So what's going to replace coal?

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted 2 years ago

  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Evaluating electrical energy production reliability by looking just at the ‘trips’... Rolling Eyes
Laughing

You go into the supermarket looking at 90% fat free products; I look at them as 10% fat.

I expect 100% energy production reliability. If a coal fired generating unit is up and running I expect it to stay that way until a planned outage. That is not too much to ask. It's what I pay for. Why should you or I accept mediocrity?
What a BS argument. No single generator source is 100% reliable and if you use that mentality towards your argument you would shut down all wind and solar tomorrow because when you want to buy, they have a 1/3 chance of supply, solar even less so. ie hopefully it windy when the footy GF is on so we can watch on TV!

If I was to analyze your data you posted previously I'm pretty sure it would likely show that every individual coal fired turbine has a reliability of +99%.
RTT_Rules
So, nothing is 100% reliable but based on what I have posted it is probably >99%. You need a Bex and a good lie down....

Here is a link to a very recent article which, among other things, quotes the bossman at a typical coal generator saying that they will continue to spend BILLIONS to try and get reliability above 85%:
http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/5243836/agl-no-to-carbon-plan/?cs=1462

I'm still waiting for a concession from the Coalies that although renewables may not be reliable, they are at least predictable, and every trip from a coal fired generator isn't. How about it?

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
So, nothing is 100% reliable but based on what I have posted it is probably >99%. You need a Bex and a good lie down....

Here is a link to a very recent article which, among other things, quotes the bossman at a typical coal generator saying that they will continue to spend BILLIONS to try and get reliability above 85%:
http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/5243836/agl-no-to-carbon-plan/?cs=1462

I'm still waiting for a concession from the Coalies that although renewables may not be reliable, they are at least predictable, and every trip from a coal fired generator isn't. How about it?
DirtyBallast
One more time
Australia's legacy power supply based on Coal with some gas and hydro has proven itself to be a non-complex, cheap and reliable source of energy, so much so its what the nation and most of our energy intensive industry is built on. Large scale blackouts typically linked to political, industrial (union) and weather based events.

On the other hand, the extensive push towards RE and the mad rush to try and get more out of the technology than what its practically capable of has raised power prices, provided a degree in uncertainty of supply, blackouts, increased the complexity of the network and driven cuts in industrial output and closures. To say its predictable is pointless and even then its only as predictable as the weather man says it is.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

  • NEM  National Electricity Market
  • LCOB  Levelised cost of balancing
  • LCOE  Levelised cost of electricity
  • PV   Photo Voltaic
  • PHES   Phumped Hydro Energy Storage
  • HVDC  High Voltage Direct Current (transmission)
  • AEMO  Australian Energy Market Operator
  • SFA    which is what this post means to me  WTF?
It's pointless giving a translation of abbreviations in a subsequent post - the quotation still remains senseless, because it is still full of jargon. If the quotation cannot be upgraded to plain English, don't post it: if it can be upgraded to plain English, upgrade it before you post it.

No-one gains kudos by posting material that is beyond the comprehension of the rest of us. You may as well post it in Chinese! Show us how well you undestand this material by making it readable, if necessary by attaching a translation after the quotation.
allan

I'm still not sure if this is a call to dumb it down, or smarten it up.  I'll give the dumbed down version.

Levelised Cost of Electricity - in this context: generation - is a standarised measure of the cost of generating power that is sold into the grid.  Levelised means the cost of fuel, rent, admin, capital, maintenance, spillage/wastage, capacity factors, weather variance, time cost of money, warm up and warm down costs, trips - everything - is taken into account.

Levelised Cost of Balancing - something Blaker's basically made up for his report - is the *extra* cost required to meet the 99.998% availability across the entire SE Australia grid - *if* the grid were powered with 100% renewable energy generation.  This includes the cost of excess power generated but not sent out, transmission infrastructure to achieve geographic diversity, grid scale storage (ie pumped hydro, which is currently the cheapest option) - everything - *all* the costs needed to achieve 99.998% reliability from 100% renewable energy generation.

