The 'renewable' energy thread -

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Snowy 2.0 construction has started.
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/progress/

It is funded by combination of inputs the include general revenue and income from future power sales.
Yet another enormous cost burden (probably over $10,000,000,000 by the time it's finished) to add to add to the poor long suffering grid users and (what's left of) our businesses forced to pay whatever prices the regulator sets - but then again taxpayers and grid users are easy targets for these hare-brained scheme promoters aren't they.

High power prices kill jobs, drive away investment and makes us less competitive with countries like China who pay less than a quarter of the standard kw/h charge that we do here in South Australia. Why would anyone in their right mind want to try and run a business in this state with basic things like electricity and gas almost the most expensive in the world? No wonder we've go the highest unemployment in the nation here.

Why are you (and others here) still going into bat for this job-killing, productivity-hobbling policy is beyond me.
Australia's power prices are no where near the highest in the world and dropping...
This is either ignorance or blatant dishonesty: Power Technology Magazine:

The energy numbers look great on paper for the lucky country, but you’d be hard pressed to convince many Australian families and businesses that their electricity supply, and what they pay for it, has anything to do with good fortune. Australians – particularly those who live in the eastern states of South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, which together make up the National Electricity Market (NEM) and account for 86% of the country’s population – pay some of the highest residential electricity bills in the world.

South Australia tops the list with just under A$0.50 per kWh, with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria also represented in the world’s top 10 highest electricity prices. As a comparison point, the European Union average is just over A$0.30 per kWh, while US consumers, benefiting from a glut of cheap gas, pay between A$0.10 and A$0.20. A report published in June by the Grattan Institute found that wholesale electricity prices increased by 130% in the NEM between 2015 and 2017.

Again, why do you write these things without even doing the most basic of searches to find out whether or not there's any factual basis to it? And you wonder why I seldom bother to read things that you've wrote -
don_dunstan
Don
While I share concerns on the cost : benefit ratio, your $10B number came from your ar$e, so lets leave it there.

The price of power has been in the past state govt political manipulation and in the last 10 years driven by competition as determined by the market regulator. As SH 2.0 is a pump back system, there is little benefit from price manipulation.

China is actually expensive for power for bulk users.

That link doesn't work and likely outdated as we both know and you have previously posted SA typical retail power price and its not 50c or anywhere near that.

Again again again Don, we know the govt's F'ed up in the past and corrections have since been put in place which is seeing the wholesale and retail prices stabilise and begin to decline. 2021 is now the cheapest in last 5 years
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem#nem-dispatch-overview

The SA whole price $41/MWh is now less than before Wind in 2007 $45 MW/h, not adjusted for inflation.
2021 Qld, NSW & Vic Wholesale price are also some of the cheapest (not adjusted for inflation) going back to 2006 when wholesale power price trading data is available.

https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=all&interval=1y

"world’s top 10 highest electricity prices."
You recently quoted other data which had Australia around 11th ,make up your mind. That list you also posted also only had around 30 countries, so how can you say we are top 10 when it only has around 30 countries and half of them are know govt subsidized for retail users and these prices frequently don't translate to bulk users and most of those countries don't have 5% of the network and distribution costs of Australia.

A good price comparison was the fact NZ was only marginally cheaper yet NZ has not built large scale RE and most of their generating assets are aged and most of the growth demand is focused in one city.

You can keep quoted outdated articles on the subject or you can catch up with the rest of us.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
$100's Billions spent? Seriously? As you have completely lost the plot, I'll stop here.

It would easily be hundreds of billions over the last twenty years - public and private money.

Renewable Energy Target (RET) was initiated by the Howard government in 2001 and has been expanded by nearly every government since then - now 20 years old RET has collected a whopping $60,000,000,000 from grid users since its inception.

This is just ONE direct government subsidy to 'green' energy - just one. It doesn't include:
  • Direct capital grants to build wind farms or solar farms
  • State government schemes like the Rann government feed-in tariff scheme here in South Australia to force grid users to pay domestic solar producers 4 times the standard kw/h for electricity in the middle of the day (not at peak times).
  • "Network charges" which now constitute 25-30% of every power user's bill - being jacked sky high by the need to connect unreliable sources of power to the grid so the grid can itself become less stable and more expensive to consumers.

