You asked a question, I gave you a detailed answer.You did not give an answer to the question I was asking. And you did that on purpose because you don't know the answer.
What else do you want?
And the problem with your "coal is too expensive" and "let's buy more renewables" thesis is that we've already been spending much more on renewables than other countries and NOT spending enough on coal and gas which are needed to back up the very occasionally-working windmills and solar panels:What do you expect from this post? A medal for when the posting the dumbest of dumb arsed statistics?
The problem will be simply solved by reserving a portion of coal and gas for domestic use only and building high-efficiency power plants across the country to put redundancy in our dangerously unreliable and expensive power system which is becoming way too dependent on unreliables.
Corrected.You asked a question, I gave you a detailed answer.You did not give an answer to the question I was asking. And you did that on purpose because you don't know the answer.
What else do you want?
Just say "I don't know the answer to that question" and leave it at that. Anything less is just gutless obfuscation of the kind we get from the "green" movement don_dunstan every single day.
1min on OPENEM and you can see by the bid price what produces the cheapest power.Take away the subsidies - direct and indirect - and then we can talk.
Solar $ 240/MWh
Wind $ 382
Brown coal $ 398 (read the coal not influenced by export prices)
Black coal $ 425
Corrected.You have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this discussion so all you have is an insult. Well done.
Solar $ 240/MWhSolar is not operating in South Australia right now - and wind isn't really contributing any meaningful amounts either, only 7% of our total demand right now. There's not enough wind - not nearly enough - to power our state.
Wind $ 382
You have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this discussion so all you have is an insult. Well done.Just an observation. Thank you.
As myself and others have told you a few times now. Conspriacy theories work until you step out of your narrow box. As I said in that post you can look up the cost of full lifecycle cost of electricty from a number of websites using the LCOE costs which are external of subsidises. So don't ask questions or make statements for which you have already been given answers to.1min on OPENEM and you can see by the bid price what produces the cheapest power.Take away the subsidies - direct and indirect - and then we can talk.
Solar $ 240/MWh
Wind $ 382
Brown coal $ 398 (read the coal not influenced by export prices)
Black coal $ 425
And I was asking you what it would cost for Australia to build eight times more solar panels and wind farms than we have now and you still can't answer.
Again, don't get angry at me - get angry at the fact that there's no estimated cost for Australia going to net zero because they don't want to frighten the people with how much it will cost.
Don't answer me unless you have a figure for how much it will cost us to go to net zero.Corrected.My contribution to this discussion is an insult.
As myself and others have told you a few times now. Conspriacy theories work until you step out of your narrow box. As I said in that post you can look up the cost of full lifecycle cost of electricty from a number of websites using the LCOE costs which are external of subsidises. So don't ask questions or make statements for which you have already been given answers to.You don't answer my question - yet again - and this time you throw in some gas-lighting as if to try and cover for the fact that you don't have anything at all.
Just an observation. Thank you.These are really deadly serious questions for the future of our nation - how much will the kind of transition to Net Zero 2050 actually cost us? Will we even be able to afford it?
Oh looky.
Is this case closed to most of your argument Don?
What is your question Don?As myself and others have told you a few times now. Conspriacy theories work until you step out of your narrow box. As I said in that post you can look up the cost of full lifecycle cost of electricty from a number of websites using the LCOE costs which are external of subsidises. So don't ask questions or make statements for which you have already been given answers to.You don't answer my question - yet again - and this time you throw in some gas-lighting as if to try and cover for the fact that you don't have anything at all.
For someone who pretends to be an expert on all things renewable in Australia, when it comes to the actual cost of installing the future capacity that we're supposed to install - as I said another eight times what we've already spent - you obfuscate and dive off on a tangent hoping that I won't notice you can't answer.
As I said earlier - if you can't answer then just say "I can't answer". Don't gas-light, don't wander off on a foreign tangent - just say "I can't answer".Just an observation. Thank you.These are really deadly serious questions for the future of our nation - how much will the kind of transition to Net Zero 2050 actually cost us? Will we even be able to afford it?
What if the answer is a trillion dollars? Not out of the question given that we've been told upgrading the grid to cope with more renewables is going to be a hundred billion. Where does the money come from given our government are already a trillion dollars in the hole thanks to COVID19.
Don't these questions worry you?
It has everything to do what we are talking. Private sector with a baseload demand looking for RE replacement of its coal fired electricty source from the private sector.Oh looky.
Is this case closed to most of your argument Don?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing.
Not once in that article do they mention the taxpayer dollars that Rio Tinto will be harvesting from their construction of that solar plant - nor do they mention the actual cost of the plant either.It has everything to do what we are talking. Private sector with a baseload demand looking for RE replacement of its coal fired electricty source from the private sector.Oh looky.
Is this case closed to most of your argument Don?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing.
What is your question Don?Of course they're real - and they'll be passed on directly to consumers. Sky;
Well I seem to know more about what is going in SA power than you do Don!
Yes Don its affordable and well within the lifecyle cost of a new coal power station.
What Trillion dollar Don, HELLO this is Australia, not USA Don.
Will there be $100B additional spent on the grid? How. The HV grid (everything at or over 132 kV) as it exists today didn't got $100B. However like the existing infrastructure the HV costs are not funded by the govt, rather by the operators who then collect revenue.
No Don, I'm not worried as I don't consider these fancy numbers to be real.
Of course they're real - and they'll be passed on directly to consumers. Sky;You broke a record for the dumbest post.
