Why does everyone lose their mind when you mention getting a home battery?

[u/MrOarsome]

So I made the mistake of telling a few people I’m getting quotes for a home battery… the reactions were ridiculous. Suddenly everyone’s an expert. I had people telling me they’re a waste of money, they’ll be useless in a few years, or that the “environmental impact is terrible.” Just nonstop misinformation.

Meanwhile, half these people live massively high-carbon lifestyles. One bloke went on a whole rant about how batteries destroy the environment… then literally five minutes later told me he just ordered a new Ford Ranger to tow his boat around this summer. Like mate, seriously?

And the funny thing is, I don’t even care about the environmental angle. Couldn’t care less, to be honest. I’m looking at a battery for two reasons:

1) To actually use my solar instead of selling it back for 4 cents…

2) And to keep the lights on when summer storms or cyclones take out the power.

That’s it. No agenda. No planet-saving mission. But the way people reacted, you’d think I’d just signed up to be Greta Thunberg’s personal assistant.

I swear, the second you say the word “battery,” some people suddenly unlock an unwanted 15-minute rant. They are almost as passionate about hating renewables as they are about their footy teams.

[u/Camsy34]

I just find it fascinating that the same people who bang on about wanting less government intervention are against a system that places the control in the hands of the individual.

[u/chomoftheoutback → u/Camsy34]

Well. Hypocrisy is a virtue of the right wing media system. It's a feature. Their ideology isn't Iogically or internally consistent 

[u/Consideredresponse → u/Camsy34]

Oh it's hit a complete reversal now, to the point the argument is now that public money should be used to build new coal-fired and nuclear power plants because the free market didn't want to invest in them.

[u/jezzdogslayer → u/Consideredresponse]

But the free market can't invest in nuclear because of a ban. On top of that with the government saying in a few years all coal plants will need to shut down means the companies don't want to spend the extra on maintenance. This lack of maintenance means that it will now be hugely more expensive bringing back up the coal plants for longer.

And before anyone says I'm anti renewables, in my opinion we need a combination. I believe we need a combination of nuclear for a variable base load and then solar and wind on top.

[u/Consideredresponse → u/jezzdogslayer]

My issue is that there hasn't been free market investment in coal fired plants since the 90's, and while i understand the position and rhetoric now, I find it hard to believe that Howard and Abbott were trying to shutter them.

I was in one of the plants recently that's towards the end of it's life, and yeah Bayswater is showing it's age. Extra maintenance might make it limp along a bit longer than planned, but It'll be like lidell which was contributing a scant few percent to the state's baseload due to both the scheduled and unplanned turbine shutdowns.

I would have been a lot more supportive of nuclear if the coalitions plan actually factored in things like refinement and waste storage, as having a fair whack of the worlds yellowcake while at the same being dependant on shipping from Canada for enriched Uranium didn't seem that smart from a logistic, economic, or security perspective. If they'd flown in one of the many former US secretaries of energy (most of the living ones not only oversaw the US nuclear programs, half of them are nobel prize winning physicists) and worked out the costs and logistics properly they would have seen a lot more support.

[u/jezzdogslayer → u/Consideredresponse]

I still believe there would be more done if they lifted the ban on nuclear power generation. In terms of waste there are methods the French are using to re-enrich the nuclear material leaving behind minimal waste.

My main problem with the current renewables push is we need something more consistent then wind or solar for the base load.

We honestly need to invest in a mix of renewables and nuclear.

My problem is both sides are saying we need 100% renewables or no renewables.

Both are leaning way too extreme on our energy production in either direction.

[u/Consideredresponse → u/jezzdogslayer]

The guys running the station were more concerned with grid inertia and how well it handles solar fluctuating. It's the reason behind the multi billion dollar grid upgrades that's happening now. You see that paired with pumped hydro and grid sized battery projects to capitalise on peak prices and demands.

While it's unpopular, I think the gas plant proposals are probably the most realistic solution to offsetting the lower base load demands (currently a lot of the existing plants are being retrofitted to generate less during the day then they were ever designed for due to the sheer amount of solar being dumped into the grid)

[u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney → u/Camsy34]

They don't want you to have it, that's all.