The 'renewable' energy thread -

 
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Don, grid users obviously, as in consumers.

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
RTT Rules:

Sorry but that's not an adequate response. You haven't linked anything, you don't actually refute any of my arguments.

$1.3 trillion for zero emissions by 2050 would be pretty accurate, the ALP wouldn't release their costing prior to the 2019 election but they were looking at a really rapid expenditure of money in the vicinity of three to four hundred billion over five years to put us down the path. So $1.3 trillion by 2050 seems fairly conservative.

The fact is that we'll go broke as a nation before we get even halfway to the goal of imaginary zero emissions - hell, we're already broke now but we just aren't feeling the effects of it yet.
The largest investments to date and have nothing to do with RE was the progressive uprading of the inter state connections and there were nuemous reasons to do this long before RE. And of the money spent to date, IS DOES NOT EQUAL ANYWHERE NEAR $100B. Again Don's gross over the top numbers being thrown around without reference or meaning.
RTT_Rules
It certainly does equal a hundred billion: The brain-dead greenies themselves are the ones saying we have to spend exactly that on a whole new grid to support unreliables: Renew Ecconomy

So do I get a "sorry Mister Dunstan, you were right - as usual"?
5) Cost of power generation construction per MW is related to the materials you use. The more you use, the more it costs. Surprise coal is one of the more expensive. Statistica, wiki and numerous other resources will tell you this is because of the high amount of concrete and steel being used.
RTT_Rules
You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it for you - do you have any evidence that building a coal-fired power station uses more steel and more concrete than the equivalent wind farm? You say that building a coal fired power plant would be much more expensive and consume more resources than an equivalent wind farm (which usually only runs at around 15% capacity anyway compared to the control you have over a coal fired plant) but then you produce no evidence to back up what you're saying.

There's nothing wrong with backing down and saying "I don't know". But in this case you've said you do know the answer. So what is it?
Most of the RE solar farms in Vic and NSW were built never existing HV lines and sized to the capacity of the HV line.
RTT_Rules
I'll ask you again: Who pays for the huge network of HV lines that will be required to ensure there's some redundancy in the system? Certainly not the providers of the unreliable and intermittent wind farms.
7) There are about the equivalent of 1,000,000 x 6,6 kW PV systems. If installed new without subsidy tomorrow this would be less than $6-8 B. The older mostly smaller systems were heavly subsidised, the newer ones far less so and declining over the coming few years. The feed in tariff is being normalised with the grid prices.
RTT_Rules
Question: If you're not going to heavily subsidise feed-in tariffs for solar systems then how will you get people to buy them? I knew people who rushed out an bought home solar systems under Rann (here in South Australia) and the sole reason they were doing it was for the generous feed-in tariffs well above what the electricity was actually worth. Almost everyone I know who has bought these rubbish systems have only done so on the promise that the feed-in tariffs will ensure they have no power bills (it almost never works out that way incidentally).

So without those generous feed-in tariffs paid for by other grid users how are you going to get private individuals to spend many thousands of dollars on a Chinese-made rooftop system that will probably conk out after eight years?
Never said I agreed with the subsidies from day 1. The transition to RE must be based on commerical rates or return.
RTT_Rules
The entire green energy enterprise is build and runs on the very heaviest subsidies that the government can be persuaded to throw at it. Seven percent of every single electricity bill in this country (via RET) goes directly to subsidise the installation of intermittent and unreliable energy sources provided by multinationals and billionaires like Malcolm Turnbull's huge, commercial 'charity' - and that's just ONE rather large direct subsidy. I'm not counting tax concessions, direct capital grants or the subsidies given to home solar power plants by other grid users.

If subsidies disappeared overnight so would the 'green energy' industry; it can't exist without the huge wealth transfer from grid users and taxpayers to their pockets.

Anyway if you want to actually respond - particularly on the amount of resources used in a wind farm versus the equivalent coal-fired power plant - please make sure you are equipped with actual links that demonstrate your case otherwise I'm simply going to ignore you.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Don, grid users obviously, as in consumers.
wobert
But this is the point that I find the most objectionable: The very poorest (usually residential renters) people are the ones who have to pay to provide the middle class with the higher feed-in rates that make home solar systems economical. They aren't viable without that subsidy.

So it's a wealth transfer from the people who can least afford it to the people who already have money and don't really need it.