All these things (including heavily subsidised private sector investment) would easily add up to hundreds of billions. But by all means, if you can prove that government and private sector money being given to green schemes is NOT in the hundreds of billions then feel free to tell us why.
don_dunstan
Again Again Again Don, you are leading with ideology, blinded to even simple maths.

You say 20 years now, trying to cover your ar$se from last foot in mouth.

NEM generates around $3-4B in combined revenue. 20 years is $180 - 240 B, yet you say there has been many $100's B  spent over 20 years, yet the revenue figures don't add up.

Of note now that you have seen your stupid comment of $100 B's as a mistake and expanded to 20 years (also a mistake), its worth nothing that during that time frame

- 5 coal power stations were built (1 is in WA), ~3000 MW of output worth less than $3-4B replacement cost, not some of these were private investment. Are you suggesting they were subsidised?

- Literally dozens of peaking diesel/gas gas turbines and reciprocating engines to reduce the cost of providing peak power as the grid becoming increasingly peaky over the last 20-30 years. Your own state is the worst.

- A number of gas turbines built as part of waste heat and co-gen technology development and cost reduction.
Quick estimate being less than $10-12B Worth nothing many of these were private investment long before wind and PV was implemented, are you suggesting that they are subsidised?

- Bass Link, to improve the impacts of drought in Tasmania and assist with the increasing peakyness of the grid in Vic. Cost around $900m. Initially targeted to be self funding through trading of power between the two states.

- Significant upgrades to the interstate transmission network completed prior to the first wind or solar panel to improve power supply reliability to prevent a repeat of the 1998 SEQ black outs. As a 1000 km long HV line from NSW to SA costs around $2.5B

So over the last 20 years, many $100B's Don spent. Mmmm, not sure. I suspect the whole thing could be built from the ground up fresh for that price.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
All these things (including heavily subsidised private sector investment) would easily add up to hundreds of billions. But by all means, if you can prove that government and private sector money being given to green schemes is NOT in the hundreds of billions then feel free to tell us why.
"don_dunstan"
Straight from Don's Standard Operating Procedure Manual:- "I will make a grandiose statement with woolly numbers included, and it's up to you to prove me wrong. If you can't/don't/cannot be bothered, then I must be right."
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
All these things (including heavily subsidised private sector investment) would easily add up to hundreds of billions. But by all means, if you can prove that government and private sector money being given to green schemes is NOT in the hundreds of billions then feel free to tell us why.
Straight from Don's Standard Operating Procedure Manual:- "I will make a grandiose statement with woolly numbers included, and it's up to you to prove me wrong. If you can't/don't/cannot be bothered, then I must be right."
Valvegear
He said I had 'completely lost the plot' for saying hundreds of billions, which is right from the operating manual of the rabid climate change adherent - "Paint your opponent as crazy". It's straight up trolling.

Funny how you consistently fail to spot the gaslighting that happens to me here on a regular basis, including yours.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Again Again Again Don, you are leading with ideology, blinded to even simple maths.

You say 20 years now, trying to cover your ar$se from last foot in mouth.
RTT_Rules
The first piece of dishonesty in your diatribe; Don has changed the goal-posts.

But the funny thing is if you go back through this thread you'll find that I've used the twenty year figure repeatedly. I've used that point on purpose because it marks the commencement of RET when the green madness really started to ramp up in this country. Howard (no less) started it with a direct tax on grid users to finance unreliabile and expensive energy - why? What did we do to deserve that?

Now see given that we're only one paragraph in and you've already mis-represented what I've said, why should I bother reading the rest of what you've written? It's a chore.

Of note now that you have seen your stupid comment of $100 B's as a mistake and expanded to 20 years (also a mistake), its worth nothing that during that time frame - 5 coal power stations were built (1 is in WA), ~3000 MW of output worth less than $3-4B replacement cost, not some of these were private investment. Are you suggesting they were subsidised? - Literally dozens of peaking diesel/gas gas turbines and reciprocating engines to reduce the cost of providing peak power as the grid becoming increasingly peaky over the last 20-30 years. Your own state is the worst. - A number of gas turbines built as part of waste heat and co-gen technology development and cost reduction. Quick estimate being less than $10-12B Worth nothing many of these were private investment long before wind and PV was implemented, are you suggesting that they are subsidised?
RTT_Rules
How does money intended for renewable energy projects end up financing things like coal-fired power stations and gas turbines? Sorry but what you've said there doesn't make any sense and has no relevancy to the conversation.

