Perhaps I'm lucky then. I live in Tasmania (population 500,000), and 100% of its energy since the early 1900s has been renewable (almost exclusively hydro, a couple of wind farms popped up since 1990, and it is now connected to the rest of the Australian grid so technically isn't 100% renewable - depending on if it importing or exporting).

My point being that a grid of only wind, solar and hydro is certainly practical and feasible. The turbines or solar panels don't need to be running at 100% of the time - build enough infrastructure to over-supply the predicted load, and when there is more supply than demand, use the power to pump water from the lower to the upper reservoir of a hydro dam.

The problem with "baseload" is that it is constructed with generators which can't easily adjust their supply (like coal, etc.) in mind. That's why many retailers offer discounted off-peak rates - because they can't lower the coal power station output below a certain amount, and certainly can't change it at a very quick rate. Hydro's "instant on/off" ability is a huge benefit here!

hydro, geothermal, tidal...

Also note that hydro has the benefit of being able to quickly increase generation to allow for peaks in demand, and also to story energy cheaply.

Because of the huge privacy concerns?

"Using Facebook to test this theory seems kind of dumb."

"But, of course, I have never met the Ecumenical Patriarch, so you can't really consider that much of a connection."

If people used Facebook properly - such as only adding friends if they are actually friends - it wouldn't seem so dumb.

The ultimate long-term troll!

Er.. no.
For an American trying to get the hang of rhyming slang (though admittedly she's just copying, not really "learning it".. but still) check this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QItPPfvhxE - from Aussie show "Adam Hills In Gordon Street Tonight".

The sad thing is some people *are* arranging their finances on such a decision...

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/07/136053462/is-the-end-nigh-well-know-soon-enough (Search for "Martinez", about 1/2 way down)

RTFA. 40000 desktops, 1000 servers. See my other posts in this thread.

I don't get the obsession with people running to point that "No, look, it's Tasmania! It can't be right.. because its Tasmania".

I used to work in Tasmanian Government schools. Every primary classroom had minimum 2-3 computers, and obviously high schools had a lot more with dedicated IT labs, etc. This was 10 years ago, obviously things have changed since then. Anyway, my experiences 10 years ago don't really matter when the article itself gives the number as 40000 desktops.

Some other stats on employee numbers (from Wikipedia):

Federal Government departments - The largest federal government agency is Centrelink with 27,312 employees, followed by the Australian Taxation Office (24,070) and the Department of Defence (21,458). http://www.apsc.gov.au/stateoftheservice/0910/statistics/bulletin.pdf

Banks - NAB 39k, Westpac ~40k, CBA ~44k, ANZ ~40k

Can't be bothered with any more at the moment, but if you want to make the claims, back them up!

State Education departments typically have large IT fleets due to all the computers in every classroom in every school. RTFA.

How many other organisations in Australia have 40000 workstations or more? Probably the other state education departments (assuming they purchase centrally), a handful of large corporates... maybe a few more, but not a huge amount.

But if you used the same battery pack for a decade, then swapped your "old moldy" one for a new one, that would be ok, right?

Or.... We could just use battery switch technology, such the already up-and-working switch stations built by Better Place in Japan... 2 mins from driving in to the station, to driving out with a new battery. It saves having the entire argument in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKA4GhVn0a4