The poor get screwed in this country - again.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Ummm just a point, whatever it costs to get to NET zero, the vast majority of the money will be provided by  business. and not the taxpayer.
wobert
Business cannot just pick up the extra costs if not applied to OS competitors and expect them to remain viable.

The transition to RE must be done using technology that competes with coal without a subsidy. The taxpayer will however pick up the tab for some of the transition as they have done for the last 10 years in various forms, but this must also be constrained to strategic projects with non standard payback periods, ie pumped hydro etc that may take up to 50 years to cover recover.

I think something many will agree is that too much subsidy money was thrown at roof top PV in the first 5 or so years and now the govt is trapped trying to find a politcally friendly exit strategy. However its worth noting that most of the most favoruale feed in tariffs are heavily restricted in that zero modifications or upgrades can be made to the installation without looisng the feed in tariff rate. But the owners need to consider benefits of upgrading or replacing older smaller installations with newer ones with up to 4 x the output.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Ummm just a point, whatever it costs to get to NET zero, the vast majority of the money will be provided by  business. and not the taxpayer.
Business cannot just pick up the extra costs if not applied to OS competitors and expect them to remain viable.

RTT_Rules
Yes, the carbon tariffs are coming.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT Rules:

Sorry but that's not an adequate response. You haven't linked anything, you don't actually refute any of my arguments.

$1.3 trillion for zero emissions by 2050 would be pretty accurate, the ALP wouldn't release their costing prior to the 2019 election but they were looking at a really rapid expenditure of money in the vicinity of three to four hundred billion over five years to put us down the path. So $1.3 trillion by 2050 seems fairly conservative.

The fact is that we'll go broke as a nation before we get even halfway to the goal of imaginary zero emissions - hell, we're already broke now but we just aren't feeling the effects of it yet.
The largest investments to date and have nothing to do with RE was the progressive uprading of the inter state connections and there were nuemous reasons to do this long before RE. And of the money spent to date, IS DOES NOT EQUAL ANYWHERE NEAR $100B. Again Don's gross over the top numbers being thrown around without reference or meaning.
It certainly does equal a hundred billion: The brain-dead greenies themselves are the ones saying we have to spend exactly that on a whole new grid to support unreliables: Renew Ecconomy

So do I get a "sorry Mister Dunstan, you were right - as usual"?
5) Cost of power generation construction per MW is related to the materials you use. The more you use, the more it costs. Surprise coal is one of the more expensive. Statistica, wiki and numerous other resources will tell you this is because of the high amount of concrete and steel being used.
You didn't answer the question. I'll repeat it for you - do you have any evidence that building a coal-fired power station uses more steel and more concrete than the equivalent wind farm? You say that building a coal fired power plant would be much more expensive and consume more resources than an equivalent wind farm (which usually only runs at around 15% capacity anyway compared to the control you have over a coal fired plant) but then you produce no evidence to back up what you're saying.

There's nothing wrong with backing down and saying "I don't know". But in this case you've said you do know the answer. So what is it?
Most of the RE solar farms in Vic and NSW were built never existing HV lines and sized to the capacity of the HV line.
I'll ask you again: Who pays for the huge network of HV lines that will be required to ensure there's some redundancy in the system? Certainly not the providers of the unreliable and intermittent wind farms.
7) There are about the equivalent of 1,000,000 x 6,6 kW PV systems. If installed new without subsidy tomorrow this would be less than $6-8 B. The older mostly smaller systems were heavly subsidised, the newer ones far less so and declining over the coming few years. The feed in tariff is being normalised with the grid prices.
Question: If you're not going to heavily subsidise feed-in tariffs for solar systems then how will you get people to buy them? I knew people who rushed out an bought home solar systems under Rann (here in South Australia) and the sole reason they were doing it was for the generous feed-in tariffs well above what the electricity was actually worth. Almost everyone I know who has bought these rubbish systems have only done so on the promise that the feed-in tariffs will ensure they have no power bills (it almost never works out that way incidentally).

So without those generous feed-in tariffs paid for by other grid users how are you going to get private individuals to spend many thousands of dollars on a Chinese-made rooftop system that will probably conk out after eight years?
Never said I agreed with the subsidies from day 1. The transition to RE must be based on commerical rates or return.
The entire green energy enterprise is build and runs on the very heaviest subsidies that the government can be persuaded to throw at it. Seven percent of every single electricity bill in this country (via RET) goes directly to subsidise the installation of intermittent and unreliable energy sources provided by multinationals and billionaires like Malcolm Turnbull's huge, commercial 'charity' - and that's just ONE rather large direct subsidy. I'm not counting tax concessions, direct capital grants or the subsidies given to home solar power plants by other grid users.