The Blakers study worked out how much RE generation and support infrastructure was required based on the historical weather and electricity consumption data.  From this, he came up with whole of system production costs of:

$75/MWh in the mid 2020s - being $50/Mwh (anticipated) generation from RE and $25/Mwh "balancing".
$93/MWh using 2016 pricing - being [strike]$75/Mwh[/strike] $65/Mwh generation from RE and $28/Mwh "balancing".

"This can be compared with the current wholesale market price in Australia of about $60/MWh.
Another comparator is that the estimated LCOE from a new supercritical black coal power station in
Australia is $80/MWh
"

I urge anyone with any serious interest in this topic to find and read at least some of these reports.  If you really don't have the Internet nous to find them, PM me your eMail address and I'll mail you the PDFs (they aren't that big).

It's a lie, it's a con.
don_dunstan

That's precisely how I feel about the New Ltd opinion piece you posted a link to.

@don_dunstan, I have a very different view of the future - and an appropriate future - for the Aussie energy sector ... but ... I tend to agree with this assessment.  Our "investment" in RE to date has been very poorly targeted and largely ineffective.  It's been little more than a gesture, and perhaps an empty one at that.

The fact is we now have a cartel operating most of Australia's energy sector, and we now enjoy the highest retail prices in the world.  As far as I'm concerned, "the big lie and big con" is that this is all the result of green ideology, when obviously it's not.  (A good lie always has an element of truth to it).  

IMHO the stuffups in our renewable energy efforts are being used as a fig leaf for profiteering all across the energy sector, and also to ward off much needed reforms to address this.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
RTT     said    

"On the other hand, the extensive push towards RE and the mad rush to try and get more out of the technology than what its practically capable of has raised power prices, provided a degree in uncertainty of supply, blackouts, increased the complexity of the network and driven cuts in industrial output and closures. To say its predictable is pointless and even then its only as predictable as the weather man says it is"




What a load of complete bollocks. The link that Dirty Ballast supplied showed AGL's thoughts on where the  industry/market is heading, as with the literally dozens of other links provided in the thread. Yet you continually dismiss the views of industry participants and experts as if they have no idea of what their talking about.

Here's why power prices are increasing, the great gas gouge:    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/02/energy-disaster-embeds/

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/07/truth-behind-electricity-price-increases/

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/07/not-wind-gas-thats-driving-power-shock/

  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
That's precisely how I feel about the New Ltd opinion piece you posted a link to.
djf01
You haven't answered my primary concern about 'green' energy which is that the very poorest members of our society - people who are entirely captured by the grid and don't have any alternatives - these are the people who are being asked to stump up $5 billion in subsidies every year so we can continue the politically motivated rush to intermittent power. Saying that we have a cartel on energy is technically correct but it still doesn't explain why the very poorest people in our society are being financially screwed though power prices to pay for this folly.
The link that Dirty Ballast supplied showed AGL's thoughts on where the industry/market is heading, as with the literally dozens of other links provided in the thread.
wobert
Driven entirely by government policy. It's not an 'organic' thing, the power companies didn't decide to abandon coal because it was uneconomical - they're doing so because they are being forced to by government policy.

It's like SA Premier Jay Weatherill saying last year that the Playford power station in Port Augusta wasn't economical any more - it wasn't economical because of government policy. Coal fired power is still way cheaper and more reliable than the 'green' alternatives - end of story.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
no its not

yes it is

no its not

yes it is

Laughing
  allan Chief Commissioner

So, nothing is 100% reliable but based on what I have posted it is probably >99%. You need a Bex and a good lie down....

Here is a link to a very recent article which, among other things, quotes the bossman at a typical coal generator saying that they will continue to spend BILLIONS to try and get reliability above 85%:
http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/5243836/agl-no-to-carbon-plan/?cs=1462

I'm still waiting for a concession from the Coalies that although renewables may not be reliable, they are at least predictable, and every trip from a coal fired generator isn't. How about it?
One more time
Australia's legacy power supply based on Coal with some gas and hydro has proven itself to be a non-complex, cheap and reliable source of energy, so much so its what the nation and most of our energy intensive industry is built on. Large scale blackouts typically linked to political, industrial (union) and weather based events.