You should look up what a monster RET has become, sixty billion extracted from Australian grid users - and for what? TO make our grid one of the most unreliable and expensive in the world?

And again, RET is just ONE tax out of dozens (including the states), slowly wearing down our ability to compete with our neighbours and making us one of the worst countries on earth in which to do business.

The Chinese are laughing at us; they have no intention of doing what we've done.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Don
While I share concerns on the cost : benefit ratio, your $10B number came from your ar$e, so lets leave it there.
RTT_Rules
A stupid scheme that wouldn't have been necessary had we not gone for punishing our people and industry with unreliable wind and solar power.

I've seen projections about the operation of Snowy Pumped Hydro that say during a 'wind drought' that lasts longer than two days it's useless. Isn't that wonderful? Ten billion or so on a scheme designed to protect us from the vague nature of unreliable energy - and it won't even work if the power isn't being generated to keep it running - not to mention the power that is lost in charging and discharging the thing. The irony is that they'll probably bring in diesel pumps to 'back up' the scheme for when the wind fails. Madness upon madness upon madness.

Again, the Chinese are laughing at us. They're taking our coal, turning into turbines and panels (China makes almost all the panels now-days, Korea and Germany don't have meaningful outputs) and they're selling them to us at a massive profit to hook up to our grids and cause chaos. In the meantime the kW/h charge over there is eight cents an hour; no wonder nobody wants to do business here.

They are selling us the rope that we're hanging ourselves with and yet there's still people in this country cheering that on without understanding the long-term consequences.
The SA whole price $41/MWh is now less than before Wind in 2007 $45 MW/h, not adjusted for inflation.
RTT_Rules
I knew you'd keep trying to muddy the water with the 'wholesale price is falling'. The wholesale price is NOT the price that the consumer pays at the end - and although the wholesale price in off-peak times (like lunchtime when the sun is at its peak) might be falling, its more than made up for by the huge spikes that we've been experiencing here in SA when the grid has come close to failing as it did recently.

The sun doesn't shine at 8pm when power is most needed by consumers, that's why solar wholesale prices can fall to zero. It makes power at times that the grid simply can't use it. You'd probably need a few dozen Snowy Hydros to try and overcome this problem.

In order to construct a proper rebuttal of my position you really need to tackle the very biggest problems that the rush to 'green' energy is making for Australians, which are:
  • Hundreds of billions sunk into a system that still typically provides less then ten percent of the NEM needs on a typical day. Why is it so expensive? When can we expect that industry-hobbling flow of money to unreliable energy sources to end? More hundreds of billions in the coming years? Bill Shorten's failed plan he took to the 2019 election was costed at around $300-$400 billion. When can we expect the money being bled into green projects to slow down?
  • Even this morning here in South Australia, 370 mW/h provided by wind and solar but the actual demand is close to 1,000 mW/h so most of that electricity has to be imported from the dirty brown coal plants of the Latrobe Valley (projected to shut this decade). Where will our electricity come from once this happens? And if you're charging your electric car in SA this morning most of the power is from 'dirty' electrons from Victoria - so any claims of 'zero emissions' from electric cars are just plain rubbish.
  • What contingency planning is being put in place to prevent blackouts during extended periods of wind and sun 'droughts' across the nation? Snowy Hydro wont' even scratch the surface.
  • What benefit is this delivering to the planet given that China (which accounts for 28% of global emissions on its own) built 38 gigawatts of new coal fired capacity in the last 12 months and plans to built another 248 g/w over the coming years - Green Biz. Every few months they build new coal fired capacity that equals Australia's total carbon footprint. So why are we doing the heavy lifting when China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan aren't bothering with 'green' projects on our scale - all those countries are building new coal-fired power plants at a rapid pace.

What's the expected outcome - Australia goes broke from trying to have a technically impossible 'zero carbon emissions' grid while Asia laughs at us and gets rich from our coal? Is that the outcome?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
He said I had 'completely lost the plot' for saying hundreds of billions, which is right from the operating manual of the rabid climate change adherent - "Paint your opponent as crazy". It's straight up trolling.

Funny how you consistently fail to spot the gaslighting that happens to me here on a regular basis, including yours.
don_dunstan
I believe I was correct on all you mention above, especially when someone makes an excessive claim and then try's to stand by it with no evidence.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Again Again Again Don, you are leading with ideology, blinded to even simple maths.