If subsidies disappeared overnight so would the 'green energy' industry; it can't exist without the huge wealth transfer from grid users and taxpayers to their pockets.

Anyway if you want to actually respond - particularly on the amount of resources used in a wind farm versus the equivalent coal-fired power plant - please make sure you are equipped with actual links that demonstrate your case otherwise I'm simply going to ignore you.
don_dunstan
Neither did you.

again $1300 B, are you even serious posting this number?

- 30 GW in Nuclear power is around $140 B and thats some of the more expensive power.
- HV lines, whats the cost of building 100km  1000 MW NSW - SA, / $2.4B. So lets say 20 of these, thats $50B

Total less than $200 B, most of which needed to spent anyway. So yes Don $1.3T is pure fantansy land and allowing yourself to be caught up in this crap is not saying much.

You just quoted 15% wind farm availability and you expect me to waist time getting data for you? You know wind farms are normally rated 30 - 40%.
I gave you references before, Statsitica, wiki etc. Enjoy

The same people who paid for the HV links are the same who paid for the ones we have.

FIL has a 3.5 kW solar system,  power bill is now less than $30/month
BIL has a 6.6 kW solar systems, power bill is negative for the year

PV solar works.
The subsidy price today is small and decreasing and only I think maybe 5 years to go to be zero.

The power stations are also Chinese made. Roof top PV if you don't buy the cheap products is goo for 20 - 25 years.

Ironically Green power is being built in country's with far cheaper power peoples than Australia.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Ummm just a point, whatever it costs to get to NET zero, the vast majority of the money will be provided by  business. and not the taxpayer.
Business cannot just pick up the extra costs if not applied to OS competitors and expect them to remain viable.
Yes, the carbon tariffs are coming.
wobert
We don't need these stupid tariffs and commonsense should demonstrate that because the last 7 years have achieved ongoing reduction in emissions so why bring in more buraccy and tax on business. Overall they are ineffectual, creates and unequal playing field for business and a social welfare scheme in disguise.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
Ummmm yeah... okay what! wow dont bother and i wont tell anyone
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Ummmm yeah... okay what! wow dont bother and i wont tell anyone
wobert
(lost for words that actually means omething?)

Reminder of the abject failure of the last carbon tax in Australia

- Taxed rail, didn't tax truck
- Taxed PT, didn't tax cars
- Taxed industry with no technical alternative
- Taxed higher income earners to Compensated lower income.

Since 2013 when the carbon tax was repealed, yet moves to reduce Australia's carbon foot print per capita are ongoing with plans in place to accelerate following the retirement of some aging coal power stations. Previous closure of coal power stations didn't always save that much CO2 production as most of the capacity was shifted to the remaining fleet.

The closure of HAzellwood had the biggest impact mostly because it was a high CO2/MW operation, not because that power was switched to RE as most wasn't. Most of the output simply shifting to increased production from more efficent Qld and NSW coal power stations, hence why the interconnector to Qld is being upgraded.

All up since 2015 the share of coal has decreased steadily at the rate of around 2% pa, all without a CO2 tax, so why return to a strategy that just makes things more expensive for not practical outcome? Most of the claimed benefit of cO2 reduction from 2010 - 2013 is actually the outcome of two aluminium smelters closing along with their power supplies. Yah for stupidity.

Don waffled on about renters which are more often than not lower income miss out on solar incentives or ignoring the political part, benefits of solar power. Is this really any different to the car they drive or another else?
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
I wasn't talking carbon tax, carbon tariffs   you know the things Europe is going to put on recalcitrant countries like Aus if we keep voting for the LNP morons.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
...