Economist Andrew Stone says power companies “are not charities” and costs have to be passed on and “paid by someone”.
Labor has released a plan called ‘Rewiring the Nation’ which involves upgrading the electricity grid to incorporate renewable energy sources and driving down power prices.
“If you’re asking power companies to spend around $60 billion on changes to the grid, upgrades to the grid to be able to handle all of this renewable energy … that has to be passed on,” Mr Stone told Sky News host Peta Credlin.
“That was a large part, along with the carbon tax, of why electricity prices doubled under the last Labor government, so I’m surprised they are wading into this area again in such a fashion.”
The total figure bandied around by the Greens in 2020 was $100,000,000,000 to upgrade the HV network to be compatible with renewable energy - so sixty billion is probably just the start. And consumers will directly pay for this one way or another, either through increased taxes or through increased electricity bills. This is at a time when the cost of reliable baseload power is going through the roof because of the refusal to invest in new gas or coal plants.
But people like you think the Australian people are just a bottomless pit of money - right? You really have a penchant for socialist schemes where Aussie taxpayer and power consumer money is giving directly to needy multinationals like Rio Tinto and Qantas - why?
And please check your grammar - "didn't got" ain't proper English.
What is your evidence they will? SO you just making smeg up as you go now.Not once in that article do they mention the taxpayer dollars that Rio Tinto will be harvesting from their construction of that solar plant - nor do they mention the actual cost of the plant either.It has everything to do what we are talking. Private sector with a baseload demand looking for RE replacement of its coal fired electricty source from the private sector.Oh looky.
Is this case closed to most of your argument Don?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we were discussing.
You consistently dodge questions about the cost to the people of Australia and the dollar figures attached to these projects because you simply don't know. As I've pointed out to you time and time again, these big companies make investments in this kind of infrastructure because they're being paid to do it - not because of some wonderful outstanding ideas of community service or because they think fossil fuels have had their day. They're doing it because various schemes provide money for them to harvest and they want that money for themselves.
If you took away the extremely generous subsidies they wouldn't be interested.
What is your evidence they will? SO you just making smeg up as you go now.Again with diesel, which is the most carbon spewing source of electricity there is. And why do we have to have diesel in the system? Because renewables regularly don't show up for work - and it doesn't matter how theroretcially cheap these things are because they still need to be backed up by gas, diesel and coal or there will be blackouts.
You have never provided any evidence to suggest that is actually true in recent times. I've provided evidence of actual costs were I know there are no subsidies and its done through open tender.
No questions were dodged Don, you just cannot handle the truth.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/01/21/renewable-energy-prices-hit-record-lows-how-can-utilities-benefit-from-unstoppable-solar-and-wind/?sh=125770d72c84
LCOE 2020 numbers
LCOE analysis, unsubsidized wind power and utility-scale solar come in at lower price ranges than any other analyzed resource including gas, coal, and nuclear. Unsubsidized wind ranges from $28–$54 per megawatt hour (MWh), and unsubsidized utility-scale solar ranges from $32–$42/MWh
From USA EIA website
Table 1b. Estimated unweighted levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) for new resources entering service in 2027 (2021 dollars per megawatthour)
Total system LCOE, with tax credit ie subsidy
Despatchable
Ultra Super critical coal $83/MW
CCGT $40
Adv Nuc $88
Limited by resource
Wind onshore $40
Solar $36
Reserve/peak/storage
OCGT $117
Battery $128
Goes to show, again gas is half the cost of coal, far more flexible, cheaper and faster to construct, far more flexible and we wonder why in the USA no one has built a coal power station in over 17 years. Why on earth would we follow the stupidity of building out dated power generation infrastruture?
Wind and Solar provide similar or cheaper prices to CCGT, basically build and from then on not reliant on others for your energy fuel source.
For peaking, low wind/solar, the obvious of using OCGT and/or battery, as we do now + diesel. We also have an existing hydro network to provide up to 10GW of on demand energy and can absorb around 3-4 GW of excess energy for another day.
The electricity generators are gaming the network to push up prices and maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else.Well imagine that! A business trying to maximise their profits, who would've thought?
The electricity generators are gaming the network to push up prices and maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else.Nationalising something that used to be a State responsibility and then got privatised?
Cough.... Nationalize it ....Cough
The French owners of our gas power plants here in SA were accused of price gouging by leaving them off-line at times of low wind a few years back - they get better prices if they turn it on at the last minute.The electricity generators are gaming the network to push up prices and maximise their profits at the expense of everyone else.Well imagine that! A business trying to maximise their profits, who would've thought?
Goes to show, again gas is half the cost of coal, far more flexible, cheaper and faster to construct, far more flexible and we wonder why in the USA no one has built a coal power station in over 17 years. Why on earth would we follow the stupidity of building out dated power generation infrastruture?If coal is so stupid then why is everyone building coal-fired power plants - I mean even Japan is doing it.
Starting with, I’m all for cleaner energy. The current regulatory framework is clearly not up to snuff. If the planned closure of Liddell and Eraring go ahead, I see a clusterfark of epic proportions. See other thread for uncertainty for investment. And the privatisation experience, well…..Goes to show, again gas is half the cost of coal, far more flexible, cheaper and faster to construct, far more flexible and we wonder why in the USA no one has built a coal power station in over 17 years. Why on earth would we follow the stupidity of building out dated power generation infrastruture?If coal is so stupid then why is everyone building coal-fired power plants - I mean even Japan is doing it.