You say 20 years now, trying to cover your ar$se from last foot in mouth.
The first piece of dishonesty in your diatribe; Don has changed the goal-posts.

But the funny thing is if you go back through this thread you'll find that I've used the twenty year figure repeatedly. I've used that point on purpose because it marks the commencement of RET when the green madness really started to ramp up in this country. Howard (no less) started it with a direct tax on grid users to finance unreliabile and expensive energy - why? What did we do to deserve that?

Now see given that we're only one paragraph in and you've already mis-represented what I've said, why should I bother reading the rest of what you've written? It's a chore.

Of note now that you have seen your stupid comment of $100 B's as a mistake and expanded to 20 years (also a mistake), its worth nothing that during that time frame - 5 coal power stations were built (1 is in WA), ~3000 MW of output worth less than $3-4B replacement cost, not some of these were private investment. Are you suggesting they were subsidised? - Literally dozens of peaking diesel/gas gas turbines and reciprocating engines to reduce the cost of providing peak power as the grid becoming increasingly peaky over the last 20-30 years. Your own state is the worst. - A number of gas turbines built as part of waste heat and co-gen technology development and cost reduction. Quick estimate being less than $10-12B Worth nothing many of these were private investment long before wind and PV was implemented, are you suggesting that they are subsidised?
How does money intended for renewable energy projects end up financing things like coal-fired power stations and gas turbines? Sorry but what you've said there doesn't make any sense and has no relevancy to the conversation.

You should look up what a monster RET has become, sixty billion extracted from Australian grid users - and for what? TO make our grid one of the most unreliable and expensive in the world?

And again, RET is just ONE tax out of dozens (including the states), slowly wearing down our ability to compete with our neighbours and making us one of the worst countries on earth in which to do business.

The Chinese are laughing at us; they have no intention of doing what we've done.
don_dunstan
$60B Don, that's 20 years of total income from all electricity sales on the NEM for 20 years.

How is the grid unreliable?

You tell me how money for RET ends up in thermal generation, you are the one that made that claim. Although peaking gas turbine would fall under RE.

I suspect Don in the 1950's you would have opposed Snowy Hydro construction.

If you wanted to replace Hazellwood, Northern, Liddel, Vales Point and the other in NSW near Lithgow (name escapes me), how much did you think this would cost Don? To give you an idea

- Northern would need 1 x Millmerran built in 2002 was $1.5B
- Hazellwood would need 2 x Kogan Creek's, built in 2007 for $1.2 B, so $2.4B
- Liddel would need 2.5 x Kogan Creek, so $3B
- Vales Point need 2 x Kogan Creek, $2B
- Wallawang, basically 1 x Millmerran, so $1.5B

So all up, to do what you wanted to do = $10B

20 years is an irrelevant time frame. HV and snow hydro projects are classified over 35 - 50 years.

The Chinese are reducing their coal fired production and replacing aging/dirty plants and/or relocating plants that are in the cities. Go to China Don, almost every city I went to I saw a closed coal power station in the city.

I've said before I have serious concerns about the financial justification of SN 2.0, but I've also said before if we are chasing CO2 elimination from power generation then the following projects need to happen by 2030. Their costs if they exceed reasonable that would have a negative impact on power users then "gifted" and as the feds own the asset then it makes no big difference.
ie

- SN 2.0,

- Bass Link 2.0, Tassie as huge potential for wind and solar production as has best of both worlds as west coast has very reliable consistent wind during the winter and in the east coast you have very reliable long periods of sun shine during the warmer 6mths reaching 15 hr a day of output in Dec. The existing dam's act like a battery, pump back not required with these external sources of power and then with n extra 1000 MW intertie to the east coast Tassie could provide huge source of both peaking and  base line.

- SA 1000 MW inter-tie

- Additional 1000 MW Inter-tie from NSW into SEQ.

- 2nd inter-tie from NSW to Vic as the current one is subject to shutdown from bush fires.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
I have an important announcement to make.

Unfortunately, Don will be unavailable to us for a few weeks, as he has other engagements.

His first is the World Know-All Championships being held in Uganda. At the time of writing, you can get odds of 5/2 about Don taking out the Gold Medal. We wish him success.

Following is the International Mind-Reading Conference which takes place in California (where else?).
Don’s reputation made him the automatic choice as the keynote speaker.

