totally off grid for somewhere around ten years, no
> problems.
>
> A few months ago the power company contacted them to say they were
> going to be installing power down their way and would they like to
> hook up ? I won't repeat where Derek said they could hook their
> power, but you can imagine

Sounds like Derek-head has a nice setup but he could have just told
the power company "no thanks" in a nice way. Why the angry response?

G.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Not much solar power where the sun don't shine ;-)

LOL! That would be in your pants except for the nudist folks here.
hahaha

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
> >they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
> >where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
> >what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
> >the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how many
> >tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
> >
> >Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!
>
> I won't be around, but my descendants will - we are experimenting with
> tidal power here because in the Bay of Fundy we have the largest tides
> on earth. They tried a few years back (machine from the UK) and they
> lasted about a dozen tides. There is another try going on now,
> completely redesigned and apparently fish and whales will be safe from
> it.
>
> IMO that is the direction to go, wind, solar, tidal, any natural
> source that can be used without ill effect.



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...3901/scotland-
renewable-energy/

"Renewable energy use is at a record high in Scotland, according to new
government figures.In 2012, Scotland got 40.3 percent of its electricity
from renewable sources ? up from 36.3 percent in 2011 and just 24.1
percent in 2010. The Scottish government plans to get half of its
electricity from renewable energy by 2015 ? a target it said it was on
track to meet ? and 100 percent of its electricity by 2020.

Wind power is Scotland?s fastest-growing renewable energy source ? in In
2012, Scotland?s wind power generation jumped by 19 percent. The country
is home to the U.K.?s largest wind farm and constructed its first
offshore wind farm in April 2010. The country is also working to harness
tidal power and is home to world?s first commercial wave power
generator. "

http://www.scottishrenewables.com/sc...ewable-energy-
statistics-glance/

Janet UK

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
>> they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
>> where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take
>> and
>> what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear
>> but
>> the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how
>> many
>> tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>>
>> Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!
>
> I think people off the grid can use various natural resources...solar,
> tidal, etc. But some use "all natural" wood stoves or coal stoves for
> heat. Have you ever been in some mountain valley in the winter where
> they use wood or coal? Smoke and smell will choke a normal person.
> Asthmatics will just fall over and die. ;-o

OH dear Well I am still here so you can bet that I have never been there
....


>
> Also so many people live in cities or suburbs where self-contained
> options just won't work. They need to be on the grid.
>
> IMO, nuclear power is the best option. It's cheap and safe for the
> environment (unless it breaks down).

I agree! Clean and cheap. The greens won't have that though.

I feel this should be the one to
> concentrate on since humans breed like rabbits. Most R&D time should
> be on making these even safer. There's no such thing as "fail safe"
> but conditions can be improved.
>
> Bottom line problem though is that there are just too many humans and
> we are consuming resources that took millions of years to produce. At
> some point in time, not our lifetimes, the resources WILL run out.
>
> A 3rd world war, an out of control virus (ebola?), how about a giant
> meteor strike could solve or slow down this problem. Even better would
> be to arm all rabbits with assault weapons and turn them loose to each
> kill 600 humans each night for awhile. Paybacks are hell.

Well we already had myxomatosis remember


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

In article >,

lid says...
> I meant any batteries. So we can store daytime solar for use after
> dark?

Already being used in Africa
http://www.solar-aid.org/

Domestic solar and photovoltaic energy is rapidly gaining ground in
Scotland, I should think Australia's capacity is infinitely greater.

Janet UK

wrote:
>
> They laughed in his face when he originally asked if they could run
> power out for him, so as they say here, what goes around, comes
> around. He wasn't particularly angry, more, I can't believe you just
> said that!

I can understand that thinking. When I first got married, the next
Christmas we had no extra money and no credit history. Sears sent us
an offer for their credit card and that would have saved the day. They
turned us down due to no credit history.

Once I established credit, they have been offering their card to me
constantly. Isn't it called Discovery now and for many years? No way
will I ever get one. I could also tell them where to stick their card.

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
>>
>> They laughed in his face when he originally asked if they could run
>> power out for him, so as they say here, what goes around, comes
>> around. He wasn't particularly angry, more, I can't believe you just
>> said that!
>
> I can understand that thinking. When I first got married, the next
> Christmas we had no extra money and no credit history. Sears sent us
> an offer for their credit card and that would have saved the day. They
> turned us down due to no credit history.
>
> Once I established credit, they have been offering their card to me
> constantly. Isn't it called Discovery now and for many years? No way
> will I ever get one. I could also tell them where to stick their card.
>
> G.

