Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Director

Big Brother imposes fines up to $1M for blaming carbon tax.

Recommended Posts

Also to be fair, I don't blame Leo for not wanting to put some of those numbers for his own business online.

As a small business operator, I concur. But if he is using his own business as an example with figures, then he needs to either withdraw any argument based on that, or provide complete data to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also to be fair, I don't blame Leo for not wanting to put some of those numbers for his own business online.

As a small business operator, I concur. But if he is using his own business as an example with figures, then he needs to either withdraw any argument based on that, or provide complete data to back it up.

 

Athiril, I have an excellent idea in which we can both get what we want.

 

If you tell me all the cost increases across all my datacentres due to the carbon tax prior to July 1, I'll tell you my operating costs prior to July 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Repetition of already debunked crap)

Athiril, try listen for a second or three. Read the next few points thoroughly. Then read them again. Then again. And then one more time.

 

1. My rack cost is going up by at least $150 per rack in one datacentre. I have been told this is because of electricity costs. You then tried to calculate costs of electricity in my rack. I explained to you that this is wrong because my rack is not the only electricity I pay for as the common functions of a datacentre such as the air conditioning costs, the transportation costs, the lighting costs are split among customers as well with the datacentre passing on all their costs to their clients who will pass it on to their clients and so on to the consumer. In short, your calculation of the electricity cost of a 4kVA rack was as useless as it may have been correct - because I don't pay for electricity - I pay for a rack in a secure datacentre which includes security, cleanliness, edge networking, air conditioning, lighting, land tax, etc...

 

2. You don't need to know my costs. THEY ARE IRRELEVANT. Let me explain why, one more time. I know that all my datacentre (and associated) costs will go up, though not by how much because I have not yet been given this information by all my providers. Trying to work out my cost increase as a percentage of my current costs is impossible before I know what all my cost increases are. Hence my current costs are irrelevant to you because you can't do anything with them except calculate an incomplete increase in my cost based on 1 out of 10 potential cost increases to my business due to the carbon tax.

 

3. This one was hilarious

(Hint $6.8 million for 65% of a company in a $1.1 billion/year industry means that company is not a major player).

Since you love averaging businesses even when I tell you reports based on multi-national datacentre owners hardly reflect the cloud industry in Australia... lets do some maths.

 

If 65% of a company is $6.8million then 100% of that company is $10.46million. You say it's a $1.1 billion industry, and there are 556 players in it. That means the average company should be worth $1.98 million. That makes Bluefire 5 times larger than the average player in the cloud market in Australia. I'd say that's a major player. When you take out HP, CSE and IBM (which are not cloud companies, but datacentre and services companies) out of the equation you will find that Bluefire is 10-15 times bigger than most cloud companies in Australia.

 

You could ask Bluefire about their electricity costs in a datacentre. They wouldn't know because they also rent racks, just like I do, except since they're huge, they get much better deals. This is why your report is so flawed. Cloud companies DO NOT OWN datacentres. Hell, Amazon's grid is coming to Australia into a datacentre owned by another company. Even Amazon won't know the cost of their electricity, because just like every other company, they'll pay the cost of the rack without knowing their exact electricity share of the total delivered to the datacentre.

 

So I repeat to you again: Cloud companies do not own datacentres as a rule. Those that do are like HP - they use cloud as another product line but they are not cloud companies. That is not their primary focus nor their primary profit.

 

4.

You do not need to make a profit for R&D.

Cloud companies do. Because we host other businesses, if we lose too much money by not turning profits, we endanger our clients' businesses. I know of a company from Melbourne which operated a cloud in Sydney through acquisition of a company I used to work for. When that company stopped being able to pay its bills because its owner didn't know how to run a business, the datacentre switched off power to the rack, bringing their business to a screeching halt after 3 months of no-payment warnings. My company had by then migrated all but two of the clients off that cloud. The other two were left without data, email, CRM for a week as we scrambled to fix things.

 

 

 

Let me conclude: your report is worthless, it does not reflect the cloud industry in Australia because it references only datacentre-owning companies in Australia with respect to electricity costs. All cloud companies in Australia do not own datacentres. That is not their business. There is no Bluefire datacentre. There is no OBT datacentre. There is no Infoplex datacentre. Thus there is no possible way to know the costs of electricity that these people use because they use NextGen, Global Switch, Telstra, HP, IBM, CSE, Equinix, Optus, iSeek, Infraserve datacentres, and not one of these are cloud companies, despite what the report might have you believe.

 

 

Your costs are relevant, your using them to support your argument, yet you do not release the data. Withdraw any argument based on your costs, or provide the data. You have not provided figures. $150/month increase is meaningless without knowing current total operating costs vs total current. You say $150/month minimum, therefore you will know the minimum expense % rise, and the minimum rise in revenue needed to offset that if you choose to offset it by passing on costs (and costs only).

 

Your $150/month figure therefore does not support your argument, because your argument is that the government figures are wrong, the government figures project expense and CPI rises by %. You have not shown ANYTHING indicating a % rise. You have debunked NOTHING.

 

The figures ARE NOT MULTINATIONAL, THEY ARE FOR BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN AUSTRALIA.

 

Your math is also WRONG. That is how much they BOUGHT 65% of the company for, NOT 65% of their annual revenue.

 

 

IF allegedly, all you large companies rent racks, and these other guys (HP etc) simply rent out racks, then learn to fucking count to 3. Your costs will be based on THEIR costs.