On the other hand, the extensive push towards RE and the mad rush to try and get more out of the technology than what its practically capable of has raised power prices, provided a degree in uncertainty of supply, blackouts, increased the complexity of the network and driven cuts in industrial output and closures. To say its predictable is pointless and even then its only as predictable as the weather man says it is.
RTT_Rules
It has also proven to be exceedingly dirty, which is why it is being phased out - it is not economically feasable to clean up current emmissions or those of the past hundred years.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Still struggle getting my head around the fact we can export ship loads of the black stuff overseas to be burnt, yet reluctant to burn it here.
However, had Abbott not been elected in 2013 on the platform of axe the tax remember the $550 pa that Aussie housewives had to spend which has surely been absorbed by subsequent price rises. We would have had an ETS years ago, and the market would have determined the course of power generation. Any studies into that scenario?
  allan Chief Commissioner

  • NEM  National Electricity Market
  • LCOB  Levelised cost of balancing
  • LCOE  Levelised cost of electricity
  • PV   Photo Voltaic
  • PHES   Phumped Hydro Energy Storage
  • HVDC  High Voltage Direct Current (transmission)
  • AEMO  Australian Energy Market Operator
  • SFA    which is what this post means to me  WTF?
It's pointless giving a translation of abbreviations in a subsequent post - the quotation still remains senseless, because it is still full of jargon. If the quotation cannot be upgraded to plain English, don't post it: if it can be upgraded to plain English, upgrade it before you post it.

No-one gains kudos by posting material that is beyond the comprehension of the rest of us. You may as well post it in Chinese! Show us how well you undestand this material by making it readable, if necessary by attaching a translation after the quotation.

I'm still not sure if this is a call to dumb it down, or smarten it up.  I'll give the dumbed down version.

Levelised Cost of Electricity - in this context: generation - is a standarised measure of the cost of generating power that is sold into the grid.  Levelised means the cost of fuel, rent, admin, capital, maintenance, spillage/wastage, capacity factors, weather variance, time cost of money, warm up and warm down costs, trips - everything - is taken into account.

Levelised Cost of Balancing - something Blaker's basically made up for his report - is the *extra* cost required to meet the 99.998% availability across the entire SE Australia grid - *if* the grid were powered with 100% renewable energy generation.  This includes the cost of excess power generated but not sent out, transmission infrastructure to achieve geographic diversity, grid scale storage (ie pumped hydro, which is currently the cheapest option) - everything - *all* the costs needed to achieve 99.998% reliability from 100% renewable energy generation.

The Blakers study worked out how much RE generation and support infrastructure was required based on the historical weather and electricity consumption data.  From this, he came up with whole of system production costs of:

$75/MWh in the mid 2020s - being $50/Mwh (anticipated) generation from RE and $25/Mwh "balancing".
$93/MWh using 2016 pricing - being $75/Mwh generation from RE and $28/Mwh "balancing".

"This can be compared with the current wholesale market price in Australia of about $60/MWh.
Another comparator is that the estimated LCOE from a new supercritical black coal power station in
Australia is $80/MWh
"

I urge anyone with any serious interest in this topic to find and read at least some of these reports.  If you really don't have the Internet nous to find them, PM me your eMail address and I'll mail you the PDFs (they aren't that big).

It's a lie, it's a con.

That's precisely how I feel about the New Ltd opinion piece you posted a link to.

@don_dunstan, I have a very different view of the future - and an appropriate future - for the Aussie energy sector ... but ... I tend to agree with this assessment.  Our "investment" in RE to date has been very poorly targeted and largely ineffective.  It's been little more than a gesture, and perhaps an empty one at that.

The fact is we now have a cartel operating most of Australia's energy sector, and we now enjoy the highest retail prices in the world.  As far as I'm concerned, "the big lie and big con" is that this is all the result of green ideology, when obviously it's not.  (A good lie always has an element of truth to it).  