In the old days I did find that Sears was tough to get a credit card from
too, not like in this day and age where anyone can get a credit card, even
your ferret. ;-)

Cheri

On 9/12/2014 10:37 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>
>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>
>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>
>> In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>
> Well, obviously not! Otherwise it wouldn't work very well here, would
> it?

Isn't Australia generally suffering a major drought?

> The entire state runs on hydro power - for those on the grid,
> anyway. Mine is home made and combined with solar panels. I do use
> batteries for the solar of course.

That's just darned cool!

On 9/12/2014 10:39 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:26:48 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 10:10 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:58:22 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:26 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:55:56 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even then. That's democracy.
>>>>>
>>>> No, that's social fratricide.
>>>
>>> Sometimes it's the same thing. When Bush Jr gets elected, for
>>> instance.
>>
>> Not YOUR nation, and not YOUR call to make, capisce?
>
> Your government is by extention ours (and other nations) as well. You
> guys don't seem to appreciate that.
>

Actually we don't begin to buy that, really.

On 9/12/2014 10:40 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:23:40 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 10:05 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>
>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>
>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>
>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>> slug maybe?
>>
>> Not that I know of, no.
>>
>>>> But storage is key.
>>>
>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>
>> Lithium is the next resource war.
>
> No, water is. Well, it already is, come to think of it.
>
That's a far rejoinder, but scarcity hasn't really been noted, given
desalination technology.

On 9/12/2014 10:52 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>
>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>
>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>
>> In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>
> Not where I lived in Tasmania.
>

And the rest of Oz?

On 9/12/2014 10:55 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:26:48 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> On 9/12/2014 10:10 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:58:22 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:26 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:55:56 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one side of the story and more than 90% of people here believed
>>>>> the other side. The remaining 10% are probably undecided or mentally
>>>>> ill
>>>>
>>>> So the group think rules?
>>>>
>>>> Sad.
>>>>
>>>> Lemmings always find cliffs.
>>>
>>> "Nobody wants it, so let's do it!" Sounds a bit strange, doesn't it?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Sounds like what happens.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even then. That's democracy.
>>>>>
>>>> No, that's social fratricide.
>>>
>>> Sometimes it's the same thing. When Bush Jr gets elected, for
>>> instance.
>>
>> Not YOUR nation, and not YOUR call to make, capisce?
>
> I can comment though.
>
You have.

On 9/12/2014 10:54 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:37:43 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>>
>>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>>
>>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>>
>>> In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>>
>> Well, obviously not! Otherwise it wouldn't work very well here, would
>> it? The entire state runs on hydro power - for those on the grid,
>> anyway. Mine is home made and combined with solar panels. I do use
>> batteries for the solar of course.
>
> Are those batteries available for Joe Homeowner? I thought they were
> still in the early stage.
>
6 volt golf cart batteries in series works.

On 9/12/2014 11:03 PM, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:52:13 +1000, JohnJohn >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:27:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/12/2014 10:20 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:05:12 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:56:53 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 8:22 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:53:52 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:17 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:43:23 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:18:08 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because in reality, we are ruled by corporations. They have gradually
>>>>>>>>>> usurped the role of democracy. 'Government' is merely the interface
>>>>>>>>>> between us and them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's all vote Green then. They're the least corrupt and the least
>>>>>>>>> controlled by corporations. Until they come into power, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if they throttle your economy to a standstill?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we all start building windmills to re-activate the economy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They don't work when the wind stops blowing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the peak load dilemma.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer is tidal power turbines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tides are constant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good. Is there anything against that? A nearly extinct tidal
>>>>> slug maybe?
>>>>>
>>>>>> But storage is key.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, batteries, nanobatteries.
>>>>
>>>> Or hydro power, which works very well here.
>>>>
>>> In _some_ locales, but isn't drought a factor?
>>
>> Not where I lived in Tasmania.
>
> Probably thinks it's all like the 'outback' here
> That said, this coming summer is shaping up to be a relatively dry
> one.
>
Reads things like this:

http://time.com/7320/is-drought-beco...for-australia/

Feb. 14, 2014
A dead tree stands in front of shallow water and a dried-up area of Lake
George, located 50 km (31 miles) north of the Australian capital city of
Canberra May 13, 2013
A dead tree stands in front of shallow water and a dried-up area of Lake
George, located 50 km (31 miles) north of the Australian capital city of
Canberra May 13, 2013
David Gray—Reuters
With farmers and Outback towns fighting desperately to survive,
Australia is reeling from a long-term lack of water