Don waffled on about renters which are more often than not lower income miss out on solar incentives or ignoring the political part, benefits of solar power. Is this really any different to the car they drive or another else?
RTT_Rules
The fact that they can't afford the middle class subsidies that flow on from Chinese-made solar plants only proves that its their fault for being poor. Right?
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Neither did you.
RTT_Rules
Where is my apology for confirming that $100,000,000 would need to be spent on the grid to make it compatible with 'green' energy?
- 30 GW in Nuclear power is around $140 B and thats some of the more expensive power. - HV lines, whats the cost of building 100km 1000 MW NSW - SA, / $2.4B. So lets say 20 of these, thats $50B Total less than $200 B, most of which needed to spent anyway. So yes Don $1.3T is pure fantansy land and allowing yourself to be caught up in this crap is not saying m
RTT_Rules
Let me help you frame an apology to me for being right:

"Sorry Mister Dunstan but you were right, as usual. You presented a well researched article by the greenies that said a hundred billion for a new HV network to support unreliable wind and solar was on the money. As usual you spent a few minutes researching something and found a link that proved your case whereas I was pulling figures from thin air yet again and trying to pass them off as fact. Mea culpa."
You just quoted 15% wind farm availability and you expect me to waist time getting data for you?
RTT_Rules
It was a Chinese study into wind farm efficiency that found typically they only have an annual output that's 15% of plated capacity. If I find it again I'll post it.

And you never actually get data, just like you did above you pull make-believe figures out of the air and then try and pass them off as fact.

I'm really just 'waisting' my time here aren't I.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
Don, grid users obviously, as in consumers.
But this is the point that I find the most objectionable: The very poorest (usually residential renters) people are the ones who have to pay to provide the middle class with the higher feed-in rates that make home solar systems economical. They aren't viable without that subsidy.
don_dunstan
We've talked about this before, haven't we, and it doesn't matter how high the stack of bibles I swear by, or how many car keys I put on the table etc. to convince you otherwise, nothing will cure you of your deaf dumb and blind position.

You once called me a liar when I stated that I don't care about feed in tariffs, and in fact, I stated that I didn't care if they were zero. The reason I gave is that I am more than happy for the 30 - 40c per kw/h that I save myself from having to buy, compared to the 10c per kw/h that I can sell for when my panels generate excess.  

So, I will repeat. I don't care about feed in tariffs, and in fact, I don't care if they were zero. I am more than happy for the 30 - 40c per kw/h that I save myself from having to buy, compared to the 10c per kw/h that I can sell for when my panels generate excess.

Feed-in rates are only important for people called Karen that think that solar panels are all about being an investment to make money, rather than being what they actually are - an asset which saves money.

Feed-in rates are unimportant to me, and are not and never have been the deciding factor to make my system economical. Claiming that feed-in rates are the deciding factor is merely peddling misinformation. But, unfortunately, there will always be a cohort of opponents that can't see through the spin that supports their position.

So, let's look after the poo-er people like yourself and make feed-in rates zero. Won't worry most panel owners one little bit. The systems will still pay for themselves like mine have. And our electricity bills will still be cheap, if there is a dollar amount to pay at all, time after time after time etc.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Neither did you.
Where is my apology for confirming that $100,000,000 would need to be spent on the grid to make it compatible with 'green' energy?
- 30 GW in Nuclear power is around $140 B and thats some of the more expensive power. - HV lines, whats the cost of building 100km 1000 MW NSW - SA, / $2.4B. So lets say 20 of these, thats $50B Total less than $200 B, most of which needed to spent anyway. So yes Don $1.3T is pure fantansy land and allowing yourself to be caught up in this crap is not saying m
Let me help you frame an apology to me for being right:

"Sorry Mister Dunstan but you were right, as usual. You presented a well researched article by the greenies that said a hundred billion for a new HV network to support unreliable wind and solar was on the money. As usual you spent a few minutes researching something and found a link that proved your case whereas I was pulling figures from thin air yet again and trying to pass them off as fact. Mea culpa."
You just quoted 15% wind farm availability and you expect me to waist time getting data for you?
It was a Chinese study into wind farm efficiency that found typically they only have an annual output that's 15% of plated capacity. If I find it again I'll post it.

And you never actually get data, just like you did above you pull make-believe figures out of the air and then try and pass them off as fact.

I'm really just 'waisting' my time here aren't I.
don_dunstan
I gave you the well documented expected cost for one of the largest single HV line projects in the country and was no where near your so called numbers pf over $100B (I'll ignore your reference above to $100M) which you yourself have no validated. Probably build the entire network from scratch for less than the $100B's your mentioning. This is why I ask ou to think and not parrot.

One more time Don, $1.3T is fantasy land material. Look at the various projects that have actually been done and do the sums yourself.

So your refering now to China, the world's largest invester in RE and with a similar roll out to Australia, meanwhile Australia builds windfarms with typical 30 - 40% capacity factors, some are over 40%. Its called the Roaring 40's Don, you should know better than me you live closer to it.