IMHO the stuffups in our renewable energy efforts are being used as a fig leaf for profiteering all across the energy sector, and also to ward off much needed reforms to address this.
djf01
Writing in plain laguage is not "dumbing down". Research effort is wasted if it is poorly communicated. Thanks for your translations.

Not all of us have time to read and digest all of the research  that interests us - we depend on precis, in plain laguage, to get the message. As an example,  https://phys.org/latest-news/
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
You can sorta go by the amount of investment in renewables annually.  The graph in this gives a bit of an idea what's going on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/renewable-energy-investment-hits-new-high/9339482


You can see where Abbott started to get the ascendancy as Labor imploded,then fell off a cliff when the LNP won the election.But with the stupidity of the Coalition, the gas gouge has wiped out by 10 fold or more the actual rather small impost of the carbon price. So now the gas gouge and price gouging  is actually doing what the carbon price was meant to achieve. The problem is, instead of the government raking in money from the carbon price,and distributing it in compensation and research /development, the present mob are spending a few billion annually to pay polluters to stop.Something like that anyway.

 If the carbon price had been allowed to transition to a carbon trading scheme like it was originally intended we' be a lot further down the track. But the free marketers in the LNP decided that wasn't a free market they wanted. Not enough big donors.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
My response was to Michaelgm
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Plus Michaelgm, it's a thirty to forty year transition to renewables,not over night like a number of people seem to think.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
So, nothing is 100% reliable but based on what I have posted it is probably >99%. You need a Bex and a good lie down....

Here is a link to a very recent article which, among other things, quotes the bossman at a typical coal generator saying that they will continue to spend BILLIONS to try and get reliability above 85%:
http://www.latrobevalleyexpress.com.au/story/5243836/agl-no-to-carbon-plan/?cs=1462

I'm still waiting for a concession from the Coalies that although renewables may not be reliable, they are at least predictable, and every trip from a coal fired generator isn't. How about it?
One more time
Australia's legacy power supply based on Coal with some gas and hydro has proven itself to be a non-complex, cheap and reliable source of energy, so much so its what the nation and most of our energy intensive industry is built on. Large scale blackouts typically linked to political, industrial (union) and weather based events.

On the other hand, the extensive push towards RE and the mad rush to try and get more out of the technology than what its practically capable of has raised power prices, provided a degree in uncertainty of supply, blackouts, increased the complexity of the network and driven cuts in industrial output and closures. To say its predictable is pointless and even then its only as predictable as the weather man says it is.
RTT_Rules
it is apparent now why we find each other to be not on the same page.

I keep banging on about the proven unreliability of generation hardware which is prone to frequent breakages, and you keep banging on about blackouts which are caused by downstream issues that have nothing to do with the source of supply.

No hard feelings.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Nobody can answer my fundamental question: The people left behind on the grid who can't afford to buy their own mini-power plants are the ones being expected to pay for this. Why? Why are the poorest members of society who can't escape the grid - why are those people expected to suffer with $1,000 winter electricity bills simply because of a rush to a method of generating electricity that doesn't necessarily solve the imaginary problem anyway.

I know that this isn't the sole reason why we have almost the highest electricity rates in the world - but given that the working class are suffering a huge drop in living standards and loss of traditional good jobs to off-shore I think expecting them to foot the bill simply because they're captive to the grid is yet another kick in guts.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Still struggle getting my head around the fact we can export ship loads of the black stuff overseas to be burnt, yet reluctant to burn it here.
However, had Abbott not been elected in 2013 on the platform of axe the tax remember the $550 pa that Aussie housewives had to spend which has surely been absorbed by subsequent price rises. We would have had an ETS years ago, and the market would have determined the course of power generation. Any studies into that scenario?
michaelgm
History will show Australia to be hypocritical to its own economic demise.

We have the bulk of the world's Uranium, we mine it, we sell it, but neither process it, use it or allow its disposal. Thus pi$$ing against the wall a highly technical job wise and profitable industry and NIMBY'ism to its waste.

We have the bulk of the world's cleanest thermal coal, we mine it, we sell it, but are afraid to use it to supply energy intensive industries that are both highly technical job wise and very profitable.

We have a large chunk of the world's cleanest gas, but again sell it off shore to be used by others and deny ourselves energy and industry that would both be technical and profitable.

Meanwhile our unemployed and underemployed cannot afford to turn their lights on because we are forcing RE technology to do what its not good at doing.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Plus Michaelgm, it's a thirty to forty year transition to renewables,not over night like a number of people seem to think.
wobert
Which is what many of us are trying to say and not actually against RE, just blind stupidity on what a solar panel and wind turbine can actually achieve..
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Nobody can answer my fundamental question: The people left behind on the grid who can't afford to buy their own mini-power plants are the ones being expected to pay for this. Why? Why are the poorest members of society who can't escape the grid - why are those people expected to suffer with $1,000 winter electricity bills simply because of a rush to a method of generating electricity that doesn't necessarily solve the imaginary problem anyway.

I know that this isn't the sole reason why we have almost the highest electricity rates in the world - but given that the working class are suffering a huge drop in living standards and loss of traditional good jobs to off-shore I think expecting them to foot the bill simply because they're captive to the grid is yet another kick in guts.
don_dunstan
I know you have a personal involvement in this issue because you have made it apparent before, and I sympathise. It obviously chews at you.

In reality the situation is no different to back in the 1960's when small farming towns were still being connected to electricity. Those connected later rather than sooner would naturally feel condemned to the hard path, whether it be by geographical or economic circumstances. Did you know that Walhalla, a famous Victorian ex-gold mining town, was not connected to mains power until 1998? It is only 28km as the crow flies to Yallourn power station! Oh, to have electricity, at any cost!!!

I'm gonna blur the lines again here an briefly pretend I'm in the Economy thread. You have previously posted, in a similar vein, that globalisation doesn't work (I agree with you on a micro, not macro level), but surely you cannot deny that the half a BILLION people lifted out of poverty in China is a greater benefit than those not benefiting yet. Some people will always be left behind; it is nothing more than bad luck that you are personally involved with some of them. But that is no excuse to dis the greater good.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
it is apparent now why we find each other to be not on the same page.

I keep banging on about the proven unreliability of generation hardware which is prone to frequent breakages, and you keep banging on about blackouts which are caused by downstream issues that have nothing to do with the source of supply.

No hard feelings.
DirtyBallast
Well I've been trying for sometime now to explain the error in your thinking but you won't pay attention. Smile

Who said I was pointing to down stream issues? (again your error) I was simply looking at the physics of the technology capability.

For example
PV - > P stands for Photon, no photon's no output.

Wind Power - Requires changes in atmospheric pressure to move air from one place to another via a wind turbine. No wind, no wind turbine motion.

At no time am I debating against the laws of physics.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
You can sorta go by the amount of investment in renewables annually.  The graph in this gives a bit of an idea what's going on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-18/renewable-energy-investment-hits-new-high/9339482


You can see where Abbott started to get the ascendancy as Labor imploded,then fell off a cliff when the LNP won the election.But with the stupidity of the Coalition, the gas gouge has wiped out by 10 fold or more the actual rather small impost of the carbon price. So now the gas gouge and price gouging  is actually doing what the carbon price was meant to achieve. The problem is, instead of the government raking in money from the carbon price,and distributing it in compensation and research /development, the present mob are spending a few billion annually to pay polluters to stop.Something like that anyway.

 If the carbon price had been allowed to transition to a carbon trading scheme like it was originally intended we' be a lot further down the track. But the free marketers in the LNP decided that wasn't a free market they wanted. Not enough big donors.
wobert
The problem with the carbon tax was that it was a social equalisation tax which left little in the right hands for investment and R&D. It rarely taxed polluting industry's or factorys to enable others to thrive, rather most simply left the country if they could or just passed on the extra cost with no reduction in CO2 or expected future reduction in CO2. This is why the Carbon trading scheme in the EU has mostly fallen over.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It has also proven to be exceedingly dirty, which is why it is being phased out - it is not economically feasable to clean up current emmissions or those of the past hundred years.
allan
Matter of opinion, although you have never explained yours nor demonstrated how the baseload will be viably replaced.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
  • NEM  National Electricity Market
  • LCOB  Levelised cost of balancing
  • LCOE  Levelised cost of electricity
  • PV   Photo Voltaic
  • PHES   Phumped Hydro Energy Storage
  • HVDC  High Voltage Direct Current (transmission)
  • AEMO  Australian Energy Market Operator
  • SFA    which is what this post means to me  WTF?
It's pointless giving a translation of abbreviations in a subsequent post - the quotation still remains senseless, because it is still full of jargon. If the quotation cannot be upgraded to plain English, don't post it: if it can be upgraded to plain English, upgrade it before you post it.

No-one gains kudos by posting material that is beyond the comprehension of the rest of us. You may as well post it in Chinese! Show us how well you undestand this material by making it readable, if necessary by attaching a translation after the quotation.

I'm still not sure if this is a call to dumb it down, or smarten it up.  I'll give the dumbed down version.

Levelised Cost of Electricity - in this context: generation - is a standarised measure of the cost of generating power that is sold into the grid.  Levelised means the cost of fuel, rent, admin, capital, maintenance, spillage/wastage, capacity factors, weather variance, time cost of money, warm up and warm down costs, trips - everything - is taken into account.

Levelised Cost of Balancing - something Blaker's basically made up for his report - is the *extra* cost required to meet the 99.998% availability across the entire SE Australia grid - *if* the grid were powered with 100% renewable energy generation.  This includes the cost of excess power generated but not sent out, transmission infrastructure to achieve geographic diversity, grid scale storage (ie pumped hydro, which is currently the cheapest option) - everything - *all* the costs needed to achieve 99.998% reliability from 100% renewable energy generation.

The Blakers study worked out how much RE generation and support infrastructure was required based on the historical weather and electricity consumption data.  From this, he came up with whole of system production costs of:

$75/MWh in the mid 2020s - being $50/Mwh (anticipated) generation from RE and $25/Mwh "balancing".
$103/MWh using 2016 pricing - being $75/Mwh generation from RE and $28/Mwh "balancing".

"This can be compared with the current wholesale market price in Australia of about $60/MWh.
Another comparator is that the estimated LCOE from a new supercritical black coal power station in
Australia is $80/MWh
"

I urge anyone with any serious interest in this topic to find and read at least some of these reports.  If you really don't have the Internet nous to find them, PM me your eMail address and I'll mail you the PDFs (they aren't that big).

It's a lie, it's a con.

That's precisely how I feel about the New Ltd opinion piece you posted a link to.

@don_dunstan, I have a very different view of the future - and an appropriate future - for the Aussie energy sector ... but ... I tend to agree with this assessment.  Our "investment" in RE to date has been very poorly targeted and largely ineffective.  It's been little more than a gesture, and perhaps an empty one at that.

The fact is we now have a cartel operating most of Australia's energy sector, and we now enjoy the highest retail prices in the world.  As far as I'm concerned, "the big lie and big con" is that this is all the result of green ideology, when obviously it's not.  (A good lie always has an element of truth to it).  

IMHO the stuffups in our renewable energy efforts are being used as a fig leaf for profiteering all across the energy sector, and also to ward off much needed reforms to address this.
djf01
I fixed the error above

So in 10 years time, RE power out put will be $50MWh plus another $25Mwh to fund both chemical and hydro storage, HV lines and geographic diversity of power generation. So basically the cost of building dams and pumps will magically decline significantly, maybe by 90%?

Note wind power turbine size has not changed significantly in last 5 to 8 years. The Vestas 7MW unit from 2013'ish still hasn't been industrialised.
  allan Chief Commissioner

Still struggle getting my head around the fact we can export ship loads of the black stuff overseas to be burnt, yet reluctant to burn it here.
However, had Abbott not been elected in 2013 on the platform of axe the tax remember the $550 pa that Aussie housewives had to spend which has surely been absorbed by subsequent price rises. We would have had an ETS years ago, and the market would have determined the course of power generation. Any studies into that scenario?
History will show Australia to be hypocritical to its own economic demise.