The lucky country hasn’t had much luck with its weather of late.
Following the warmest winter on record, a summer heatwave where
temperatures topped 49.6°C and a volley of wildfires that destroyed
hundreds of properties and homes, vast swaths of Australia are now being
devastated by drought. The situation is especially dire in Queensland’s
interior, where the driest year on record has prompting a few towns to
plan for all-out evacuations.

On 9/13/2014 12:53 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:51:07 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>>> Do you work for BP by any chance?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> You know how much they can be trusted.
>>
>> As much as Exxon.
>
> Heh, what a recommendation!
>
>
Birds of a feather....

On 9/13/2014 3:24 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>> On 9/12/2014 2:23 PM, wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:00:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:47:20 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my part of Canada we could boast that we have prevented
>>>>>>> them from starting in on fracking, we were being told it was okay
>>>>>>> because they are doing it all the time in the great USA. We didn't
>>>>>>> listen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully Canada won't start letting billionaires and mega
>>>>>> corporations take over the government the way we have allow in the
>>>>>> USA.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe there is fracking out west but this time, for once, our
>>>>> provincial politicians were feeling jumpy about gatherings of
>>>>> 'anti-fracking' people - they called for an enquiry and it really
>>>>> didn't go their way, turned out the return is often not great and yes,
>>>>> it does affect the water tables. You don't go far from
>>>>> Halifax/Dartmouth area to be on well water!
>>>>>
>>>> As long as the stratum being fracked is a confined one, there is no
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe your drillers aren't using sound geology.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid not! It has come about from the scare tactics and LIES that
>>> Greenpeace and its allies have propagated.
>>
>> You think?
>>
>> The same thing goes on here.
>>
>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the company
>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>> Graham
>>
>>
>> Point taken.
>
> I know I have said so before, but Graham is a Geologist and has been in
> the business for many year.
>
>
>
It shows too.

On 9/13/2014 5:26 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading
>>>>>>>> lies
>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>
>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>
>> No, it's reality.
>>
>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>
>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>
>>
>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>
>>
>> "All"?
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> You have some polling on that?
>
> It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
> they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
> where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take
> and what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is
> nuclear but the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is
> tidal but how many tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>
> Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!
>

To right.

Germany, which mandated solar and wind is feeling the final resource rub
from Russian natural gas, because those technologies can not fully heat
a home overnight in the winter.

wrote in
:

> I won't be around, but my descendants will - we are
> experimenting with tidal power here because in the Bay of
> Fundy we have the largest tides on earth.

Ungava Bay would multiply Québec's hydro production by a factor of
10. I don't think anything can beat that. There are no plans to
develop it right now but if they need it, it's there.

From Hydro-Québec's profile:

"Our generating fleet comprises 59 hydroelectric generating
stations and 2 thermal generating stations, representing assets
worth $25.8 billion and installed capacity of 35.7 GW. We also have
26 large reservoirs with a storage capacity of 175 TWh, and 761
dams and control structures."

http://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/profil.html

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

"Ophelia" > wrote in news:lv19q7$9qm$2
@dont-email.me:

> Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!

Their god is called Hydro-Québec which supplies the Easterr
seaboard with enough power to run A/C machines in the summer, and
it's all from hydro.

--

Socialism never took root in America because the
poor there see themselves not as an exploited
proletariat but as temporarily embarassed
millionaires. - John Steinbeck

On 9/13/2014 5:45 AM, JohnJohn wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading lies
>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get any
>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to farmers
>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like moths
>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>
>>> No, it's reality.
>>>
>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>
>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>
>>>
>>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>>
>>>
>>> "All"?
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> You have some polling on that?
>
> I missed this bit. I'm sure there's polling to be googled. But every
> town we drive through has a sign saying "xx% against CSG" (=
> fracking). xx= generally around the 96 mark.

Really?

I'm thinking that number is unusually high:

THE West Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum has given the
green light to Buru Energy's plans to frack for gas in the Kimberley region.