Finally, he has an engagement back home to teach aspiring politicians “Obfuscation for Beginners – a comprehensive study of how to avoid giving a straight answer by clever use of Avoidance, Filibustering and Red Herrings.”

I’m sure we all feel truly thankful to have such an inspiration in our midst.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
While Don's numbers are a bit off (being nice), the general point is however not to move towards RE at all costs, but rather in a controlled manner making sure that both the science and the economics stack up. Unfortunately this wasn't the case for a number of years.

I'm still on the fence whether another coal power station or two (2000 - 4000 MW) should have been built in NSW about 10 years ago to replace high CO2 emissions capacity that were either closed years after they should have been, i.e. Hazelwood and Liddell and others that will continue to operate closer to 2030. Keeping 40+ year old dinosaur coal power stations in operations because we are afraid to build much newer, however the newer would achieve 20-30% reduction in emissions, more if moving from brown to decent black coal.  

Around 2015, CCGT turbine technology exceeded 60% efficiency and perhaps this should have been the trigger to say no more coal, gas only until RE catch's up.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
He said I had 'completely lost the plot' for saying hundreds of billions, which is right from the operating manual of the rabid climate change adherent - "Paint your opponent as crazy". It's straight up trolling.

Funny how you consistently fail to spot the gaslighting that happens to me here on a regular basis, including yours.
I believe I was correct on all you mention above, especially when someone makes an excessive claim and then try's to stand by it with no evidence.
RTT_Rules
It's nowhere near excessive and you know it - and RET is just ONE tax out of a myriad of charges and levies put against consumers and taxpayers for the rush to green energy including that ridiculous SA government Mike Rann scheme as I mentioned yesterday. And you didn't sail anywhere near my observations about the the fact that China and the developing world will completely erase any progress we make with carbon monster dozens of times over - ironically quite a big chunk of it being done with OUR COAL. And another topic you don't want to go anywhere near is the unemployment that results from high power prices flowing through to jobs going off-shore - you deride my home as a 'backwater' but then you're in the cheer squad to deprive us of the cheap energy needed to dig ourselves out of this hole.

Thanks alot.
The Chinese are reducing their coal fired production and replacing aging/dirty plants and/or relocating plants that are in the cities.
RTT_Rules
It isn't what's happening in that country right now - have you been following the commissioning of that huge new coal railway north-to-south so that they can burn their own dirty brown coal closer to the industries of the south... do you seriously think they built that bridge thinking "China is going carbon-free but let's build the world's longest and tallest viaduct to transport coal anyway". And the new coal capacity coming on line in China is massive - at least one consolation is that it will all be latest technology low emission (as low as you can get lignite).

IN the light of these crazy numbers we should accept that nothing we can do in this country will make a difference to the carbon monster ultimate outcome, that ship has sailed. And we're deluding ourselves but not allowing one single new coal-fired plant to be constructed - especially in NSW and QLD with their highly desirable quality black coal. If we wanted to create jobs on the eastern seaboard we'd mandate the use of a percentage of high quality black coal ONLY to local production... but we're stupid, we off-shore nearly all of it.

The situation is diabolical, insane and it punishes the very poorest Australians the hardest because they're the ones who are most likely to be captive to the grid. RET and the like are horrible, regressive taxes because they reward higher income people with the capacity to get some independence from the grid versus lower income people who often rent and can't access that kinda of middle-class welfare.

Anyway as the self-proclaimed crier of Railpage has called it, I've said all I want to say on the topic for now.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
It's nowhere near excessive and you know it - and RET is just ONE tax out of a myriad of charges and levies put against consumers and taxpayers for the rush to green energy including that ridiculous SA government Mike Rann scheme as I mentioned yesterday.

And you didn't sail anywhere near my observations about the the fact that China and the developing world will completely erase any progress we make with carbon monster dozens of times over - ironically quite a big chunk of it being done with OUR COAL. And another topic you don't want to go anywhere near is the unemployment that results from high power prices flowing through to jobs going off-shore - you deride my home as a 'backwater' but then you're in the cheer squad to deprive us of the cheap energy needed to dig ourselves out of this hole. Thanks alot.
Don
Quoting numbers in the $100B's is excessive, this much I know and I just showed you why using basic baths that your claims are crap.

I am not denying SA cheap power, it has the cheapest wholesale power in the NEM and it would be cheap by international standards.