You havn't provided a link, I've told you were you can find the data. I've posted much of this in the past but I didn't realise I was talking to a gold fish.

"I'm really just 'waisting' my time here aren't I" You've been wasting your time on this topic for years now and I'm sure it won't change anytime soon.

The lower income earners or renters cannot afford solar, they also cannot afford low fuel consumption cars either and with everything else Don. The feed in tarriff component is mute as no one installs PV solar on their roof just more to make money, its to save money. The feed in tarriffs are not worth chasing anymore as after other costs are involved and we have been discussing here for 10 years now the rates will ulimately drop as the numbers grow.

The move to charge to feed in is to solve the grid's evening peak issue.

If 5 million homes are installed with a battery and supply 1kW over a period of 5 hr from 5pm to 9pm, total of 4kWh / house (on average) the evening peak issue will be gone.

increase that to ~3 kW to 12 kWh then the even power demand will match that of 10pm which is when off-peak kick's in.

A Tesla Powerwall 2 costs about $15k installed (not the cheapest option), $75B replacing 5 GW of higher and very high cost peaking capacity that required minimal ongoing maintainence, no land, no HV, no extra cost in local distribution infact reducing peaking demand, no external energy apart from whats already coming from the roof, no operating staff and wil operate for over 15 years.

Yes pricey, battery technology isn't there yet on cost, but its not far away.  

No, this does not mean SCOMO's Gas Turbine and the others being built isn't needed, this will be required as extra capacity for about 10 years then due to its realatively modern design will enable retirement of older less efficent units.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I gave you the well documented expected cost for one of the largest single HV line projects in the country and was no where near your so called numbers pf over $100B (I'll ignore your reference above to $100M) which you yourself have no validated. Probably build the entire network from scratch for less than the $100B's your mentioning. This is why I ask ou to think and not parrot.
RTT_Rules
That's a really strange way of saying "Geez I'm sorry Mister Dunstan but you were right and I was wrong". You can keep arguing away but the fact is I've ripped your argument to shreds... again.

You gave a figure for ONE HV line which is not what's being discussed. They're talking about the modification of the entire NEM so that wind turbines in Queensland can (in theory) power a kettle in Tasmania - of course it's going to be really, really expensive.

That $100 billion figure for extensive modification of the grid is from the rabidly pro-unreliables Greens. They're hardly likely to over-estimate the cost of building redundancy into Australia's grid; they're the people who want the population to believe that this insane rush to unreliable sources of power not suited to maintaining a grid are in fact affordable so I'd say the hundred billion figure is probably very much under-quoted.
If 5 million homes are installed with a battery and supply 1kW over a period of 5 hr from 5pm to 9pm, total of 4kWh / house (on average) the evening peak issue will be gone.
RTT_Rules
The cost will be utterly insane... let's sit down and actually work it out.

Each Tesla Powerwall costs (retail) $14,000 to $16,000 (plus panels, plus installation) so the overall cost to Australia would be seventy to eighty billion dollars just for those batteries alone. Admittedly that's the largest 13.5 kv system they have so let's try and get the cost down for a nationally-scaleable and standardised system for you:

Assume you can get the cost of each of those batteries down to $5,000 for a much smaller scale 3-5 kv battery system (anything less isn't worth contemplating) and let's say the overall cost including installation and panels is $7,000 per household. That's still around $35,000,000,000 or thirty-five billion dollars. By way of comparison Australia's annual GDP is around $1.6 trillion AUD so you're still talking about finding a big chunk of our annual GDP to install five million solar systems with a lifespan of perhaps five to ten years before many will have broken inverters, charge/discharge efficiency issues and panel degradation - so perhaps ongoing maintenance costs of several billion dollars a year to keep it running (but who pays for that I wonder).

The grid will have to be modified with each sub-station in every neighbourhood reorganised to distribute power evenly across the grid at an additional cost of who knows how much - that's another cost that 'someone else' will pay for. And I'm still not sure who you're saying has to pay for the sunk capital cost of all those 'power plants' - the householder? The grid user? The taxpayer?

A few days of persistent cloud cover in winter across southern Australia combined with a slow-moving high pressure system will also render that system useless and we'll still have blackouts. But it's all a moot point anyway - even if you could get the cost down somehow to twenty billion dollars its still not affordable or practical in any sense.
The lower income earners or renters cannot afford solar, they also cannot afford low fuel consumption cars either and with everything else Don.
RTT_Rules
They shouldn't be shouldering the burden for paying middle class people to provide power to the grid at times that the grid doesn't need it. End-of-story. But the problem is that they ARE the ones paying for it through schemes like RET. To date green energy has been a story of a massive redistribution of money from those who can least afford it to those who really don't need it.

I know how much you hate the poor but I actually feel we have an obligation to not make their situation worse - you know - out of compassion for their plight.
The feed in tarriffs are not worth chasing anymore as after other costs are involved and we have been discussing here for 10 years now the rates will ulimately drop as the numbers grow.
RTT_Rules
People don't keep piling in to something where the returns are diminishing. I'm not sure what kind of strange world you live in but the fact that returns from installing a $10,000 or $20,000 solar plant at your house are going down tends to put people off spending that kind of money - not encourage them.

The only reason home solar was attractive here in South Australia was that former Premier Mike Rann ripped off the poorest grid users by forcing them to cross-subsidise those early entrants to the solar middle class welfare scheme with feed-in tariffs many times in excess of what the value of that electricity actually was. It was wonderful for those people who got in early, they got paid for destablising the grid by providing intermittent power at the very highest possible feed-in rates.

Those days are gone now and with feed-in rates at around 8 cents an hour (as they are for most people now out-of-contract or who got in late) the returns on a home solar plant simply aren't there any longer - and in fact if it's a very sunny day you can find your feed-in dumped from the system altogether here in South Australia and you won't get a red cent for it. Yet according to you without massive subsidies people will still continue to pile in.

Why would they do that? What's their financial motivation for installing a solar system (especially with no battery) if the feed in tariffs don't make it worthwhile? Unless you use all your power during the day and bugger all in the evening peak (which is nobody) then sinking capital into that thing won't be worth it despite what Dirty Ballast says. People don't spend ten or fifteen grand just so they can have warm fuzzies about the planet... well, normal people don't anyway.
______________

All round this is possibly one of the weakest arguments that you've ever come up with - especially the multi-billion dollar idea of five million households each having their own Chinese-made solar power plant on their roof together with battery, we've barely had any sun all week here in Adelaide, we'd almost certainly be in a blackout by now without gas back-up. Which we have to pay huge amounts of money for to keep on stand-by, just in case the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.

But by all means keep plodding away, deconstructing your wild and silly ideas is mildly amusing.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Hey, want to export stuff to the EU?

Reduce emissions or else:


Carrot and Stick approach I suppose.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Hey, want to export stuff to the EU?

Reduce emissions or else:

Carrot and Stick approach I suppose.
Carnot
So the world's number one carbon emitter - China - isn't subjected to those tariffs because they're a 'developing' nation but WE are? Shows what a load of horse sh*t this whole thing is.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

I understand that the tariff would apply to China as well.  USA is onboard with it too.

Infact China, India, and Brazil are mad about it. I for one support the EU proposal.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Hey, want to export stuff to the EU?

Reduce emissions or else:

Carrot and Stick approach I suppose.
So the world's number one carbon emitter - China - isn't subjected to those tariffs because they're a 'developing' nation but WE are? Shows what a load of horse sh*t this whole thing is.
don_dunstan
China's argument against the EU will be that depsite its large industrial base, its per capita consumed CO2 is much lower than the affluent EU and US.

China can also demonstrate its done alot more towards decarbonisation than the US.

Should China's exports be hit with what it would consider unfair import tariffs, it will immediately retaliate on high end imports from same country's and bang we are in a trade war, again!

The EU is also facing strong and to date sucessful push back by the Gulf states whom the EU knows are big buyers of its high exports and a significant contribution to tourism income.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
That's a really strange way of saying "Geez I'm sorry Mister Dunstan but you were right and I was wrong". You can keep arguing away but the fact is I've ripped your argument to shreds... again.

You gave a figure for ONE HV line which is not what's being discussed. They're talking about the modification of the entire NEM so that wind turbines in Queensland can (in theory) power a kettle in Tasmania - of course it's going to be really, really expensive.

That $100 billion figure for extensive modification of the grid is from the rabidly pro-unreliables Greens. They're hardly likely to over-estimate the cost of building redundancy into Australia's grid; they're the people who want the population to believe that this insane rush to unreliable sources of power not suited to maintaining a grid are in fact affordable so I'd say the hundred billion figure is probably very much under-quoted.
The cost will be utterly insane... let's sit down and actually work it out.