But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it still had serious
concerns about tight gas exploration in the Canning Basin, noting the
approval came on the same day polling had revealed two out of three
Western Australians were opposed to fracking.

>> It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
>> they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
>> where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
>> what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
>> the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how many
>> tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>
> The Australian countryside -and the English from the little bit I've
> seen of it- is way too beautiful to start polluting and poisoning the
> hell out of it to make an extra buck.

Fracking is done beneath ground, and a given well pad can have multiple
straws extending out from it minimizing the visual impact above.

http://cartss.colorado.edu/images/ho...ingworks_1.jpg

http://www.childrensenvironment.org/fracking.jpg

Now, that said...here is what you do NOT want to see:

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/up...in-Wyoming.jpg

I think we'll all agree that the spacing on that is absurd and such
density ruins the land.

Having said that your actual coal seam gas areas are not plentiful:

http://ewatercrc.files.wordpress.com...lds-scnned.jpg

On 9/13/2014 6:10 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "JohnJohn" > wrote in message
> news
>>>> I meant any batteries. So we can store daytime solar for use after
>>>> dark?
>>>
>>> Umm, yes You use solar panels to charge the batteries, then an
>>> inverter to convert it 230-250VAC (for Aus).
>>>
>>> Even just a really good truck battery can give you enough power for
>>> one night, depending on what you're using, of course.
>>>
>>> The 'proper' batteries are still very expensive, but nowhere near
>>> expensive as they once were, and are far more efficient into the
>>> bargain. There isn't a specific 'solar' battery, really.
>>
>> I had my wires crossed. Of course you can have batteries, otherwise
>> you could hardly live off the grid. The problem is or was having
>> grid+batteries (+solar). They don't want people filling up their
>> batteries during off-peak to avoid buying power during on-peak.
>
> Here in UK we can of course have an independent off-grid system using
> solar panels (and/or wind or hydro turbines where appropriate) with a
> deep cycle battery bank for storage and either 12v or a 240v system via
> an inverter, but the government have also been pushing and subsidising
> grid-connected solar systems for individual homes that can cut your
> electricity bills and even result in a payment to the householder if
> they use less than the panels generate. The problem with those systems
> is that to safeguard anyone working on the grid they automatically close
> down if there is a powercut, and it is unlawful to install a switching
> system to get around that, so they don't provide a backup for those
> situations. What people who have those panels and want a backup system
> are doing is plugging a suitable battery charger into the standard mains
> system and charging their battery bank during the day when the panels
> are generating and giving cheap electricity then switching to the backup
> system after the sun goes down.
>
Tsk...that's cheating!

;-)

On 9/13/2014 6:50 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "JohnJohn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:17:07 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "JohnJohn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for spreading
>>>>>>>>>>>> lies
>>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to get
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to
>>>>>>>>> farmers
>>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like
>>>>>>>>> moths
>>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "All"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have some polling on that?
>>>
>>> Watch your attributions
>>
>> Sorry, I was trying to reply to two things at a time.
>
> You are a cloggy so i can forgive you most things ;-)
>
>
LOL!

Well take that, Bruce!

On 9/13/2014 7:23 AM, Gary wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
>> they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
>> where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
>> what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
>> the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how many
>> tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>>
>> Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!
>
> I think people off the grid can use various natural resources...solar,
> tidal, etc. But some use "all natural" wood stoves or coal stoves for
> heat. Have you ever been in some mountain valley in the winter where
> they use wood or coal? Smoke and smell will choke a normal person.
> Asthmatics will just fall over and die. ;-o

Literally!

> Also so many people live in cities or suburbs where self-contained
> options just won't work. They need to be on the grid.

Solar roof panels on most buildings would go a long way to improving the
grid.

Think of them like nodes on the internet - stability and redundancy are
improved.


> IMO, nuclear power is the best option. It's cheap and safe for the
> environment (unless it breaks down). I feel this should be the one to
> concentrate on since humans breed like rabbits. Most R&D time should
> be on making these even safer. There's no such thing as "fail safe"
> but conditions can be improved.

Pebble bed?

> Bottom line problem though is that there are just too many humans and
> we are consuming resources that took millions of years to produce. At
> some point in time, not our lifetimes, the resources WILL run out.

Unless...oil is abiotic...

http://viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

Vladimir Kutcherov adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the
help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of
10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil
deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof,
alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy
sources -- that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This
has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.