You called SA a backwater, not me.

If China ho has 50% of the CO2 emissions per capita compared to Australia doesn't see Australia do its bit, why should they change?

It isn't what's happening in that country right now - have you been following the commissioning of that huge new coal railway north-to-south so that they can burn their own dirty brown coal closer to the industries of the south... do you seriously think they built that bridge thinking "China is going carbon-free but let's build the world's longest and tallest viaduct to transport coal anyway".

And the new coal capacity coming on line in China is massive - at least one consolation is that it will all be latest technology low emission (as low as you can get lignite). IN the light of these crazy numbers we should accept that nothing we can do in this country will make a difference to the carbon monster ultimate outcome, that ship has sailed.

And we're deluding ourselves but not allowing one single new coal-fired plant to be constructed - especially in NSW and QLD with their highly desirable quality black coal. If we wanted to create jobs on the eastern seaboard we'd mandate the use of a percentage of high quality black coal ONLY to local production... but we're stupid, we off-shore nearly all of it. The situation is diabolical, insane and it punishes the very poorest Australians the hardest because they're the ones who are most likely to be captive to the grid. RET and the like are horrible, regressive taxes because they reward higher income people with the capacity to get some independence from the grid versus lower income people who often rent and can't access that kinda of middle-class welfare.

Anyway as the self-proclaimed crier of Railpage has called it, I've said all I want to say on the topic for now.
DOn
Yeah, they want to burn their own coal, not import, big deal. Even if they reduce coal generated power by 2%pa YOY, it will still take them 40 years to wind down to zero. Even in Qld and NSW, we are still investing and expanding our coal infrastructure because the world will continue to use coal for decades to come.

Today, now. building new coal is pointless. About 5 years ago was the basic cut off, there are other options now.

The new capacity coming on line in China is mostly replacing old and relocation. Aluminium is the bulk of the demand and this was capped by China due to limit emissions growth. The trends of China's power production show coal fired generation is declining, open to correction for anyone to show otherwise as the data I've seen stops at 2018.

We often didn't burn the best stuff before, why start now? One of the reasons most of the newer coal power stations are built on land locked pits is to prevent being exposed to global coal prices which impacts on the likes of Stanwell, Gladstone, Callide and I think at least Earing. I don't know the details of them all, but the quality isn't as good as export, otherwise it would be exported.

Construction of coal power stations has almost stopped in developed countries with a few exceptions like the Dutch or was it Danish who modernized with a new power station with no alternative and the new station saved emissions by 20-25%. Unless you have no gas, gas is now king, its cheaper, takes up less space and less emissions per MW and more flexible and as such you can see in developed countries coal being replaced by growth in gas generation.

I'm a landlord, while I've considered installing solar on the house, at this stage no tenant has agreed to a small increase in rent to off-set their lower power bills, talking $5-10/w and my agent tells me its never been a stumbling block when looking for a tenant. I also have not funded AC, solar hot water, low demand shower roses, gas heating, garages, large shed's, LED TV's, carpet, EV chargers and even a letter box on the highway as no mail run on the street our old house was on.

If a tenant want's its available, they just need to ask and accept that the rent they signed up for was for the house as is, not for a basic house and a wish list to be added on later.

"I've said all I want to say on the topic for now."
Yah:lol:
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
Even more evidence President Biden is progressively getting on with it.

https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-signal-of-hope-as-us-and-china-find-common-ground-in-climate-crisis-20210418-p57k7m.html

The Representative from SA will be livid.

Mike.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
The Representative from SA will be livid.
"The Vinelander"
If you'd said that the Representative from SA will be mad, I'd have agreed with that too.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Meanwhile:

Trade unions raise alarm over allegations of forced labour in Xinjiang production of solar components
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-21/solar-panels-china-xinjiang-accused-forced-labour-links/100040134
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Construction of coal power stations has almost stopped in developed countries with a few exceptions like the Dutch or was it Danish who modernized with a new power station with no alternative and the new station saved emissions by 20-25%. Unless you have no gas, gas is now king, its cheaper, takes up less space and less emissions per MW and more flexible and as such you can see in developed countries coal being replaced by growth in gas generation.
RTT_Rules
Green adherents will tell you burning natural gas is actually worse for the imaginary Carbon Fairy than burning coal because it releases tonnes of methane as well as carbon dioxide.