We have the bulk of the world's Uranium, we mine it, we sell it, but neither process it, use it or allow its disposal. Thus pi$$ing against the wall a highly technical job wise and profitable industry and NIMBY'ism to its waste.

We have the bulk of the world's cleanest thermal coal, we mine it, we sell it, but are afraid to use it to supply energy intensive industries that are both highly technical job wise and very profitable.

We have a large chunk of the world's cleanest gas, but again sell it off shore to be used by others and deny ourselves energy and industry that would both be technical and profitable.

Meanwhile our unemployed and underemployed cannot afford to turn their lights on because we are forcing RE technology to do what its not good at doing.
RTT_Rules
I'm sure that it will come as no surprise that I am somewhat more optimistic than you! Despite the best efforts of our Federal "Government" to sink the country it remains a pretty good place to be.

I understand the sentiment that stops us from using uranium. While I disagree with that sentiment, I still think that the biggest impediment to its use is economic. As for processing, and permanent disposal of the waste, I do not understand why not.

The ownership of Australia's natural gas is philosophical: as it stands, he who finds the gas (or other natural resources) effectively owns it, and has the sole right to dispose of it. My philosophy says that's wrong. Though if Uranium can be an exception...

The third world has effectively been given dispensation to burn coal so that their economies can get a start. In years to come the third world will realise that that is a mistake, as it is the third world that will bear the worst effects of an already overheated planet.

(There has to be a better term than "third world" - perhaps "developing world" might be better. I'm just showing my age.)

As for RE, the electricity suppliers are clearly confident that with research into RE still in its early days, yet still able to replace more conventional generation, they have no need to build new powerhouses, because by the time the ones that they own are worn out (in some cases 20-30 years) RE will have grown up.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
I'm gonna blur the lines again here an briefly pretend I'm in the Economy thread. You have previously posted, in a similar vein, that globalisation doesn't work (I agree with you on a micro, not macro level), but surely you cannot deny that the half a BILLION people lifted out of poverty in China is a greater benefit than those not benefiting yet. Some people will always be left behind; it is nothing more than bad luck that you are personally involved with some of them. But that is no excuse to dis the greater good.
DirtyBallast
It isn't that globalisation doesn't work (it works really well if you are highly educated, rich, have in-demand skills etc), it's the fact that it doesn't work for a sizeable proportion of us. In this country there's millions of people whose living standards are falling because (in part) of globalisation and nobody in the chattering classes cares because it doesn't affect them. Its not just the deprivation of traditionally stable, well-paid manufacturing jobs and their replacement with poorly paid service industry jobs; it's the fact that the gas cartel and the doubling of the electricity price has affected the poor the hardest and very few people in authority seem to care.

And fact that we've been exploited so ruthlessly by the gas cartel tends to demonstrate how easily our government has been permeated and corrupted by big business to the extent that our gas gets sold in Japan for a fraction of the cost that it costs us to buy it domestically - shades of the Irish Potato Famine.

We need to take back our country.
  DJPeters Assistant Commissioner

I know where we could get all the power we need and from gas as well. Add a giant collector in Parliament house over the members there and collect all the hot air they come out with and we would never run out of power ever again using this method!LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing
  Aaron Minister for Railways

Location: University of Adelaide SA
DirtyBallast, your solar inverter might be ‘six years old and never missed a beat’ (news flash, it likely has missed a beat and you’ve just not noticed it) but ‘missing a beat’ isn’t the general failure mode of your inverter.

The failure mode will look like this: likely a hot day, a bit of demand from your house, a bit of supply from your PV array, a slight waft of cloud, a drop in voltage, a necessary increase in current demand. The output FETs of your inverter will call ‘last drinks’ and that will be the last she’ll chooch.

Your inverter won’t fail gracefully, giving you some subtle warning sign (that you wouldn’t even notice even if it gave you one).

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.