"There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural
gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of
bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil," says Vladimir Kutcherov, who
adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected
for these energy sources.

But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding
oil is enhanced dramatically -- from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling
for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture
will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end
probably for consumers as well.

"The savings will be in the many billions," says Vladimir Kutcherov.

Or...we scale up algae energy production.

>
> A 3rd world war, an out of control virus (ebola?), how about a giant
> meteor strike could solve or slow down this problem. Even better would
> be to arm all rabbits with assault weapons and turn them loose to each
> kill 600 humans each night for awhile. Paybacks are hell.
>
> G.
>
http://www.wendytimm.com/images/Artw...%20rabbit4.jpg

On 9/13/2014 8:19 AM, Gary wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>> I find when you get these huge corporations, they are in it to make a
>> buck and could give shit about what they destroy.
>
> Every business in the entire world only starts up to make the most
> money they can. Once you incorporate to expand the business, you then
> have to answer to the stock holders. Naturally, they invested in you
> and are only out for the money. Most of the "greedy people" are
> normal people like me and you that invest our savings in a large
> company and demand the most return on their investment.

And anyone with a retirement plan IS invested in corporations.

> Big business is NOT the problem. It's all of us. Without big business
> we would all be hurting or lacking in something that we love.

Fact.

> All this crap just boils down to class envy. You hate someone that
> makes more money than you do.
>
> G.

I suspect that may be large part of it also. Look at the gobbige Marty
spews on "Mal Wart", yet he claims to be "for the poor".

It is to laugh!

On 9/13/2014 9:02 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see (if I am still around which I hope not) if
>>> they win, how they will cope when all fuel is spent because there is no
>>> where else to obtain any. Windmills? How many millions will that take and
>>> what happens when the wind isn't blowing. The other answer is nuclear but
>>> the greens wouldn't be happy with that either. There is tidal but how many
>>> tides are there in the huge areas across USA and Aus?
>>>
>>> Perhaps they should start praying that their god will provide!
>>
>> I won't be around, but my descendants will - we are experimenting with
>> tidal power here because in the Bay of Fundy we have the largest tides
>> on earth. They tried a few years back (machine from the UK) and they
>> lasted about a dozen tides. There is another try going on now,
>> completely redesigned and apparently fish and whales will be safe from
>> it.
>>
>> IMO that is the direction to go, wind, solar, tidal, any natural
>> source that can be used without ill effect.
>
>
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...3901/scotland-
> renewable-energy/
>
> "Renewable energy use is at a record high in Scotland, according to new
> government figures.In 2012, Scotland got 40.3 percent of its electricity
> from renewable sources ? up from 36.3 percent in 2011 and just 24.1
> percent in 2010. The Scottish government plans to get half of its
> electricity from renewable energy by 2015 ? a target it said it was on
> track to meet ? and 100 percent of its electricity by 2020.
>
> Wind power is Scotland?s fastest-growing renewable energy source ? in In
> 2012, Scotland?s wind power generation jumped by 19 percent. The country
> is home to the U.K.?s largest wind farm and constructed its first
> offshore wind farm in April 2010. The country is also working to harness
> tidal power and is home to world?s first commercial wave power
> generator. "
>
> http://www.scottishrenewables.com/sc...ewable-energy-
> statistics-glance/
>
> Janet UK
>
>
Very interesting data, thanks.

On 9/13/2014 9:14 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
>
> lid says...
>> I meant any batteries. So we can store daytime solar for use after
>> dark?
>
> Already being used in Africa
> http://www.solar-aid.org/
>
> Domestic solar and photovoltaic energy is rapidly gaining ground in
> Scotland, I should think Australia's capacity is infinitely greater.
>
> Janet UK

You would be so very right too!


http://static.skepticalscience.com/p...lectricity.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia

Solar power in Australia is a relatively recent phenomenon. Currently,
it has over 3.2 GW of installed photovoltaic (PV) power (February
2014),[1] and 700 MW of PV was installed in the preceding 12 months. At
a capacity factor of 14 percent, this would contribute 1.1 percent of
Australia's electrical energy. The amount of installed PV capacity in
Australia has increased 10-fold between 2009 and 2011. Feed-in tariffs
and mandatory renewable energy targets designed to assist renewable
energy commercialisation in Australia have largely been responsible for
the rapid increase. In South Australia, Premier Mike Rann introduced a
solar feed in tariff for households and an educational program that
involved installing photovoltaics on the roofs of major public buildings
such as the Adelaide Airport, State Parliament, Museum, Art Gallery and
several hundred public schools.[2] In 2008 Premier Rann announced
funding for $8 million worth of solar panels on the roof of the new
Goyder Pavilion at the Royal Adelaide Showgrounds, the largest roof top
solar installation in Australia, qualifying it for official "power
station" status.[3] South Australia has the highest per capita take up
of household solar power in Australia.