There's a proposal from the NSW government to build lots of gas peaking plants around NSW to cope with the unreliability of the grid foisted onto it from solar and wind but true to form MP's like Zali Steggal and the Greens has opposed it saying that they will not allow any new gas plants to be constructed due to natural gas being just as bad as coal in terms of emissions.

Anyway gas is presently one of the most expensive means of generation here in Australia because of the artificial scarcity being created by LNG export - we pay through the nose to keep our gas plants operating here in South Australia. Boral stopped making house bricks in NSW and started importing them from the United States because it was cheaper to do that that it was to make them here. Yet another job-killing policy playing out in the 'lucky country'.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Further to the above - Renew Economy:

In a new report, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) says that emissions from the production and use of natural gas may have been significantly underestimated and that this has been obfuscated by a concerted campaign of the natural gas industry.

“The industry claims burning fossil fuels such as ‘natural’ gas is cleaner than burning coal, a commodity on its way out as the world transitions to cleaner more sustainable energy sources,” IEEFA gas analyst Bruce Robertson said.

“This is simply not the case. Gas is worse than coal in the short term due to its release of methane into the atmosphere.”

So we're not allowed to burn gas either. These people won't be happy until the entire nation is shivering in the cold and without any means of producing electricity.

Anyway as of 11:30 AM Eastern Time South Australia is presently consuming 1,194 mWh of electricity of which wind is producing 117 mWh and solar 236 mWh. Gas is (as always) doing the heavy lifting at 733 mWh and we're importing about 250 mWh of nice, reliable Gippsland brown coal electricity to make sure we don't have to fire up our diesel generators and/or have a blackout. So if you're charging an "emission free" electric car in South Australia this morning yet again most of that electricity is coming from good old reliable fossil fuels.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Construction of coal power stations has almost stopped in developed countries with a few exceptions like the Dutch or was it Danish...
RTT_Rules
...You forgot Japan. They're building a new fleet of 22 coal fired plants to replace their old ones.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Construction of coal power stations has almost stopped in developed countries with a few exceptions like the Dutch or was it Danish...
...You forgot Japan. They're building a new fleet of 22 coal fired plants to replace their old ones.
don_dunstan
Building new ones to replace old (same as Netherlands) but with a 2030 strategy to shutdown 100! Didn't know there was even 100 all up.

On July 2020, the minister of Industry, Hiroshi Kajiyama, announced that around 100 coal plants would be shut down by 2030

Anyway, Japan is still finding its feet after Fukushima and despite calls to close the nuclear industry they had to restart some stations simply to keep the lights on. They had plans to wind back oil, but that was also put on hold. So with a no more Nuc position, coal and gas it is. Gas is all good, but if you are an importer of gas you are exposed as you cannot store large amounts unlike coal, which is why they are trying to set up a gas hub in Japan so gas is shipped to Japan, stored and distributed for regional use in smaller ships.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Construction of coal power stations has almost stopped in developed countries with a few exceptions like the Dutch or was it Danish who modernized with a new power station with no alternative and the new station saved emissions by 20-25%. Unless you have no gas, gas is now king, its cheaper, takes up less space and less emissions per MW and more flexible and as such you can see in developed countries coal being replaced by growth in gas generation.
Green adherents will tell you burning natural gas is actually worse for the imaginary Carbon Fairy than burning coal because it releases tonnes of methane as well as carbon dioxide.

There's a proposal from the NSW government to build lots of gas peaking plants around NSW to cope with the unreliability of the grid foisted onto it from solar and wind but true to form MP's like Zali Steggal and the Greens has opposed it saying that they will not allow any new gas plants to be constructed due to natural gas being just as bad as coal in terms of emissions.

Anyway gas is presently one of the most expensive means of generation here in Australia because of the artificial scarcity being created by LNG export - we pay through the nose to keep our gas plants operating here in South Australia. Boral stopped making house bricks in NSW and started importing them from the United States because it was cheaper to do that that it was to make them here. Yet another job-killing policy playing out in the 'lucky country'.
don_dunstan

Yeah, I wouldn't believe the gas is worse than coal bit. All the science in the world will tell you gas will generate the same number of electrons with 40% reduction in CO2, but also less SO2 and CO.

NSW, Vic and Qld built numerous gas peaking plants long before the first wind turbine, building more is no big deal especially now as the efficiency of the gas powered generation has improved so much in the last 10 years.

Zali and Greens do not run the country.

You paid through the nose for power long before SA's first wind turbine because the state had a hodge potch fleet of generating units of different technology's and physical location and a huge variation between minimum and peak demand.

The price of Gas situation is something that burnt the govt and is well on the path of repair.

Bricks were made in US not just because of gas price, but it didn't help.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Plans for giant offshore and 'floating' windfarms taking shape:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/oceanex-eyes-massive-10gw-of-offshore-and-floating-wind-farms-in-australia/

I hope they build them strong enough to cope with Bass Strait lows (i.e. like on Boxing Day 1998)....
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
Further to the above - Renew Economy:

In a new report, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) says that emissions from the production and use of natural gas may have been significantly underestimated and that this has been obfuscated by a concerted campaign of the natural gas industry.

“The industry claims burning fossil fuels such as ‘natural’ gas is cleaner than burning coal, a commodity on its way out as the world transitions to cleaner more sustainable energy sources,” IEEFA gas analyst Bruce Robertson said.

“This is simply not the case. Gas is worse than coal in the short term due to its release of methane into the atmosphere.”

So we're not allowed to burn gas either. These people won't be happy until the entire nation is shivering in the cold and without any means of producing electricity.

Anyway as of 11:30 AM Eastern Time South Australia is presently consuming 1,194 mWh of electricity of which wind is producing 117 mWh and solar 236 mWh. Gas is (as always) doing the heavy lifting at 733 mWh and we're importing about 250 mWh of nice, reliable Gippsland brown coal electricity to make sure we don't have to fire up our diesel generators and/or have a blackout. So if you're charging an "emission free" electric car in South Australia this morning yet again most of that electricity is coming from good old reliable fossil fuels.
don_dunstan
SA seem especially frugal.

mWh=milli-Watt-hour. Thats a measure of a very small amount of energy. Surely not what you meant? Maybe you meant MW=MegaWatts- a measure of Power.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
SA seem especially frugal.

mWh=milli-Watt-hour. Thats a measure of a very small amount of energy. Surely not what you meant? Maybe you meant MW=MegaWatts- a measure of Power.
arctic
Yes sorry MWh not mWh.
Plans for giant offshore and 'floating' windfarms taking shape: https://reneweconomy.com.au/oceanex-eyes-massive-10gw-of-offshore-and-floating-wind-farms-in-australia/ I hope they build them strong enough to cope with Bass Strait lows (i.e. like on Boxing Day 1998)....
Carnot
We had a large (multi-million dollar) tidal power plant here off the coast in the St Vincent Gulf around Noarlunga - can't find anything about it on the web at the moment but from memory it was destroyed by a storm and the debris is still out there, too expensive to remove it apparently.
  apw5910 Chief Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
We had a large (multi-million dollar) tidal power plant here off the coast in the St Vincent Gulf around Noarlunga - can't find anything about it on the web at the moment but from memory it was destroyed by a storm and the debris is still out there, too expensive to remove it apparently.
don_dunstan
Has any tidal power plant not ended as a pile of scrap on a beach somewhere?
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
SA seem especially frugal.

mWh=milli-Watt-hour. Thats a measure of a very small amount of energy. Surely not what you meant? Maybe you meant MW=MegaWatts- a measure of Power.
Yes sorry MWh not mWh.
Plans for giant offshore and 'floating' windfarms taking shape: https://reneweconomy.com.au/oceanex-eyes-massive-10gw-of-offshore-and-floating-wind-farms-in-australia/ I hope they build them strong enough to cope with Bass Strait lows (i.e. like on Boxing Day 1998)....
We had a large (multi-million dollar) tidal power plant here off the coast in the St Vincent Gulf around Noarlunga - can't find anything about it on the web at the moment but from memory it was destroyed by a storm and the debris is still out there, too expensive to remove it apparently.
don_dunstan
What has a tidal power plant got to do with a wind power plant at sea?

Nothing!

Why?

Because the generation of electricity happens many metres above the water, not in it!

There is already 35GW of offshore wind generation globally:

Offshore wind power - Wikipedia

I didn't previously know about the floating offshore proposals off NSW until reading the story behind the link that Carnot referred to, but IMHO it's a bit early to consider such a setup as a mainstream solution. That said, the proposed field in Bass Strait (already at the stage where a transmission line route has been confirmed) will not be a floating plant; the sea is not deep there.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from: