|
No Negligent(s) allowed, please comply. E: God drat it.
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Isn't Kommando a member or former member of the Sex Party? And i'm still a member of the pirate party because they survived the de-registration apocalypse. Turns out nerds are very good at emailing people to fill out online forms so that everything's up to date. Their whole online system is pretty fascinating. They have digital ballots where you can vote on candidates and motions. Imagine if the other major parties used a similar system, maybe they would start be a little more accountable to their members hahahahaha.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Vote Voluntary Euthanasia Party and Sustainable Population Party 1 and 2, because Australians need to kill ourselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Refugees are technically not Australian, so they don't count towards HDI. Sweet lifehack.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Somebody help me with my medical condition. Are there any doctors who post here? I have Albomania even though I know he's the only non-shitlord politician in the party and one man can't do anything by himself. He isn't the Corbyn you are looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
It's the only argument they have left.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
EXAKT Science posted:So Tones is the Aussie answer to Trump? Abbott is a more palatable version of Trump. If Trump were Australian, his policies would be to sink refugee boats with the refugees still on board, and to refuse welfare payments and public healthcare to muslims. Whereas Abbott has calmed his lust for blood to a point where he is willing to let political institutions slowly wear down and break the undesirables.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
clusterfuck posted:Policy speculation station: Breakthrough Energy Coalition and Musk are at odds in a sense because they are focusing on different things. Breakthrough is funding nascent research, while Musk is producing and selling mature technology. But if Breakthrough invested in a more efficient battery technology that could be mass produced, I don't think Musk would be opposed to selling it. There isn't so much a division between centralised and decentralised energy, as there is a trend to go off the grid. Decentralised power fundamentally does not work because we generate and consumer orders of magnitude more power, then we are able to store. Even the most optimistic plans to completely replace power generation with renewables all rely on a national grid. This is because it is more efficient to send excess power to regions facing a energy shortfall, then it is to maintain an appropriately sized bank of batteries in every home and business. The more important part regarding climate change is the generation of power, not its distribution. Besides, I've never seen the case made for why onsite-solar/wind + battery is more environmentally sound than onsite-solar/wind + grid. Usually it is for reasons such as not supporting the energy industry, a lifestyle choice, or that its cheaper over the long term. The environmental impact of running copper lines vs. banks of batteries doesn't seem like something anyone actually thinks about while discussing going off the grid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 05:57
|
|
) and decentralized home battery type solutions which are doing well in Australia
|
Cartoon posted:In my experience the decision to go off-grid is always economic due to the expense of getting connected to the power grid. Connection prices of $100 000 are not uncommon. That buys a shirt load of battery. Environmentally you don't have the fire hazard, visual pollution and component manufacture impacts of the poles and wire but get a big pile of sometimes very short life batteries. Because batteries are expensive (not compared to getting connected however) and the less power you use the less you need, going off grid solar really makes people get hyper energy efficient. This extends to issues like insulation, building alignment and size. Apparently the average household uses ~ 3 MWh per year/per person. Off grid solar users are consuming around a tenth of that. On that basis it's pretty fair to say, in practice, off grid solar is more environmentally friendly than grid connected. Yes, if you live in a remote area, most definitely. I was talking about people who live in the suburbs or regional areas where there is pre-existing infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:In which case the only reason would be to opt out of what may become a very expensive to access private monopoly. I haven't found anything yet but I'd be really surprised if someone from the Department of the Environment hadn't done extensive modelling. Tesla's been ramping up on production in an effort to reduce cost, but it also means they have to come up with more ways to sell them. They aren't targeting the remote home owner, but basically everyone. The main uses are both designed to circumvent the way electricity is metered. Either you charge during off-peak to use during peak, or you have solar panels and use them to recharge the batteries directly (if you live in a place with bad feed-in rates). The original poster was interested if Elon Musk's lack of involvement in a popular climate change initiative had anything to do with his battery business supporting decentralised power. That batteries really don't have much to do with decentralised power generation was the main point, and that a Elon Musk future of batteries everywhere isn't really feasible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
A Good Username posted:NSW state government has found the best way to combat drug use - memes. Smoking weed, not the life of the party? I better get black out drunk instead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Whether or not it goes ahead, when a major project flip-flops this much you can bet it's going to be a disaster. Usually if a big project makes a good amount of business sense, it gets rubber stamped through.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Not done as household consumption but some interesting figures here: I don't think that energy consumption decline is that great. The y-axis is abbreviated so you only get about a 10% decline. There has been huge leaps in energy efficiency during that time, and people tend to be more mindful about turning things off when not in use. Lights, fridges, computers, tv's have all had huge reductions of power consumption. The things that have remained constant are stuff like hot water/laundry/cooking/air-con(?), and even then most of these average an hour or two a day. My home would far exceed 10%. And given how industry has changed over that period I'm surprised it's not more.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Bridie Jabour @bkjabour 3h3 hours ago That would seem to fit the very carefully worded of the letter posted earlier. Figured it would be either that or being groped in the 'very crowded bar'.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 11:56
|
|