The first commercial-scale PV power plant was opened in 2011, the Uterne
Solar Power Station, a 1MW capacity grid-connected solar photovoltaic
system located 5 km south of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory.[4]
The second opened in 2012 at Greenough River Solar Farm with a capacity
of 10 MW.[5] The price of photovoltaics has been decreasing, and in
January 2013, was less than half the cost of using grid electricity in
Australia.[6]

The country has been criticised for producing very little of its energy
from solar energy, despite its vast resources.

Potential[edit]

Solar potential in Australia
The combination of Australia's dry climate and latitude give it a high
benefits and potential for solar energy production. Most of the
Australian continent receives in excess of 4 kWh per square metre per
day of insolation during winter months, with a region in the north
exceeding 6 kWh/day.

Australia's insolation greatly exceeds the average values in Europe,
Russia, and most of North America. Comparable levels are found in desert
areas of northern and southern Africa, south western United States and
adjacent area of Mexico, and regions on the Pacific coast of South
America. However, the areas of highest insolation are distant to the
country's population centers.

With an installed photovoltaic capacity of 3,300 megawatts by the end of
2013, Australia ranks among the world's top ten solar countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...stralia-en.png

On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:41:49 -0600, Mayo > wrote:

> A buried pipeline with proper maintenance is a proven safe method of
> transport.

Yet they leak. Badly, because they are buried and ignored.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 9/13/2014 6:10 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "JohnJohn" > wrote in message
>> news
>>>>> I meant any batteries. So we can store daytime solar for use after
>>>>> dark?
>>>>
>>>> Umm, yes You use solar panels to charge the batteries, then an
>>>> inverter to convert it 230-250VAC (for Aus).
>>>>
>>>> Even just a really good truck battery can give you enough power for
>>>> one night, depending on what you're using, of course.
>>>>
>>>> The 'proper' batteries are still very expensive, but nowhere near
>>>> expensive as they once were, and are far more efficient into the
>>>> bargain. There isn't a specific 'solar' battery, really.
>>>
>>> I had my wires crossed. Of course you can have batteries, otherwise
>>> you could hardly live off the grid. The problem is or was having
>>> grid+batteries (+solar). They don't want people filling up their
>>> batteries during off-peak to avoid buying power during on-peak.
>>
>> Here in UK we can of course have an independent off-grid system using
>> solar panels (and/or wind or hydro turbines where appropriate) with a
>> deep cycle battery bank for storage and either 12v or a 240v system via
>> an inverter, but the government have also been pushing and subsidising
>> grid-connected solar systems for individual homes that can cut your
>> electricity bills and even result in a payment to the householder if
>> they use less than the panels generate. The problem with those systems
>> is that to safeguard anyone working on the grid they automatically close
>> down if there is a powercut, and it is unlawful to install a switching
>> system to get around that, so they don't provide a backup for those
>> situations. What people who have those panels and want a backup system
>> are doing is plugging a suitable battery charger into the standard mains
>> system and charging their battery bank during the day when the panels
>> are generating and giving cheap electricity then switching to the backup
>> system after the sun goes down.
>>
> Tsk...that's cheating!

Pah!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 9/13/2014 1:08 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 11:41:49 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> A buried pipeline with proper maintenance is a proven safe method of
>> transport.
>
> Yet they leak.

Every man-made device will in due time fail.

> Badly, because they are buried and ignored.

That is not correct.

It is too costly not to maintain and monitor pipelines.

So they are pigged, regularly:

http://www.inlineservices.com/

Our consulting engineers are highly qualified in the management of
pigging and pipeline maintenance applications including regular cleaning
programs, corrosion problems including pitting and scaling and removal
of troublesome deposits such as black powder, liquids and waxes.
Our numerous years of extensive specialist knowledge in pipeline
cleaning and maintenance allow us to be able to access, provide and
engineer the most effective products, tools and services for most
applications.

http://www.cepa.com/about-pipelines/...-and-standards

All aspects of the life cycle of a pipeline — from design and
construction to operation and discontinuation (abandonment) — are
strictly regulated by a number of regulatory agencies and government
departments. These regulatory agencies and government departments ensure
Canada’s pipelines are operated safely, responsibly and in the public
interest.

