The 'renewable' energy thread -

 
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
So what's your answer?

Do you think pumping the current amount of CO2 is likely good for the planet?
Its fairly simple, Yes or No?
I'll say yes - increased carbon dioxide results in plant life being healthier and using less water. Its an essential ingredient in photosynthesis after all isn't it.

Not so clear when it comes to the role of the oceans because the theory was always that the oceans would become more acidic with increasing CO2 - but I've also read recently that coral life gets healthier with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide because they turn the dissolved carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate to neutralise the acidity.

Regarding increasing CO2: It's going to happen anyway so there's no sense in thinking that you have any control over the final outcome - you don't. Neither do I. Australia is less than half a percent of global emissions. China will never reign in their carbon emissions - we're dreaming if we think a totalitarian nation like that has any intention of losing a strategic advantage over the rest of the planet.
don_dunstan
I'll agree yes to increased CO2 will increase plant growth, pity so much plant growth is now under  roads and houses and every tonne of cement used released 400kg of CO2 just in the reaction, not the fuel to make it.

I'll say no to increase CO2 will increase coral growth as its a delicate pH balance and the oceans are much bigger than the coral  and potentially the reverse is true.

You didn't comment on the impact on atmosphere, so I'll take that as a no.

I didn't ask what China may or maynot do, so I'll take this is a "what can I do, its all hopeless" response to again divert against what I suspect you know is correct but won't admit it.

Personally I don't fall for "look how big China is" crap which is the fall out for all the right wing anti climate views. At the end of the day for me it gets down to CO2 per captia consumed. This is your actual CO2 foot print, not a political boundary which can be used and abused.

On CO2/capita which is easier to use, but again very misleading Australia is nearly down that of China. Moral of the story, the Chinese have a smaller foot print than YOU! So anyone in Australia sitting back and pointing the finger at China as an excuse is either ignorant or arrogant.

On CO2/capita consumed, Australia gets a small benefit because we produce alot of CO2 to sell products off-shore, aluminium for example is big producer of CO2 per tonne, but we use only around 15% of our own product. So the country's we export aluminium metal too are actually importing CO2 which should be listed on their books, not ours. If they want to lower their CO2/capita consumed, then they can choose aluminium metal made with a lower CO2 per tonne output.

As I've said before, I don't fall for alot of the climate change BS every time there is a storm or a drought, but I also agree that CO2 output should be reduced as technology becomes economically available. This doesn't mean incentives cannot be applied and this certainly doesn't mean we should go down the brain dead leftist CO2 / carbon tax road again.

While there have certainly been govt stuff ups that have cost the community, I think the collective govts are now moving foreword with some common sense in the 25 year transition from coal to RE and the proof is now in the wholesale prices and finally talk about charging PV solar to feed into an oversupplied grid to encourage the next phase of the transition, home and grid sized batteries.

Sponsored advertisement

  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Regarding the battery, in a severe wind drought like the UK experienced last year batteries will be completely useless because they rely on having something with which to charge them - same goes for pumped hydro. You have to have something with which to cyclically charge these things to begin with and I believe they're going to seriously under-estimate how long these things can persist. The UK was in an extremely lucky position because they were able to get loads of nuclear energy via undersea cables specifically from France - but then because the UK was placing such a huge demand on French nuclear reactors they had to import their own electric supply from Eastern Europe - which is generally coal-fired.

We will have no such luxury in this country once supplies like Liddell. Yallorn and Loy Yang are gone. We'll be completely on our own - there will be blackouts entirely at the discretion of nature. The alternative for Australia is to keep very large supplies on constant standby (probably gas turbines) which is going to add to the overall cost of going 'carbon neutral' quite a bit. That's my main problem with the concept of a 'carbon neutral' society - someone will have to pay very dearly to keep the lights on, generally the poorest Australians who can least afford the middle class welfare of a small solar plant on your roof.

And to answer your question - there's no scientific evidence for carbon dioxide as an agent for (either) cooling or warming... let me repeat, no demonstrable relationship whatsoever.

I can show you in a few simple charts. Now whenever you try and examine the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere what you'll usually be shown is something like the chart below which will only show you the concentration of CO2 in the last few hundred years since the start of the industrial revolution (I guess because that has the scariest looking curve):

What you won't be shown is this chart - which plots the average global surface temperature against the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Precambrian era some 4,500,000,000 years ago:

If anything the relationship between temperatures and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide looks like it's actually the inverse of what we've been told is true - at the end of the Jurassic era there was a sudden rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide at the same time as a (relatively) rapid fall in average temperatures.

What we're not really told about our present situation relative to the past is that carbon dioxide is still almost at the very lowest concentrations that its ever been in earth's history; also that average global temperatures have nearly always been warmer than they are now anyway - and yet life went on.

So while climate alarmists are trying to tell us that the rising levels of carbon dioxide is an immanent threat to life on earth (somehow) the evidence about what actually happened in the past when the same thing occurred shows us that on average nothing happens. For example, at the end of the Jurassic and start of the Cretaceous eras  - the last time there was a major CO2 spike - nothing particularly exciting or dramatic happened although there's evidence of ongoing evolutionary shift as you'd expect. And what mass extinction events do exist they tend to not be linked with carbon dioxide but rather things like the Chicxulub impactor, major volcanic activity etc.