 

 

Yes the figures are not their complete financials, the figures given are for CLOUD COMPUTING, and IN AUSTRALIA ONLY.

 

The three companies mentioned are the MAJOR players in CLOUD COMPUTING. You can't question that, because it is there in black and white. It is simple fact. These are not guesses, as you are doing. This is hard cold data, from that industry and that industry alone.

 

 

 

"That means the average company should be worth $1.98 million" Wrong. The 3 companies mentioned as the largest have the biggest portion share, your average figure is wrong, it is also completely illogical to analyse like that. Again, the 3 mentioned are the biggest and worth hundreds of millions in cloud computing. Bluefire is not a big

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your costs are relevant, your using them to support your argument, yet you do not release the data. Withdraw any argument based on your costs, or provide the data. You have not provided figures. $150/month increase is meaningless without knowing current total operating costs vs total current. You say $150/month minimum, therefore you will know the minimum expense % rise, and the minimum rise in revenue needed to offset that if you choose to offset it by passing on costs (and costs only).

Maybe you need a refresher course in comprehension.

 

Our account manager in Mascot informed us yesterday that as their electricity prices would be going up, the per-rack electricity costs for a 4kVA rack will be going up by $150 as a minimum. Since I have two racks in Equinix, my costs to run my business will be going up by $150 x 2 x 12 = $3600 a year.

 

On top of that, the datacentre runs N+1 diesel backup generators and the transport of diesel fuel, and I guess its manufacture will attract that carbon tax as well. So I expect my cost will be close to $6000 a year extra. And that's just one datacentre. Across both datacentres, I expect costs to rise by $12000 a year.

 

Your ENTIRE argument is predicated on a spoonman THAT YOU'VE BUILT. I claimed my costs were going up by a dollar figure. You started working out percentages of my existing costs when they weren't even mentioned.

 

Your $150/month figure therefore does not support your argument, because your argument is that the government figures are wrong, the government figures project expense and CPI rises by %. You have not shown ANYTHING indicating a % rise. You have debunked NOTHING.

I didn't make that argument. You said I did.

 

Let me show you:

"The price of most goods will increase by less than one half of one per cent as a result of a carbon price," the government said in a statement.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news...2-1226091677132

See here's the thing. I pay $2500/rack currently.

 

$150 is not 1% of $2500.

 

Once again I can look at my cost increases. Then I can look at the government "independent" reports telling me prices won't rise.

 

And I can wonder...

 

Your own article stated that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra thanks to the carbon tax. I showed you that was wrong, immediately. I also told you the government had absolutely no way of calculating "most goods".

 

The figures ARE NOT MULTINATIONAL, THEY ARE FOR BUSINESS CONDUCTED WITHIN AUSTRALIA.

I didn't claim the figures were multinational. I said the figures were based on the results of non-cloud datacentre-owning multinationals.

 

Your math is also WRONG. That is how much they BOUGHT 65% of the company for, NOT 65% of their annual revenue.

My apologies. Standard procedure when you buy an IT company whole is to pay roughly 3-4 years of revenue in advance. Since they bought 65% for 6.8m and 100% would be $10.46m, it is quite conceivable that Bluefire is a $2.6m-$3.1m company. This makes it bigger than average for Australia.

 

When you take away the multinationals which are not cloud companies (HP, CSE, IBM) it's 10 times bigger than the average Australian cloud provider.

 

IF allegedly, all you large companies rent racks, and these other guys (HP etc) simply rent out racks, then learn to fucking count to 3. Your costs will be based on THEIR costs.

Finally!

 

We get to a reasonable point!!!

 

I want you to understand something. HP's $100m datacentre in Eastern Creek isn't entirely filled with "cloud" stuff. In fact, there's not a single HP cloud in their facility, anywhere in Australia. At all. HP has no clouds in Australia as far as I know though it does manage a few on behalf of their clients. One of these is the government cloud.

 

HP charge the government a huge amount of money. I know, because I had mates at EDS (now HP Enterprise Services) who worked on the damned thing. 3.5% of their cost would go on electricity. Because supporting a cloud that large would require manpower like you would not believe.

 

Likewise at UNSW - they built their own private cloud (I did the virtualization/storage stuff there). Their electricity costs are astronomical but because of the people maintaining it being contractors of $160K+, and there being hundreds of them, the costs are proportionately small.

 

These types of clouds are not the standard! They're hugely generic all-in-one offerings that are more about outsourced infrastructure than infrastructure or software as a service models. They are run by the same organisations that use them, which violates the point of cloud computing.

 

That is yet another reason to throw out HP, CSE, IBM - they are not cloud companies. They're datacenter operators. And their costs are irrelevant because they don't run their own clouds in Australia.

 

The three companies mentioned are the MAJOR players in CLOUD COMPUTING. You can't question that, because it is there in black and white. It is simple fact. These are not guesses, as you are doing. This is hard cold data, from that industry and that industry alone.

And yet they are not cloud companies.

 

"That means the average company should be worth $1.98 million" Wrong. The 3 companies mentioned as the largest have the biggest portion share, your average figure is wrong, it is also completely illogical to analyse like that. Again, the 3 mentioned are the biggest and worth hundreds of millions in cloud computing. Bluefire is not a big

If they're worth hundreds of millions then Bluefire is huge, because neither of those three are cloud companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid, you're arguing that current renewable technology can't cope with the base load, and you're right, but noone (of importance) ever said they could.