Extensive federal and provincial regulation ensures the safe operation
of pipelines in Canada. Regulators review CEPA member performance though
inspections, audits and incident investigations.

http://www.pipelinelaw.com/2014/06/2...peline-safety/

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), state spill response
regulations may exceed federal requirements. 33 U.S.C. 2718 (stating
that OPA does not preempt a State’s imposition of additional liability
or requirements regarding oil releases within the State or any removal
activities associated with a release). Some states, including
California, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, already impose additional
spill response requirements.


Recent laws passed by the Minnesota and New Hampshire legislatures are
also intended to supplement existing federal oil spill response
requirements. These new programs affect the transportation of oil by
both rail and pipeline in those states. The Minnesota law authorizes
the agency overseeing oil transportation in the State to perform rail
and pipeline spill and discharge preparedness activities and requires
certain operators, including railroads, to submit State spill response
plans. In addition, the law imposes a fee on operators that transport
oil in the State to provide local fire departments with equipment and
spill response training. The State will also study oil transportation
incident preparedness. A New Hampshire bill, which passed the
legislature and is expected to be signed by the governor, requires
owners of oil pipeline facilities to submit spill response plans and
imposes certain notification requirements. In addition, a subsequent
bill passed in New Hampshire this month establishes a committee to study
the safe delivery of oil and gas by rail and pipeline in the State.

The federal Pipeline Safety Act expressly preempts states from
regulating interstate pipeline transportation safety. 49 U.S.C.
60104(c). State regulation of intrastate pipeline safety may exceed
federal standards, but only in those states that have been certified by
DOT. Id. Fourteen states have been certified to regulate intrastate
hazardous liquid pipelines and all fifty states have been certified to
regulate intrastate natural gas pipelines (and may exceed federal
standards). Of those states, several have recently proposed
legislation regarding excavation damage, public awareness, and bringing
civil penalty amounts in line with federal maximums.

On 13/09/2014 12:30 PM, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/13/2014 9:14 AM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>>

> Solar potential in Australia
> The combination of Australia's dry climate and latitude give it a high
> benefits and potential for solar energy production. Most of the
> Australian continent receives in excess of 4 kWh per square metre per
> day of insolation during winter months, with a region in the north
> exceeding 6 kWh/day.
>
> Australia's insolation greatly exceeds the average values in Europe,
> Russia, and most of North America. Comparable levels are found in desert
> areas of northern and southern Africa, south western United States and
> adjacent area of Mexico, and regions on the Pacific coast of South
> America. However, the areas of highest insolation are distant to the
> country's population centers.
>
> With an installed photovoltaic capacity of 3,300 megawatts by the end of
> 2013, Australia ranks among the world's top ten solar countries.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...stralia-en.png
>

When I lived in Australia some 40 years ago, it was not uncommon to see
rooftop solar water heating panels. Strangely, in NSW the government
taxed you if you had one.
Graham

On 13/09/2014 12:02 PM, Mayo wrote:
> On 9/13/2014 5:45 AM, JohnJohn wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for
>>>>>>>>>> spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to
>>>>>>>> get any
>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to
>>>>>>> farmers
>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like
>>>>>>> moths
>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's reality.
>>>>
>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>
>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "All"?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously?
>>>>
>>>> You have some polling on that?
>>
>> I missed this bit. I'm sure there's polling to be googled. But every
>> town we drive through has a sign saying "xx% against CSG" (=
>> fracking). xx= generally around the 96 mark.
>
> Really?
>
> I'm thinking that number is unusually high:
>
> THE West Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum has given the
> green light to Buru Energy's plans to frack for gas in the Kimberley
> region.
>
> But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it still had serious
> concerns about tight gas exploration in the Canning Basin, noting the
> approval came on the same day polling had revealed two out of three
> Western Australians were opposed to fracking.

Ignorance knows no bounds!