Each Tesla Powerwall costs (retail) $14,000 to $16,000 (plus panels, plus installation) so the overall cost to Australia would be seventy to eighty billion dollars just for those batteries alone. Admittedly that's the largest 13.5 kv system they have so let's try and get the cost down for a nationally-scaleable and standardised system for you:

Assume you can get the cost of each of those batteries down to $5,000 for a much smaller scale 3-5 kv battery system (anything less isn't worth contemplating) and let's say the overall cost including installation and panels is $7,000 per household. That's still around $35,000,000,000 or thirty-five billion dollars. By way of comparison Australia's annual GDP is around $1.6 trillion AUD so you're still talking about finding a big chunk of our annual GDP to install five million solar systems with a lifespan of perhaps five to ten years before many will have broken inverters, charge/discharge efficiency issues and panel degradation - so perhaps ongoing maintenance costs of several billion dollars a year to keep it running (but who pays for that I wonder).

The grid will have to be modified with each sub-station in every neighbourhood reorganised to distribute power evenly across the grid at an additional cost of who knows how much - that's another cost that 'someone else' will pay for. And I'm still not sure who you're saying has to pay for the sunk capital cost of all those 'power plants' - the householder? The grid user? The taxpayer?

A few days of persistent cloud cover in winter across southern Australia combined with a slow-moving high pressure system will also render that system useless and we'll still have blackouts. But it's all a moot point anyway - even if you could get the cost down somehow to twenty billion dollars its still not affordable or practical in any sense.
They shouldn't be shouldering the burden for paying middle class people to provide power to the grid at times that the grid doesn't need it. End-of-story. But the problem is that they ARE the ones paying for it through schemes like RET. To date green energy has been a story of a massive redistribution of money from those who can least afford it to those who really don't need it.

I know how much you hate the poor but I actually feel we have an obligation to not make their situation worse - you know - out of compassion for their plight.
People don't keep piling in to something where the returns are diminishing. I'm not sure what kind of strange world you live in but the fact that returns from installing a $10,000 or $20,000 solar plant at your house are going down tends to put people off spending that kind of money - not encourage them.

The only reason home solar was attractive here in South Australia was that former Premier Mike Rann ripped off the poorest grid users by forcing them to cross-subsidise those early entrants to the solar middle class welfare scheme with feed-in tariffs many times in excess of what the value of that electricity actually was. It was wonderful for those people who got in early, they got paid for destablising the grid by providing intermittent power at the very highest possible feed-in rates.

Those days are gone now and with feed-in rates at around 8 cents an hour (as they are for most people now out-of-contract or who got in late) the returns on a home solar plant simply aren't there any longer - and in fact if it's a very sunny day you can find your feed-in dumped from the system altogether here in South Australia and you won't get a red cent for it. Yet according to you without massive subsidies people will still continue to pile in.

Why would they do that? What's their financial motivation for installing a solar system (especially with no battery) if the feed in tariffs don't make it worthwhile? Unless you use all your power during the day and bugger all in the evening peak (which is nobody) then sinking capital into that thing won't be worth it despite what Dirty Ballast says. People don't spend ten or fifteen grand just so they can have warm fuzzies about the planet... well, normal people don't anyway.
______________

All round this is possibly one of the weakest arguments that you've ever come up with - especially the multi-billion dollar idea of five million households each having their own Chinese-made solar power plant on their roof together with battery, we've barely had any sun all week here in Adelaide, we'd almost certainly be in a blackout by now without gas back-up. Which we have to pay huge amounts of money for to keep on stand-by, just in case the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.

But by all means keep plodding away, deconstructing your wild and silly ideas is mildly amusing.
don_dunstan endless tripe on stuff he is completely and uterly clueless on
Ok, so Don hasn't a clue.

Don has also managed to waffle on for a whole page and not provide one link of supporting data yet all he complains about to others they don't provide supportingd data. Classic case of "glass houses".

Don has stated that $35B dollars of storage capacity would be built over night, rather its 10 -15 years and Don while allowing for some bulk buying discount has completely ignored the fact that over time the prices will get cheaper. Solar PV itself has decreased 90% since 2000 and battery technology is also on an equally down hill trend.

