Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://www.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2552
This will only hold about 50 days worth of Aust's CO2 emissions.omada wrote:Although I think more money should be spent on legitimate renewables, from what they say, significant reductions in atmospheric carbon will be achieved, which is all good by me.
Oceans emit carbon dioxide as they warm up and absorb it when they cool down. So, if they keep warming up due to global warming we have a problem.Bulldozer wrote:[...]
The oceans probably suck up more CO2 each year than this project will over its entire life.
i understand turbines to be fairly unsuitable for domestic use? too big/heavy for most structures (and apparently nosiy too?) but if you think otherwise please let me know!Will wrote:I would eventually like to install solar cells or a wind turbine on the roof. But due to price constraints, the contribution that i have made as of yet is to switch our energy source to 'green energy'.
yeah i'm on green power, can someone tell me how this works?? If your on this option, apparently then they use renewables for your power generation or they invest more money in renewables?? I don't quite get it, as we surely they do not have enough renewables to meet the demands of customers taking the green power option..toby1 said: and i too am on "green power", whatever that really means
I believe it to mean that by entering the green contract the provider agrees to guarantee that a certain percentage (??) of your power will come from renewable sources like wind, solar, whatever else they can use. But i agree that it is unlikely that they will be able to give us 100% renewable anytime this year or next.omada wrote:yeah i'm on green power, can someone tell me how this works?? If your on this option, apparently then they use renewables for your power generation or they invest more money in renewables?? I don't quite get it, as we surely they do not have enough renewables to meet the demands of customers taking the green power option..toby1 said: and i too am on "green power", whatever that really means
Might make you feel all fuzzy and warm inside, but at current prices you'd be a hell of a lot better off switching to "green" power. I crunched the numbers a few years ago because we used a lot of electricity (running machinery) and as far as I'm concerned, even with the increased government subsidy you'd have to have more money than brains or be mentally unhinged to go solar when you have the grid available. If you're in the outback where your only other option is a genset then it makes sense because it's actually cheaper - hence why homesteads are all switching to it.toby1 wrote:and Bulldozer: surely it is worth haveing some power generation going on at home. sure it might be pissweak in a single place, but the more rooves are rigged up the more power going back in, and so the less coal/gas necessary to power the population.
$25bn resources boom spree
November 23, 2007 01:15am
MINING companies in South Australia will spend billions more dollars on infrastructure in half the time that was expected.
Costs are rising and projects are being developed more quickly, SA Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive Jason Kuchel said yesterday.
The chamber now expects companies to spend $25 billion in the next 10 years, rather than $20 billion over 20 years.
"I don't think anyone in SA – governments, local governments, regional development boards – really understands just how big the resources boom is going to be," he said.
The upgrade came as the State Government appointed a high-powered committee to co-ordinate infrastructure development.
"This group will identify the issues and plan the way forward in what is an absolutely crucial sector for SA," Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway said.
Full details of the chamber's forecasts will not be released until early next year but Mr Kuchel said the sector expected its power needs to increase five-fold, water, gas, road, rail and port use to treble and job numbers to double.
As well as $25 billion spent by mining companies, the chamber expects hundreds of millions more to be spent by private sector companies running such services as ports, rail and electricity.
State and federal governments also would have to allocate millions of dollars for public services.
"If some of our large regional towns double in population, is anyone really ready for the requirements for schools, teachers, roads, health services, sewerage, all these sorts of things that the mining companies won't generally be providing?" Mr Kuchel said.
He argues mining will make SA less reliant on the River Murray and more able to develop green energy as the sector will help make such projects as desalination and geothermal plants commercially viable.
Mr Kuchel said many mines would use highly saline or mineral-laden water that could not be used for drinking or agriculture.
The Resources and Energy Sector Infrastructure Council will be headed by the chairman of minerals explorer Adelaide Resources, Paul Dowd, and includes BHP Billiton's Graeme Hunt, Beach Petroleum's Reg Nelson and public servants Jim Hallion, Paul Heithersay and Raymond Garrand.