>
I worked on Canning Basin wells back in the 70s. One thing you can bet
on is that the cattle and sheep station owners won't object to drilling.
The first thing an oil company must do is drill a water well. 'Nuff said.
Graham

On 9/13/2014 1:49 PM, graham wrote:
> On 13/09/2014 12:30 PM, Mayo wrote:
>> On 9/13/2014 9:14 AM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>>
>
>> Solar potential in Australia
>> The combination of Australia's dry climate and latitude give it a high
>> benefits and potential for solar energy production. Most of the
>> Australian continent receives in excess of 4 kWh per square metre per
>> day of insolation during winter months, with a region in the north
>> exceeding 6 kWh/day.
>>
>> Australia's insolation greatly exceeds the average values in Europe,
>> Russia, and most of North America. Comparable levels are found in desert
>> areas of northern and southern Africa, south western United States and
>> adjacent area of Mexico, and regions on the Pacific coast of South
>> America. However, the areas of highest insolation are distant to the
>> country's population centers.
>>
>> With an installed photovoltaic capacity of 3,300 megawatts by the end of
>> 2013, Australia ranks among the world's top ten solar countries.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_...stralia-en.png
>>
>>
>
> When I lived in Australia some 40 years ago, it was not uncommon to see
> rooftop solar water heating panels. Strangely, in NSW the government
> taxed you if you had one.
> Graham


Well that is regressive!

I believe that of all nations Israel has the greatest per capita use of
rooftop solar hot water:

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_hig...1/highlights23

For a quarter-century, Israel was the only country to have a national
mandate for solar hot water in buildings. Then in 2006, Spain began
requiring that solar collectors be installed on all new or renovated
buildings. Portugal followed quickly with its own mandate. In the United
States, Hawaii now requires that all new single-family homes have them.

http://www.reallynatural.com/archive...ters_found.php

In the 1950s, Israel experienced a fuel shortage, and residents
responded by installing solar hot water heaters on their rooftops. By
1983, 60% of homes had solar hot water heaters, and current law requires
their installation. Jerusualem's skyline is beautifully cluttered with
90% of homes' rooftops adorned with solar hot water heaters.

On 9/13/2014 1:54 PM, graham wrote:
> On 13/09/2014 12:02 PM, Mayo wrote:
>> On 9/13/2014 5:45 AM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:26:18 +0100, "Ophelia"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 9/12/2014 7:20 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:50:43 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 6:18 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:52:51 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:32:13 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/12/2014 4:55 PM, graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/2014 4:11 PM, Mayo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, Greenpeace is being sued by a Quebec company for
>>>>>>>>>>> spreading lies
>>>>>>>>>>> about its operations. GP has the unmitigated gall to accuse the
>>>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>>>> of using intimidation tactics. Oh the irony!!!
>>>>>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Point taken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes... because as we all know, corporations are struggling to
>>>>>>>>> get any
>>>>>>>>> governmental support these days, and are struggling to exert any
>>>>>>>>> influence on decision making <rolls eyes>...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always wonder why almost all Australians - from greenies to
>>>>>>>> farmers
>>>>>>>> - are against CSG/fracking, but politicians are drawn to it like
>>>>>>>> moths
>>>>>>>> to the light.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it produces tax revenues, employs residents, and produces
>>>>>>> gas/oil in a far less environmentally impactful manner than more
>>>>>>> traditional methods of extraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's the one-sided pro story.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's reality.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, regardless, politicians
>>>>>> should do what people want, especially their potential voters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if people are ill-informed, emotional, and illogocal?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And they're all against. End of story, you'd hope.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "All"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>> You have some polling on that?
>>>
>>> I missed this bit. I'm sure there's polling to be googled. But every
>>> town we drive through has a sign saying "xx% against CSG" (=
>>> fracking). xx= generally around the 96 mark.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> I'm thinking that number is unusually high:
>>
>> THE West Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum has given the
>> green light to Buru Energy's plans to frack for gas in the Kimberley
>> region.
>>
>> But the Australian Conservation Foundation said it still had serious
>> concerns about tight gas exploration in the Canning Basin, noting the
>> approval came on the same day polling had revealed two out of three
>> Western Australians were opposed to fracking.
>
> Ignorance knows no bounds!
>
>>
> I worked on Canning Basin wells back in the 70s. One thing you can bet
> on is that the cattle and sheep station owners won't object to drilling.
> The first thing an oil company must do is drill a water well. 'Nuff said.
> Graham
>

Eminently practical, yes!