Don also assumes all this cost is EXTRA to running the grid, however most of it is replacement. For example a 1GW coal power station costs $2.5 - 3.5B to build and then needs $13B worth of coal over 40 years, plus salaries, MTCE and upgrades along the way. Total life cycle cost of around $20B. For 5 of these you need $100 B, plus teh fact this is base load power, where as battery storage for now is completing against much higher peaking power costs.

Don has indicated, incorrectly that local substations need to be modified to return this battery power to the grid, where as the intent is to use this power interally in the house although if it did go into the grid was does the sub need to be modified compared to the current solar feed in? Remember Don, battery is all about reducing the peak demand which needs high cost solutions to supply. We know in your little world see solar and batterys as a power station to make money from by selling to the grid, but this isn't reality unless you go industrial scale. If my house has a rain water tank is it for feeding into the council or supply or internal use reducing demand on the network? Same concept Don.

Amazing, Don still thinks people buy solar PV for the feed in tariff returns? Considering the way its actually calculated Don you must know few people actually get a benefit of this. But maybe you don't as otherwise why post this crap over and over and over. Yes Don the grid operators are winding back solar feed in as there is too much now and despite you misguided beliefs, is still growing at similar rates to past years with reducing govt incentives mostly driven by ongoing cost reduction in the technology. This was known a decade ago that it would eventually happen, suprise its happened sooner than histroically projected.

Oh gee Don, when anything on my house breaks its up to me, the owner to fix it. Why would that be any different to a home PV/battery system?

Oh wow Don, its cloudy, is that with a chance of meatballs Don? Might rain some intellgence in your area. For the last week Don, SA's solar PV out put was 10% of grid demand. Last July's historic numbers was ~11% for the month, life must be boring in the south to feel so much drama from so little an issue. Meanwhile for the last week wind as supplied 55% of SA's needs, yeah I know you "forgot" to look at this one.  Who'd of thought that wind and solar might actually complement each other.

Again Don, the more affluent tend to have the lowest cost of anything as they can afford it new. roof top Solar is no different. If you are renting and want solar on your roof, talk to your landlord. The problem is Don is the landlord owns the asset but doesn't get any benefit from the reduced power costs. however Don it is changing the rental market and affects the rental return so increaingly Landlords will starting to think bigger picture. My rental property has no solar, we have consider it, we have offered to install in return for a $10/w rent increase but every tennant says no. However our Agent says some tennants are starting to ask for it when looking at property so its something we will install at some stage in near future when I'm not so far from the house.

As for the lower income subsiding the higher income on their power bills, well considering the money the lower income are spending is in the form of a subsidy from the higher income through welfare and taxation, then the circle of money continues. I'm actually surprised you actually give a crap about the lower income, in everything else you post you are ready to kick them to the kerb. ie let tourism industry and other reliant on airline transport to crash, off-shoring sub construction etc etc.  

Ahh Don is back on about his Chinese made, something you care about when it suits you as recently you said you were buying stuff from China on ebay and happy to spend $10B's on subs to off-shore providers with 100% off-shore cosntruction. Argh Don the Patriot, until he's not.

All round this is possibly one of the weakest arguments that you've ever come up with and I don't expect your next reply to be any better.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I understand that the tariff would apply to China as well.  USA is onboard with it too.

Infact China, India, and Brazil are mad about it. I for one support the EU proposal.
Carnot
China I have little concerns with as they are moving towards a cleaner future.

India is a pollution ridden hell hole and there is very little progress there.

BRazil, no idea, but I hear from BRazilians at work there is change occuring, although slow.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
don_dunstan endless tripe on stuff he is completely and uterly clueless on
RTT_Rules
Yeah look you can be as filthy rude as you like to me but the fact is that you didn't apologise for being proven wrong over the cost of modifying the grid. You're so arrogant you can't bring yourself to admit that I found a good article spelling out why I was right.

And frankly I find your attitude absolutely disgraceful. You might be losing an argument but there's no need to resort to name calling and rude behavior. I didn't think I was dealing with bratty little child - but apparently I am.

I'm done here.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
I'm done here.
don_dunstan

Hooray... Exclamation
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I'm done here.

Hooray... Exclamation
The Vinelander
Haven't even started with you yet, oh lemony one.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
I'm done here.

Hooray... Exclamation
Haven't even started with you yet, oh lemony one.
don_dunstan

You couldn't help yourself... typical representative from SA. It's like an endless loop.

I'll let you ramble on after being 'done here' and return in a few days to scan the bile.

M.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from: