Video sam vest da Južna Australija ide na 100% solar i baterije. Mada sa tom geografijom i populacijom, i nije neki izazov

21 hours ago, Spooky said:

Ono što mene zanima, je da li uopšte ovi paneli imaju pametne invertere koji omogućuju kombinovano korišćenje kada ima struje i da li vraćaju u mrežu ako ima viška, ili su isključivo alternativni sistem kada nema struje (možda čak i DC samo za osvetljenje, radio i to)

Mislim da ovo što viđamo po BI, Pakistanu, Africi je uglavnom svako za sebe. Ali to su često mesta gde i nije bilo ničeg (boljeg).

U onom klipu što sam gore kačio, lik smatra da su velike farme bolje rešenje (jeftinije i efikasnije), iako nema ništa protiv malih, privatnih instalacija

9 hours ago, Gojko & Stojko said:

Dugoročna energetska strategija australijskih laburista se slaže sa Forestovom*, nije mi uopšte čudno da se tebi ne sviđa jer kao i vesela menažerija gore pobrojana živiš od nafte.

On 9. 4. 2026. at 9:17, x500 said:

Dugorocno se isplati ulaganje u struju i prelazak na elektricna vozila i masine. Tu naravno postoji kvaka - odakle dolazi struja i da li i kako moze da se poveca, pogotovo iz obnovljivih izvora (solarni paneli i vetrenjace). Tu Kinezi mogu da pomognu, imaju dobru tehnologiju i dosta iskustva.

Edited April 14Apr 14 by x500

On 15. 4. 2026. at 1:38, x500 said:

Pa dobro^tm, onda ništa.

U međuvremenu, desničarska (tj. Mardokova) štampa ne popušta u borbi protiv mrskih laburista i posebno ministra Bauena - "zašto i mi ne možemo da budemo normalni kao riđokoso govedo^tm"

This lobby barely blinks when Trump threatens genocide, but is in meltdown when Bowen talks wind and solar

A funny thing happened on the way to the global energy markets last month. Even as Donald Trump made threats of war crimes and genocide, and the wiping out of a whole civilisation, and caused oil and gas prices to surge across the globe, the far right lobby and the outrage industry in Australia barely blinked.

Instead, it became obsessed with something and someone entirely different – Chris Bowen, Australia’s federal minister for climate and energy.

Bowen has been a key target of the far right and the enablers of the fossil fuel lobby in Australia since he took the job in 2022, and he was central to setting Australia’s ambitious renewable energy target of 82 per cent by 2030, and ramping up of its climate goals.

For that, he has been awarded the alliterative moniker “blackout Bowen” – even though his critics would struggle to nominate a single outage that he could possibly be associated with.

Australia’s grid, despite the repeated failures of its ageing coal-fired generators, has become more, rather than less, reliable even as – or because – it becomes more renewable.

Bowen’s latest perceived crime is to suggest that more wind and solar, and more EVs, might be a sensible course of action given the costs of fossil fuels, their tenuous supply lines and, of course, their damage to the climate and human health.

“The one form of energy which Vladimir Putin or a Middle Eastern crisis cannot interrupt is the flow of sun and the flow of wind – that cannot be interrupted,” Bowen said soon after the outbreak of the war and as the implications on the supply of fossil fuels became clear.

He reprised the theme a few days later. 

“Australia is rich in sun and wind,” Bowen said at the opening of the Powering Our Suburbs forum in Sydney. 

“Renewable energy is the cheapest form of new generation in this country. The sun does not send a bill. Geopolitics can’t stop the sun shining in Australia. No war can stop the flow of wind to our country. It makes sense to use what we have in abundance.” 

Cue a collective melt-down in the Murdoch media – the ring-leader of the attacks on Bowen and his support of renewables, for EVs, and even for driving one – and an assault on his reputation through articles, opinion pieces, cartoons, and most loudly and absurdly on Sky After Dark.

There might be method to their madness. The attacks on Bowen are increasing now – in number and intensity – because the fossil fuel industry and its political chorus sense an opportunity to exploit the consumer angst over soaring diesel and petrol prices.

The Far Right appears convinced that if it can achieve regime change in the federal climate and energy department, then the government would lose its most forceful voice in advocating for the science, and respecting the economics and engineering, and the expertise of the CSIRO, the market operator and other key institutions.

And by “far right” we mean pretty much anyone not in or to the left of our centrist Labor federal government. Old fashioned conservatives and small-l liberals have all but disappeared from the political screen.

The conservative political discourse has moved so far to the right that even former policy chiefs at the climate-denying Institute of Public Affairs and their fellow travellers are now regarded as “moderates.”

And I’d challenge anyone to distinguish the key climate and energy policy differences between Liberals, the Nationals, and One Nation. They all agree that Australia should drop its net zero target for 2050, make vague references to nuclear, and want to keep burning coal.

To reach that conclusion requires you to do the opposite of Bowen and ignore the science, the economics and the engineering, and the expertise of the CSIRO, the market operator and other key institutions. On those key points, the three right wing parties essentially share the same platform.

The attacks on Bowen took a new turn late last week when Seven’s Liam Bartlett created a spectacle at a media conference in Sydney, hungry for a set of “grabs” for his latest assault on green energy and EVs.

Bartlett seemed convinced that renewables were the cause of the global fuel crisis, and invited Bowen to resign and rethink his climate policies. Bowen did not accept the invitation.

Bartlett – who was global head of TV, creative visual at Shell International in London from 2013-2015 – is no fan of the green energy transition. A few years ago he reported on the disgraceful environmental practices at a nickel mine in Indonesia, arguing that it meant that EVs were dirty and polluting as a result.

Industry experts said there are two problems with that conclusion. The first is that most EV batteries now are LFP batteries, and contain no nickel.

The second is that where EV batteries do use nickel – such as in NMC batteries – they require a significantly higher grade of nickel than that produced at that Indonesia mine. But the steel industry uses it a lot, but has not attracted the opprobrium of Bartlett and his fellow travellers.

Social media clips promoting his latest report for Seven’s Spotlight (to be broadcast this weekend) suggest a focus on cobalt mines in Africa.

Bowen is not expecting a fair hearing. Asked at a later press conference what he thought of the program, Bowen replied:

“Clearly, Spotlight‘s doing a story on renewable energy. I don’t expect it to be fair and balanced. I think that was shown by his (Bartlett’s) questions and his comments on Wednesday,” Bowen said.

“He’s entitled to do that. Another part of the democracy is I can choose which media I interact with. I don’t choose to interact with Spotlight. I’ll always interact with serious shows and serious journalists. Spotlight is not one of them.”

Just to be clear, cobalt is not used in LFP batteries for EVs, but it is in NMC batteries. And it has been used for decades and in large quantities for laptops, mobile phones, jet turbines, drills, plastics and ceramics and, yes, magnets for wind turbines and other electrical equipment.

There seems little doubt that the conditions in some of those mines appear to be a disgrace. That’s an opportunity for Australia, because it has nickel and cobalt resources in bulk, and already supplies nickel to the likes of Tesla.

Many EV makers, such as Polestar, now provide blockchain technology to trace how cobalt was transported from mines to the finished car, and it also traces other minerals such as nickel and lithium – so called “at risk” minerals because of the potential for human rights violations and environmental damage.

Such a shame then, that the fossil fuel industry does not follow suit. Fossil fuel producers, and their supporters, demand a free pass on carbon emissions and other harmful particulates, and argue that climate science is either hoax or an obsession of the world’s “elites.”

According to Clare Walter, the annual health cost of diesel combustion alone in Australia is $6.2 billion. The coal industry gets a free pass on its climate impacts and air pollution. Business groups say climate-driven natural disasters will cost Australia $73 billion a year by 2060.

In the meantime, super profits are falling in. According to Transport & Environment, ff current conditions are maintained until the end of 2026, refiners and distributors will pocket excess profits of €32 billion, with a further  €54 billion flowing to crude oil producers and oil-producing nations.

The Australia Institute also estimates that the total super profits for the Australian LNG industry alone since the Ukraine invasion triggered a similar surge in prices in 2022 at more than $112 billion. And that does not include what has and will happen in 2026.

Clearly, then, the fossil fuel industry has a lot to lose from an accelerated green energy transition and a lot to gain from the current crisis. The rest of the world has a lot more to lose if the energy transition is stopped or slowed. But you probably wont hear many Murdoch or Seven journalists making a scene or sounding indignant about that.

And here is just one final thought. As energy analyst and climate commentator Ketan Joshi noted in a LinkedIn post, if the world had gotten on with the job of the green energy transition at the pace it had agreed at Paris, rather than slowed by the fossil fuel lobby, the situation might look quite different now.

“If the world had followed ambitious climate scenarios, global oil demand would be at least 20 per cent lower than it is today – about the same volume of oil that flows through the Strait of Hormuz,” Joshi says.

Fortunately, we still have a few corporates with genuine ambition, like Fortescue, that could make a difference and shine the path to a cleaner future with their goal of eliminating gas and diesel from their giant operations within a few years.

And we still have some ministers – state and federal – who care enough to try and help us get there. Their policies are not always perfect, sometimes far from it, but it’s no time to show them the door for the sake of a Big Oil earnings bonanza.

SaE

i tako ....

Ko kupuje proizvode napravljene tom strujom?

Kina 8GW, Indija 6GW, Rest of the world 49,5GW

solar

Zanimljivo je da smo počeli diskusiju ovde negde oko 2021, taman pre eksplozije obnovljivih izvora širom sveta. Srbiju nažalost vode analfabete koji radije troše pare na sprečavanje sistemskog kolapsa kad dogori do nokata umesto na investiranje u budućnost.

Dobra vest je da nikad nije kasno, jer je danas još jeftinije nego što je tad bilo, ali ne sumnjam da će analfabete da ostanu analfabete i sanjaju snove o moćnoj nuklearnoj energiji da bi osetili erekciju nakon puno godina.

25 minutes ago, barrcode said:

solar

Mi se bacili na nešto drugo (solar 8%)

.. a nuclear nismo sektaški i metafizički odbacili.

Edited April 24Apr 24 by Roger Sanchez

1 hour ago, Venom said:

Zanimljivo je da smo počeli diskusiju ovde negde oko 2021, taman pre eksplozije obnovljivih izvora širom sveta. Srbiju nažalost vode analfabete koji radije troše pare na sprečavanje sistemskog kolapsa kad dogori do nokata umesto na investiranje u budućnost.

Dobra vest je da nikad nije kasno, jer je danas još jeftinije nego što je tad bilo, ali ne sumnjam da će analfabete da ostanu analfabete i sanjaju snove o moćnoj nuklearnoj energiji da bi osetili erekciju nakon puno godina.

pa sad nije baš tako, kačio sam ovde planove za izgradnju vetrogeneratora, koji bi u budućnosti dostigli snagu od 5000 MW, odn prosečnu dnevnu potrošnju u srbistanu, dodaj na to postojeće kapacitete hidroelektrana i mi smo super green

1 hour ago, Venom said:

Zanimljivo je da smo počeli diskusiju ovde negde oko 2021, taman pre eksplozije obnovljivih izvora širom sveta. Srbiju nažalost vode analfabete koji radije troše pare na sprečavanje sistemskog kolapsa kad dogori do nokata umesto na investiranje u budućnost.

Dobra vest je da nikad nije kasno, jer je danas još jeftinije nego što je tad bilo, ali ne sumnjam da će analfabete da ostanu analfabete i sanjaju snove o moćnoj nuklearnoj energiji da bi osetili erekciju nakon puno godina.

Obnovljiv izvor je i metan i etanol - u Brazilu se porilicno koriste oba.

Baterije za EV moras puniti iz nekog prilicno jakog izvora, a to trenutno nisu solarni paneli i vetroturbine vec termo, hidro i nuklearne elektrane.

Baterije mozes racunati u zamenu tek kada nedo osmisli tehnologiju punjena ili zamene baterje za 5 miuta, a da sa tom dopunom predjes 1000 km do sledeceg mesta zamene po prihvatljivoj ceni.

Bez toga - sve je to u domenu ekscentrika koji sviraju kurcu o svojoj ljubavi prema planeti.

Veca vajda je u razvijanju tehnologije hvatanja nevoljnog gasa krava na livadama i ljudi koji iste koriste kao ishranu jer to je energetska buducnost sveta.

Drugim recma - Prdez ce spasiti svet.

Let there be a fart!

https://i.imgur.com/6hRuzfH.gif

Ne moramo da gubimo vreme na diskusiju koja nigde ne vodi. Videćeš sve i sam jer ovaj rast od poslednjih pet godina neće stati. Živi bili pa videli.

Ali dao si mi dobar šlagvort da etanolom i bio gorivima. Počela je sve veća manipulacija u smeru da se obradiva zemlja ne sme koristiti za solarne panele. U stvarnosti se obradiva zemlja već sad koristi za bio goriva i to na red veličine 100x manje efikasan način. Znači treba 100x veća površina da se dobije ista energija uzgajanjem kukuruza nego solarnim panelima. U Americi se 40% kukuruza koristi za etanol. Prelazak sa toga na solarne panele će osloboditi zemljište za poljoprivredu.

Ne dozvolite da manipulišu vama da bi zaradili pare na tome.

Edited April 24Apr 24 by Venom

@Venom Nisam neki fan bio-goriva zbog uticaja na cenu hrane. Ali - zemlju na kojoj je zasijan kukuruz mozes zasijati necim drugim sledece godine, ili taj kukuruz koristiti kao stocnu hranu... Postavljanje solarnih panela je ipak trajnija promena (naravno nije nepovratna, ali zahteva ulaganja).

Toliko je nepoljoprivredne zemlje na svetu (neki prosek poljoprivredne zemlje je 1/3, a u najplodnijim zemljama mozda 2/3), toliko krovova, solarni paneli bi mogli da se postave iznad velikih parkinga kao hlad. Toliko prilika za pametnije pozicioniranje od poljoprivrednog zemljista.

Ako je nekom investitoru jeftinije 5% jeftinije da postavi na nekom poljoprivrednom zemljistu jer mu infrastruktura bliže, nego na nekom krsu, drugoj lokaciji, on će to i da uradi. Ali ne treba mu to olakšavati.

Ne dozvolite da manipulišu vama se naravno odnosi na ljude koji ne žele da njima manipulišu. Ako vam je pak prioritet da imate mišljenje kao Spooky onda je to piši propalo.

Da ponovim: 40% kukuruza* u Americi se koristi za proizvodnju bio goriva. Da bi se proizvela ekvivalentna količina energije solarnim panelima biće potrebna 100x manja površina** što će osloboditi 99% obradive površine koja se trenutno koristi za bio goriva.

Ukratko: solarni paneli umesto bio goriva znači da će biti drastično više poljoprivrednog zemljišta za hranu nego što ga ima sad

[*] Ima procena od 30% do 45%. U svakom slučaju tačan odgovor je "mnogo"

[**] Procena ima od 30x do 200x, uzeo sam 100x jer mi se sviđa lep okrugli broj. Tačan odgovor je "drastično manja površina"

Kukuruz i soja se gaje pvenstveno zbog ishrane stoke, a ne zbog goriva.

Bio gorivo je samo nusprodukt prehrambene industrije - jbg svi vole dobar burger....

Soilent green jos uvek nije i, nadam se, nece biti na repertoaru ishrane jos dugo.

Ako bude - dzaba nam civilizacija.

https://ember-energy.org/app/uploads/2026/04/Global-Electricity-Review-2026.pdf

Ima zanimljivih podataka, izdvojeni

• 75% Share of global electricity demand growth met by solar power in 2025

• 33,8% Share of renewables in global power generation in 2025 – above a third for the first time, overtaking coal.

• -0,2% Year-on-year change in fossil generation.