Presentation at the World Energy Storage Forum

7 Responses

  1. Sean OLeary

    Tim, on a broader note going beyond energy storage batteries and what-not, as you know being in the energy business, increasing energy flux density is the natural path of humankind and decreasing energy flux density is not sustainable. Therefore, it is interesting that you promote low energy flux density methods such as solar and wind, when nuclear fission and fusion represent the upward path of energy flux density.

    Your proposals tend towards destruction of civilisation because they are tending backwards, just as returning to burning wood and burning cow dung would take us backwards. In short, your proposals are unsustainable.

    So why do you do promote these concepts? You should be educating the public and policy circles on the path toward nuclear power, which must also involve helping to dispel the myths and scaremongering around nuclear which have been concocted by the green elites including Prince Charles and co. There is little point saying – ‘what about Fukushima?’ or ‘what about Chernobyl?’ You know the price of not adopting nuclear power and moving forward from there. If you do not promote nuclear power, then SBA is just part of the energy and power problem that civilisation faces, created by decades of green propaganda and anti-development propaganda.

    Sean

    Reply
  2. Sean OLeary

    Tim, on a broader note going beyond energy storage batteries and what-not, as you know being in the energy business, increasing energy flux density is the natural path of humankind and decreasing energy flux density is not sustainable. Therefore, it is interesting that you promote low energy flux density methods such as solar and wind, when nuclear fission and fusion represent the upward path of energy flux density.

    Your proposals tend towards destruction of civilisation because they are tending backwards, just as returning to burning wood and burning cow dung would take us backwards. In short, your proposals are unsustainable.

    So why do you do promote these concepts? You should be educating the public and policy circles on the path toward nuclear power, which must also involve helping to dispel the myths and scaremongering around nuclear which have been concocted by the green elites including Prince Charles and co. There is little point saying – ‘what about Fukushima?’ or ‘what about Chernobyl?’ You know the price of not adopting nuclear power and moving forward from there. If you do not promote nuclear power, then your communications with the public are just part of the energy and power problem that civilisation faces, created by decades of green propaganda and anti-development propaganda.

    Sean

    Reply
  3. Ian Celland

    It is good to see that they have seen the light.

    Add into the mix using geothermal (COP of 1:4) for heating, cooling and possibly refrigeration which could allow you to reduce energy consumption by as much as 70%. That leaves with heat pumps to geothermal, cooking, lighting, LED TV screens and other electronic devices. that require electric. This is all going into urban developments 20 – 500 dwellings. If you are looking at the upper end of the market all the above is 2-5% of home cost at the affordable homes developments it could be 7 to 10% of home cost. All the homes are designed to be 6 plus star ratings

    So AGL, how would this work for you if you are the utility for such a development.

    In the longer term we would be designing developments to become micro-grids that would connect into the surrounding urban area #UIWGroup

    Reply
  4. Miguel Brandao

    Ian,
    Thanks for your comment.
    We certainly see the type of development you’re referring to as a part of the future of new urban development and are keenly exploring possibilities for such Embedded Networks/Microgrids where AGL may have a role as the provider of multiple energy related services.

    Reply
  5. Sean OLeary

    Ian, once again, geothermal also represents a lower energy flux density than gas and nuclear. So why adopt it except as a curiosity?

    Reply
  6. Sean OLeary

    Tim thanks for the link, but SA does not need a royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle unless the intention is to continue to prevent Australia moving forward to nuclear power, and no doubt that is the intention. Instead, Australia needs a royal commission into the radical green agenda of adopting lower flux density energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal which ultimately has the intention of reducing population. Indeed, a royal commission into the intention behind the SA royal commission on the nuclear fuel cycle is warranted.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)