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020.

 

i'd take the engineering firms' modeling with numbers and conservative estimates over your expertise, no offense.

 

Really? Conservative estimates?

 

Cast your eye over page 16/17.

 

replacement of the present petroleum-fuelled fleet with

electric vehicles, comprising ‘plug-in, battery swap’

models and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, using liquid

biofuels to extend the driving range;

That report was released in mid-2010, calling for a complete fleet replacement by 2020 in order to achieve zero carbon emissions. There are 16.4 million vehicles in Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

Would you like some more hilarity from the report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/...ee-solar-plant/

 

It speaks specifically about the Moree plant.

You realise you've just linked me an opinion piece from a guy who doesn't know the difference between capacity factor and PV efficiency, right?

 

That's not a good example but there are other points I need to make.

 

Diesel generators in hospitals are generally not designed for standard operation - they're designed to keep people alive, not keep the hospital 100% functional. Lights dim, certain areas are blacked out, etc. Basically, they're there for emergencies, not to be used regularly when a renewable utility does what it does best, and produces inadequate power.

In this instance you're actually right, it's a terrible example - especially the part where you contradict your previous argument and say that generators in hospitals are designed to keep people alive in the event of power failure :P

Edited by Akamatsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a good example but there are other points I need to make.

 

Diesel generators in hospitals are generally not designed for standard operation - they're designed to keep people alive, not keep the hospital 100% functional. Lights dim, certain areas are blacked out, etc. Basically, they're there for emergencies, not to be used regularly when a renewable utility does what it does best, and produces inadequate power.

You're right, it's a terrible example - especially the part where you contradict your previous argument and say that generators in hospitals are designed to keep people alive :P

 

Erm they are.

 

And I don't contradict that at all. Maybe you can explain where I do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the day people start dying in hospital beds because power's been off for a week due to severe weather, is the day revolutions will start.

The wind plant does not work all the time so if you depend on it's power you're going to have dead people in hospitals without power to their life support. Which isn't acceptable.

Diesel generators in hospitals are [snip] designed to keep people alive.

Irrelevant parts removed for clarity.

 

Renewable energy will lead to people dying in hospitals, which will in turn will lead to a presumably bloody revolution? Face it, this was a classic use of the slippery slope fallacy to discredit renewable energy.

 

And before you attempt to explain to me how diesel generators work in hospitals, have a read of this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...IlNfVNPI_omW-3g (warning, large PDF)

Edited by Akamatsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your ENTIRE argument is predicated on a spoonman THAT YOU'VE BUILT. I claimed my costs were going up by a dollar figure. You started working out percentages of my existing costs when they weren't even mentioned.

 

Your $150/month figure therefore does not support your argument, because your argument is that the government figures are wrong, the government figures project expense and CPI rises by %. You have not shown ANYTHING indicating a % rise. You have debunked NOTHING.

I didn't make that argument. You said I did.

 

Let me show you:

"The price of most goods will increase by less than one half of one per cent as a result of a carbon price," the government said in a statement.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news...2-1226091677132

See here's the thing. I pay $2500/rack currently.

 

$150 is not 1% of $2500.

 

Once again I can look at my cost increases. Then I can look at the government "independent" reports telling me prices won't rise.

 

And I can wonder...

 

Your own article stated that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra thanks to the carbon tax. I showed you that was wrong, immediately. I also told you the government had absolutely no way of calculating "most goods".

 

so you showed him a claim that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra was "wrong", by giving him an example of one raised cost? one raised cost which may or may be an example of opportunistic gouging or even a coincidental rise. one raised cost, which, when taken on faith as directly and substantially attributable to real energy cost increases, makes a particularly poor candidate for making useful projections about 'most' individual goods. one raised cost which — since you have given no indication otherwise — could easily reach an effective dead-end via negligible price increases to your customers, thus making notions to the effect that cost increases will be conserved and transferred across the board, no less dubious.

 

thats some rigorous shit right there. emphasis on shit.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your ENTIRE argument is predicated on a spoonman THAT YOU'VE BUILT. I claimed my costs were going up by a dollar figure. You started working out percentages of my existing costs when they weren't even mentioned.

 

Your $150/month figure therefore does not support your argument, because your argument is that the government figures are wrong, the government figures project expense and CPI rises by %. You have not shown ANYTHING indicating a % rise. You have debunked NOTHING.

I didn't make that argument. You said I did.

 

Let me show you:

"The price of most goods will increase by less than one half of one per cent as a result of a carbon price," the government said in a statement.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news...2-1226091677132

See here's the thing. I pay $2500/rack currently.

 

$150 is not 1% of $2500.

 

Once again I can look at my cost increases. Then I can look at the government "independent" reports telling me prices won't rise.

 

And I can wonder...

 

Your own article stated that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra thanks to the carbon tax. I showed you that was wrong, immediately. I also told you the government had absolutely no way of calculating "most goods".

 

so you showed him a claim that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra was "wrong", by giving him an example of one raised cost? one raised cost which may or may be an example of opportunistic gouging or even a coincidental rise. one raised cost, which, when taken on faith as directly and substantially attributable to real energy cost increases, makes a particularly poor candidate for making useful projections about 'most' individual goods. one raised cost which — since you have given no indication otherwise — could easily reach an effective dead-end via negligible price increases to your customers, thus making notions to the effect that cost increases will be conserved and transferred across the board, no less dubious.

 

thats some rigorous shit right there. emphasis on shit.

 

I love it @~thehung...

 

In a thread where Athiril has been arguing not against points I made but points he built in his head and had hoped I'd made... the "shit" is what I've said?

 

How do things work in bizarro world, for you?

 

Also, I highly, highly doubt a datacenter would gouge given every incident of gouging could cost them a million bucks. Don't forget datacenters have a minimum of two feeds from two electricity providers, and require a substantially more powerful electricity supply than your usual 10A 240V socket in the wall.

 

Because the day people start dying in hospital beds because power's been off for a week due to severe weather, is the day revolutions will start.

The wind plant does not work all the time so if you depend on it's power you're going to have dead people in hospitals without power to their life support. Which isn't acceptable.

Diesel generators in hospitals are [snip] designed to keep people alive.

Irrelevant parts removed for clarity.

 

Renewable energy will lead to people dying in hospitals, which will in turn will lead to a presumably bloody revolution? Face it, this was a classic use of the slippery slope fallacy to discredit renewable energy.

I'm still not seeing the bit where I was supposed to have changed my point.

 

Diesel generators last only so long. They're designed for emergency use - maybe for a few days of power loss. Then they need to be refilled - they work exactly the same way as datacentre diesels do.

 

And before you attempt to explain to me how diesel generators work in hospitals, have a read of this:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...IlNfVNPI_omW-3g (warning, large PDF)

Before you attempt to make me read a PDF, you should read it first.

 

[bold]This is a free preview. Purchase the entire publication at the link below:[/bold]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your ENTIRE argument is predicated on a spoonman THAT YOU'VE BUILT. I claimed my costs were going up by a dollar figure. You started working out percentages of my existing costs when they weren't even mentioned.

 

Your $150/month figure therefore does not support your argument, because your argument is that the government figures are wrong, the government figures project expense and CPI rises by %. You have not shown ANYTHING indicating a % rise. You have debunked NOTHING.

I didn't make that argument. You said I did.

 

Let me show you:

"The price of most goods will increase by less than one half of one per cent as a result of a carbon price," the government said in a statement.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news...2-1226091677132

See here's the thing. I pay $2500/rack currently.

 

$150 is not 1% of $2500.

 

Once again I can look at my cost increases. Then I can look at the government "independent" reports telling me prices won't rise.

 

And I can wonder...

 

Your own article stated that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra thanks to the carbon tax. I showed you that was wrong, immediately. I also told you the government had absolutely no way of calculating "most goods".

 

so you showed him a claim that most individual goods will not cost more than 0.5% extra was "wrong", by giving him an example of one raised cost? one raised cost which may or may be an example of opportunistic gouging or even a coincidental rise. one raised cost, which, when taken on faith as directly and substantially attributable to real energy cost increases, makes a particularly poor candidate for making useful projections about 'most' individual goods. one raised cost which — since you have given no indication otherwise — could easily reach an effective dead-end via negligible price increases to your customers, thus making notions to the effect that cost increases will be conserved and transferred across the board, no less dubious.

 

thats some rigorous shit right there. emphasis on shit.

 

I love it @~thehung...

 

In a thread where Athiril has been arguing not against points I made but points he built in his head and had hoped I'd made... the "shit" is what I've said?

 

How do things work in bizarro world, for you?

 

Also, I highly, highly doubt a datacenter would gouge given every incident of gouging could cost them a million bucks. Don't forget datacenters have a minimum of two feeds from two electricity providers, and require a substantially more powerful electricity supply than your usual 10A 240V socket in the wall.

 

well then, why dont we start afresh?

 

if these data centre rate increases are taken on faith as attributable to real energy cost increases, please explain how you think they show most individual goods will cost more than 0.5% extra thanks to the carbon tax?

 

surely the veracity of an observation like that would depend on your ability to explain how this specific instance from your heavily fossil fuel dependent industry, is not only emblematic of a coming trend of price increases extensively perpetuated along the many chains that link buyers to sellers and buyers in turn, but applicable to most market behaviour across most sectors. the least critical ingredient of which, would be demonstrating a plausible expectation that a substantial proportion of the data centre increases will be transferred into your own prices.

 

or perhaps you meant something entirely less grand when you said "I showed you that was wrong, immediately"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if these data centre rate increases are taken on faith as attributable to real energy cost increases, please explain how you think they show most individual goods will cost more than 0.5% extra thanks to the carbon tax?

Is a rack not an individual good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

 

:)

 

Yes, some people are stupid. And yes, some of them are important. One of them is our climate commissioner who is yet to get a single prophecy right.

Wow, I hadn't seen that before, OK I concede that point, there are people of importance saying they can provide base load power in the next 8 years, that's crazy talk.

 

No it's not. Solar panels on roofes don't remove anything from baseload.

They add power to the grid don't they? how is that not helping to alleviate base load from coal?

 

 

Have a look at the Snowy Scheme. 5300km^2 for 3.3GW. The word "efficient" is not what I'd use.

 

Hydro, tidal and geo are all extremely location specific and thus of use in baseload systems only in specific countries. Tidal systems are also ecologically damaging from what I understand.

While Geothermal is still in a relative infacny, it has promise if given a chance. Iceland provide 30% of their grids power through geothermal. Australia has some of the largest hot springs and vents around, New Zealand is an even better candidate.

 

I don't know much about Tidal, so can't say anything about its impact.

 

But solar and wind still can't provide baseload (and never will) and this means that every single renewable utility based on these will need a baseload plant to provide the load when the renewables fail. So why even bother?

Why even bother? That's such a defeatist attitude, we need to bother because the coal and gas will run out. Just because wind and solar can't cover base load on their own doesn't mean much. If Sydney was to couple Hydro, tidal wind and solar it would do a halfway decent job of providing a majority of renewable energy to the grid. We are largely a coastline city, spanning for a hundred or so kilometers up the coast if you count the Southerland Shire and Northern beaches. Wind generation and tidal is very viable in the future.

 

 

We won't see it in the next 50 or the next hundred.

 

Solar and wind are excellent on planets without a day-night cycle and no fluit climate envelope.

 

Out in space, solar is useful - not so much on Earth. The best we'll ever be able to do here is have giant amounts of batteries. But how much stored energy is enough?

No, we may not see solar provide the worlds energy, but it is already providing some of it. Why can't it provide more as technology improves? Again, if solar is just a small piece of the puzzle and we find true base load from alternative renewable sources, I don't see why a sustainable future isn't possible.

 

 

You do know that "throw money at a problem to solve it" is a myth? Just like you can't get blood out of stone, you may not be able to get benefits out of solar.

 

There's no guarantees in engineering.

Throwing money at technologies is probably the best way to get results. Nearly all of the best power generation engineers would currently be working for oil/gas/coal companies working on improving their burner and turbine efficiency, whats to say if the pay packet over at geothermal improves that they wouldn't make the jump?

 

No there aren't any guarantees in engineering, but given the size of the big coal/oil/gas companies in comparison to the renewables, it's fairly safe to assume that there are some rather significant improvements to be made to the industries efficiency.

 

 

Anyway, I'm not too worried. Business will take care of itself. The money will eventually come to renewables as resources run out, so it's only a matter of time really. The only question is, will (has?) the world be irreversibly damaged before then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Thee is no reason to 'throw them out' at all. Industry data says you are full of shit.

 

 

You cannot work out % of expenses $150 a month per rack equates to, you have not provided expenses.

 

$2500 per rack a month, aren't your total operating costs.

 

 

That shows us NOTHING.

 

You say you don't know your costs. But you use this $150 a month figure to say that already your costs are going to be higher than government projections. This is total bullshit, and completely logically fallacious. If you don't know your costs, then you sir, are straight faced lying about your costs going higher than government projections, because if you don't know you don't know.

 

You have no where provided any data for your claims at all. You have not provided anything credible. You have not provided a single shred of evidence.

Edited by Athiril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They add power to the grid don't they? how is that not helping to alleviate base load from coal?

It's not a complicated concept... lets assume the average 11496kWh household in America (easier to get stats).

 

Lets say you buy yourself a 1.31kW solar system. Most solar panels actually have a capacity factor of around 13-20%. Lets take the 20% high estimate just for shits and giggles :)

 

In simple terms this means that if you were to assume peak 1.31kW power all the time, then the panel would work only 20% of the day - ie just under 5 hours, leaving the rest of the day not generating anything.

 

In more complex terms, this isn't what happens - the solar panel generates statistically significant power on average of 12 hours a day, year-round. However it may not be close to that 1.31kW requirement. Because of this, there needs to be a power station ready to pick up the load when the panel isn't delivering. Coal turbines take about 6 hours to spin up so they don't just get randomly shutdown when there's enough power in the grid - that's what we have peak plants for - they're generally quick-start/quick-stop gas peak plants.

 

So even though your solar panel is generating power, there's always got to be enough power in the baseload grid to power your home - which means that the power added to the grid by the solar panel may reduce load on coal plants, but it certainly doesn't remove the fact that for every kW of solar power there's got to be a kW of baseload power.

 

While Geothermal is still in a relative infacny, it has promise if given a chance. Iceland provide 30% of their grids power through geothermal. Australia has some of the largest hot springs and vents around, New Zealand is an even better candidate.

 

I don't know much about Tidal, so can't say anything about its impact.

I hold a lot of hope for Geo but the way it's being talked about as our saviour, is a little disconcerting. Like you said - Iceland gets 30% of its energy from geo because it literally sits on hot springs like no other country does.

 

However that's another way of saying that Iceland runs 70% on coal. Whereas France runs 85% nuclear and as such has very low comparative emissions.

 

I'm not saying all renewables can't be used, just solar and wind since they're almost completely useless in any large scale deployment, but if we want a replacement baseload grid, the cheapest and most efficient way to go is nuclear.

 

[

Why even bother? That's such a defeatist attitude, we need to bother because the coal and gas will run out. Just because wind and solar can't cover base load on their own doesn't mean much. If Sydney was to couple Hydro, tidal wind and solar it would do a halfway decent job of providing a majority of renewable energy to the grid. We are largely a coastline city, spanning for a hundred or so kilometers up the coast if you count the Southerland Shire and Northern beaches. Wind generation and tidal is very viable in the future.

Why even bother? It's a simple question with a simple answer.

 

We already have an answer to cheap, reliable, safe baseload energy in Australia. It's called nuclear. Why would anyone bother trying to replace baseload coal power with weather-dependent systems like solar and wind is completely beyond me when the very people building these systems religiously believe in future projections of unpredictable weather and climate!

 

No, we may not see solar provide the worlds energy, but it is already providing some of it. Why can't it provide more as technology improves? Again, if solar is just a small piece of the puzzle and we find true base load from alternative renewable sources, I don't see why a sustainable future isn't possible.

Because it's hugely expensive for little benefit. It will get cheaper, but it's still limited by the basic constraints of this planet: weather, day/night cycle, climate and space.

 

Throwing money at technologies is probably the best way to get results. Nearly all of the best power generation engineers would currently be working for oil/gas/coal companies working on improving their burner and turbine efficiency, whats to say if the pay packet over at geothermal improves that they wouldn't make the jump?

Geo - maybe. It is actually a true renewable source that can perform a baseload function.

 

No there aren't any guarantees in engineering, but given the size of the big coal/oil/gas companies in comparison to the renewables, it's fairly safe to assume that there are some rather significant improvements to be made to the industries efficiency.

Assumptions aren't so easy to make. Solar and wind are very very very old industries. On a Watts-delivered basis they've probably had the most investment/Watt out of any other industry in terms of public research funding.

 

Anyway, I'm not too worried. Business will take care of itself. The money will eventually come to renewables as resources run out, so it's only a matter of time really. The only question is, will (has?) the world be irreversibly damaged before then?

Well we still have 250 years of coal left (?) and nuclear is getting cheaper... so yeah I think nuclear might just be around the corner in a decade or so.

 

Renewables like geo and hydro might be part of the mix, but I doubt any applications of solar or wind UNLESS they are in very remote locations, serving remote communities.

 

...

 

Thee is no reason to 'throw them out' at all. Industry data says you are full of shit.

 

 

You cannot work out % of expenses $150 a month per rack equates to, you have not provided expenses.

 

$2500 per rack a month, aren't your total operating costs.

 

 

That shows us NOTHING.

 

Why don't you read my reply again.

 

1. HP/CSE/IBM are not cloud companies. I don't particularly care that your market report states that they are. Not a one of these companies, as far as I know, operates a cloud hosted in Australia. So working out their electricity costs of cloud computing with a lack of cloud presence is like trying to work out Microsoft's cost of Microsoft software licenses in Australia for their Plan9 array in Cupertino.

 

2. You're still trying to work out my total costs, implying what I've said is BS. I repeat for you again: I'm not claiming any percentage level of increase across my entire cost base because I have not been informed of all my cost increases yet. You're putting the cart so far before the horse, it's ridiculous. You want to know my cost increases before they have been given to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'm not too worried. Business will take care of itself. The money will eventually come to renewables as resources run out, so it's only a matter of time really. The only question is, will (has?) the world be irreversibly damaged before then?

Well we still have 250 years of coal left (?) and nuclear is getting cheaper... so yeah I think nuclear might just be around the corner in a decade or so.

 

Renewables like geo and hydro might be part of the mix, but I doubt any applications of solar or wind UNLESS they are in very remote locations, serving remote communities.

I agree with pretty much all you have said above this quote, I don't think solar and wind are viable replacement for base load power, not in our lifetime anyway. I do think Geothermal has a strong future in Australia though.

 

I have no problem with Nuclear, but it's been said a whole heap of times by both the government and activists that it won't happen any time soon. Not only is the cost far greater than any other kind of plant, it also has a huge stigma attached to it and a "not in my backyard" attitude. I'd love to see nuclear power replace our big coal plants, and see Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra running off a large single or possibly a pair of nuclear plants. The whole debacle in Japan recently won't help either, people will bring that up for the next 30 years as we keep umming and arring about nuclear.

 

Anyway, I don't know much of anything about renewable energy on a scientific or engineering stand point, just from conversations over a few beers with my mate who works in Geo. It seems viable, and has already had rather large success stories in other parts of the world. The fact some companies are already doing it is a strong sign for some pretty clean power, with very low running costs.

 

The company my mate works for also have some engineers who have worked on nuclear overseas. My mate hasn't, but is interested in it so we do chat about that from time to time too. I think nuclear is the future, but unfortunately the 2GB crowd can be a hard lot to convince (unless you get Ray Hadley or Alan Jones to support it).

 

Anyway, I'm not a green activist by any means, but I don't see any problem with changing from coal to cleaner energy if we can. it can only be a good thing in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you read my reply again.

 

1. HP/CSE/IBM are not cloud companies. I don't particularly care that your market report states that they are. Not a one of these companies, as far as I know, operates a cloud hosted in Australia. So working out their electricity costs of cloud computing with a lack of cloud presence is like trying to work out Microsoft's cost of Microsoft software licenses in Australia for their Plan9 array in Cupertino.

Just to back this up. HP does not host any cloud hosted services in Australia currently ( that are commercially available to the public)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'm not too worried. Business will take care of itself. The money will eventually come to renewables as resources run out, so it's only a matter of time really. The only question is, will (has?) the world be irreversibly damaged before then?

Well we still have 250 years of coal left (?) and nuclear is getting cheaper... so yeah I think nuclear might just be around the corner in a decade or so.

 

Renewables like geo and hydro might be part of the mix, but I doubt any applications of solar or wind UNLESS they are in very remote locations, serving remote communities.

I agree with pretty much all you have said above this quote, I don't think solar and wind are viable replacement for base load power, not in our lifetime anyway. I do think Geothermal has a strong future in Australia though.

 

I have no problem with Nuclear, but it's been said a whole heap of times by both the government and activists that it won't happen any time soon. Not only is the cost far greater than any other kind of plant, it also has a huge stigma attached to it and a "not in my backyard" attitude. I'd love to see nuclear power replace our big coal plants, and see Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra running off a large single or possibly a pair of nuclear plants. The whole debacle in Japan recently won't help either, people will bring that up for the next 30 years as we keep umming and arring about nuclear.

 

Anyway, I don't know much of anything about renewable energy on a scientific or engineering stand point, just from conversations over a few beers with my mate who works in Geo. It seems viable, and has already had rather large success stories in other parts of the world. The fact some companies are already doing it is a strong sign for some pretty clean power, with very low running costs.

 

The company my mate works for also have some engineers who have worked on nuclear overseas. My mate hasn't, but is interested in it so we do chat about that from time to time too. I think nuclear is the future, but unfortunately the 2GB crowd can be a hard lot to convince (unless you get Ray Hadley or Alan Jones to support it).

 

Anyway, I'm not a green activist by any means, but I don't see any problem with changing from coal to cleaner energy if we can. it can only be a good thing in the long run.

 

I would be glad to see every single public dollar taken out of wind and solar research and dumped into Geo.

 

Unlike the former two there is promise of clean, accessible, baseload in Geo. None whatsoever in solar or wind.

 

Why don't you read my reply again.

 

1. HP/CSE/IBM are not cloud companies. I don't particularly care that your market report states that they are. Not a one of these companies, as far as I know, operates a cloud hosted in Australia. So working out their electricity costs of cloud computing with a lack of cloud presence is like trying to work out Microsoft's cost of Microsoft software licenses in Australia for their Plan9 array in Cupertino.

Just to back this up. HP does not host any cloud hosted services in Australia currently ( that are commercially available to the public)

 

Neither do IBM.

 

While they do have a datacentre in Sydney - it's for CoLo only. Their only datacenters serving cloud clients are in Ehningen (Germany), Raleigh (North Carolina, USA), Makuhari (Japan) and one under construction for LotusLive (also in Japan).

 

IBM also has 7 lab cloud datacentres in the AP region, located in China, India, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Vietnam and Singapore.

 

There is not a single aspect of IBM's cloud running in any Commonwealth of Australia state, territory or protectorate.

 

Your marketing report is worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing the bit where I was supposed to have changed my point.

 

Diesel generators last only so long. They're designed for emergency use - maybe for a few days of power loss. Then they need to be refilled - they work exactly the same way as datacentre diesels do.

I'm still not seeing an acknowledgement of the horrendous implementation of the slippery slope fallacy - However, I will concede that from your twisted perspective of reality, losing power for a significant period of time could result in hospitals losing critical functions.

Edited by Akamatsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm..

 

Agree with a lot of Leonids comments. But some of them are downright daft.. I thought the same way as him in a lot of terms, AND I think the nuclear is the better option.

 

But solar power in COMMERCIAL outfits is different to your Strap Panels To The Roof concept.

 

Look up dissolved salts sometime. WTF!! Solar generating power 24 hrs/day. Not quite as efficient, but still possible, AND reliable.

 

However, still early'ish days (Some commercial ones out there), and they are far more inefficient than nuclear in terms of square meterage/gigawatts produced. But there you go.

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing the bit where I was supposed to have changed my point.

 

Diesel generators last only so long. They're designed for emergency use - maybe for a few days of power loss. Then they need to be refilled - they work exactly the same way as datacentre diesels do.

I'm still not seeing an acknowledgement of the horrendous implementation of the slippery slope fallacy - However, I will concede that from your twisted perspective of reality, losing power for a significant period of time could result in hospitals losing critical functions.

 

I see.

 

You concede that losing power for a significant amount of time could result in hospitals losing critical functions.

 

However you won't go the logical result of what happens when hospitals lose critical functions, dismissing it as "a slippery slope fallacy".

 

I have once personally seen this slippery slope function at work (power failure in Moscow in 1991), and my girlfriend has lived through it once (Russian fires a few years ago around Moscow hospitalised 5000 people per day where Moscow's hospitals could only handle 1/5th that number maximum - and people died because of it).

 

Slippery slopes are fun to laugh at until you've actually seen it happen. So I'll make this real easy: don't build infrastructure likely to make the conditions for that slippery slope to occur.

 

But solar power in COMMERCIAL outfits is different to your Strap Panels To The Roof concept.

Sure. Concept's still the same, just scaled, with batteries.

 

Look up dissolved salts sometime. WTF!! Solar generating power 24 hrs/day. Not quite as efficient, but still possible, AND reliable.

There is only one solar station (non-hybrid gas-solar) in the world rated as a 24hr facility: The 19.9 MW Gemasolar power plant in Spain's Andalucia province.

 

 

The problem with solar is not the technology you use. The problem with solar is weather, climate and the day-night cycle - access to the sun. Your average daily sunlight is 12 hours year-round if you have perfectly clear days. But you don't - so it's more likely 8/9 hours average per day in a given year.

 

This is not a problem you can ever make go away and the only way to protect against it is vast energy storage pools. Unfortunately that's:

a. expensive

b. not space-efficient

c. chasing your own tail - you never know when you're going to need more energy than you've got stored, given how reliable (not!) weather prediction is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ I love this threads which draw Leo out.. They're typically the worthwhile ones..

 

When do we get to the point of 'over-engineering'?

 

I would personally love it if solar worked as promised. I don't think covering our deserts with solar panels will save the world. (Can you say environmental destruction? By adding these solar panels, we are changing the ecosystem which MANY animals and plants rely on. Just cause they ain't pretty doesn't mean they don't deserve saving)

 

I do believe that solar panels are HIGHLY practical in many situations. Remote station? Not much power draw? Can be run easily on several days on just batteries? Solar panels = IDEAL. Don't need a nuclear power station for this (nuclear = manmade nuclear as opposed to "The sun = nuclear"). Taking into account loss in transmission etc.

 

But at the end of the day, we need nuclear in the short, with possible long-term. (And yes, assume a construction time of WHATEVER the greenies want to spout). Short-term. Geo-logical short-term.

 

Get the waste and then you know what? We have this funny thing called science which is doing amazing things with this stuff we call "Waste". Did you know that Junk DNA isn't Junk? For a while we threw it away because we didn't understand it. It has an IMPORTANT use. Radioactive waste is having more and more uses. Just look up fast-breeder reactors to see what we can do with it.

 

Give the magical 40 yrs of research (Because 40 yrs is apparently how long it takes to build a full nuclear reactor if you ask a greenie).. Give 40yrs of funding to this research instead of "Green coal" research (And a few other hippie researches out there).

 

We already have the technology to reduce the waste of nuclear power plants to less than coal, I bet we can get it lower with appropriate research (and research = money of course)

 

AD

 

I'm still not seeing the bit where I was supposed to have changed my point.

 

Diesel generators last only so long. They're designed for emergency use - maybe for a few days of power loss. Then they need to be refilled - they work exactly the same way as datacentre diesels do.

I'm still not seeing an acknowledgement of the horrendous implementation of the slippery slope fallacy - However, I will concede that from your twisted perspective of reality, losing power for a significant period of time could result in hospitals losing critical functions.

 

I see.

 

You concede that losing power for a significant amount of time could result in hospitals losing critical functions.

 

However you won't go the logical result of what happens when hospitals lose critical functions, dismissing it as "a slippery slope fallacy".

 

I have once personally seen this slippery slope function at work (power failure in Moscow in 1991), and my girlfriend has lived through it once (Russian fires a few years ago around Moscow hospitalised 5000 people per day where Moscow's hospitals could only handle 1/5th that number maximum - and people died because of it).

 

Slippery slopes are fun to laugh at until you've actually seen it happen. So I'll make this real easy: don't build infrastructure likely to make the conditions for that slippery slope to occur.

 

But solar power in COMMERCIAL outfits is different to your Strap Panels To The Roof concept.

Sure. Concept's still the same, just scaled, with batteries.

 

Look up dissolved salts sometime. WTF!! Solar generating power 24 hrs/day. Not quite as efficient, but still possible, AND reliable.

There is only one solar station (non-hybrid gas-solar) in the world rated as a 24hr facility: The 19.9 MW Gemasolar power plant in Spain's Andalucia province.

 

 

The problem with solar is not the technology you use. The problem with solar is weather, climate and the day-night cycle - access to the sun. Your average daily sunlight is 12 hours year-round if you have perfectly clear days. But you don't - so it's more likely 8/9 hours average per day in a given year.

 

This is not a problem you can ever make go away and the only way to protect against it is vast energy storage pools. Unfortunately that's:

a. expensive

b. not space-efficient

c. chasing your own tail - you never know when you're going to need more energy than you've got stored, given how reliable (not!) weather prediction is.

 

 

Quoting you for WRONG!

 

http://www.wizardpower.com.au/

 

There's an Austrlian one for reference. There are MANY more. HEAPS AND HEAPS AND HEAPS!

 

Look a bit futher Leo

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that solar panels are HIGHLY practical in many situations. Remote station? Not much power draw? Can be run easily on several days on just batteries? Solar panels = IDEAL. Don't need a nuclear power station for this (nuclear = manmade nuclear as opposed to "The sun = nuclear"). Taking into account loss in transmission etc.

I agree and said as much a few posts up.

 

Quoting you for WRONG!

 

http://www.wizardpower.com.au/

 

There's an Austrlian one for reference. There are MANY more. HEAPS AND HEAPS AND HEAPS!

I've seen them :)

 

There's a large amount of solar companies of all sorts of different sub-technologies claiming to be able to provide grid constant electricity 24 hours a day.

 

However there is only one facility in existence that actually does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the one pictured on the front in my post does the above. It's located at the ANU.. That's why I linked it.. I have inside info... :P I don't work for them.. Nor get money from them. The figures aren't fantastic, but in terms of consistent power over a 24hr period it's not bad at all..

 

However, I suppose I'm more coming across as "Mostly agree with you Leo", but I also believe that Solar has a future, but we don't have time for it.

 

With current technology and understanding, we can't do it. We have many methods of creating power and storing it, but until we get better storage, I prefer 24/7 production (ALA nuclear)

BTW Leo.. (In PM if you wish) when you coming to Canberra for another pissup so you can look at the solar panels on my roof and I can tell you about our last power bill being $1000 in the credit and that they've already paid for themselves (Note: I don't provide baseload or power at night.. :P )

 

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×