So yeah - even with the relatively tiny amount of carbon dioxide increase that can be attributed to human activity I really don't expect on the balance of probabilities that things are going to change that much. The history of the planet tells us this is the likely outcome.
don_dunstan
RE is not unlike coal, there is always a reserve and yes for RE that reserve may not actually be RE. There is nothing wrong with having a fleet of peaking gas/diesel generators on stand-by, WHICH THEY HAD 12 YEARS AGO BEFORE THE CURRENT WIND/SOLAR BOOM. Most of the peaking generation we have today is actually at least 15 years old.

Hydro and large scale pump hydro is the means at which to also help manage wind droughts as well as geographic diversity of wind generation, something the UK has limited capacity to do as the country is smaller than Victoria.

We are not living in the Jurassic period and any changed back then would be measured in millennia, not decades.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The Representative from SA will literally be blowing a fuse over this. Coal's apparently dead and we are moving on. Amazing how a few short years makes such a difference. I'm glad...coal is so 20th Century Exclamation

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/fastest-change-in-the-world-coal-s-demise-sparks-call-for-energy-market-reforms-20210429-p57nhc.html

Mike.
The Vinelander
There you are again, trailing around in my wake like a lost puppy.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
There is no scientific evidence metros are better than Double Deckers.  Some of us here are old enough to remember the PreBradfieldian era, and we ... hang on, I might have the wrong thread.
djf01


That was brilliant thank-you, when I saw that at lunchtime on my phone it actually made me laugh... was the evolution of the double-decker caused by the demise of its competing species - the Silurian-era tram?
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
The Representative from SA will literally be blowing a fuse over this. Coal's apparently dead and we are moving on. Amazing how a few short years makes such a difference. I'm glad...coal is so 20th Century Exclamation

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/fastest-change-in-the-world-coal-s-demise-sparks-call-for-energy-market-reforms-20210429-p57nhc.html

Mike.
There you are again, trailing around in my wake like a lost puppy.
don_dunstan


Is that the best you can come up with Representative from SA Question

You know you're a legend in your own lounge room. The seer and font of all alternative knowledge from the loony right. C'mon... how about some serious lambasting, I'm up for it.

M.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
I'll agree yes to increased CO2 will increase plant growth, pity so much plant growth is now under  roads and houses and every tonne of cement used released 400kg of CO2 just in the reaction, not the fuel to make it.

I'll say no to increase CO2 will increase coral growth as its a delicate pH balance and the oceans are much bigger than the coral  and potentially the reverse is true.

You didn't comment on the impact on atmosphere, so I'll take that as a no.
RTT_Rules
I've read that a few times now - increased acidity in the oceans from carbon dioxide permeating the water leads to increased coarl growth because they can form calcium carbonate from it. Do you have any other evidence to the contrary or is that just a 'feeling' that you have? And from what I've read there isn't any actual evidence that increased carbon dioxide will cause the ionosphere to warm - a theory that is borne out by the chart that I showed you.
I didn't ask what China may or maynot do, so I'll take this is a "what can I do, its all hopeless" response to again divert against what I suspect you know is correct but won't admit it.
RTT_Rules
Again, it's critically important to consider what other countries in the world are doing in relation to carbon dioxide because if they're building a new coal fired power plant every week then the issue becomes one of 'why are they allowed to have electricity at 8 cents when we have to pay 35 or 40? Why do they get to pump out increasing amounts of carbon dioxide when we aren't allow to build one single new HELE coal plant in this country?' I can't find a single, logical reason why the 'developing world' gets a free pass to continue to increase emissions at many times to the total output of Australia per year while we're not allowed to do anything to ensure energy security and affordability for the poorest Australians.
Personally I don't fall for "look how big China is" crap which is the fall out for all the right wing anti climate views. At the end of the day for me it gets down to CO2 per captia consumed. This is your actual CO2 foot print, not a political boundary which can be used and abused. On CO2/capita which is easier to use, but again very misleading Australia is nearly down that of China. Moral of the story, the Chinese have a smaller foot print than YOU! So anyone in Australia sitting back and pointing the finger at China as an excuse is either ignorant or arrogant.
RTT_Rules
So it's not a 'climate emergency' then? We can allow China to keep increasing their emissions until 2050 or beyond because the disasters that we're told will occur are as a result of the carbon dioxide that the developed world emits - not the developing world?

Is it an 'emergency' or not? If it is then EVERYONE should be making sacrifices to prevent the end of the world - not just the poorest people living in the developed world.
While there have certainly been govt stuff ups that have cost the community, I think the collective govts are now moving foreword with some common sense in the 25 year transition from coal to RE and the proof is now in the wholesale prices and finally talk about charging PV solar to feed into an oversupplied grid to encourage the next phase of the transition, home and grid sized batteries.
RTT_Rules
We're already a trillion dollars in state and federal liabilities thanks to COVID and now we have to spend another trillion on stuff made in China? How convenient for them that they can just burn coal to make those things for us. Almost like the Chinese are using the system to their own advantage to purposely make us weaker and more dependent on them.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
RE is not unlike coal, there is always a reserve and yes for RE that reserve may not actually be RE. There is nothing wrong with having a fleet of peaking gas/diesel generators on stand-by, WHICH THEY HAD 12 YEARS AGO BEFORE THE CURRENT WIND/SOLAR BOOM. Most of the peaking generation we have today is actually at least 15 years old.

Hydro and large scale pump hydro is the means at which to also help manage wind droughts as well as geographic diversity of wind generation, something the UK has limited capacity to do as the country is smaller than Victoria.

We are not living in the Jurassic period and any changed back then would be measured in millennia, not decades.
RTT_Rules
Again, you're not comparing the same thing. True, we did have gas standby in the old days when we had a coal fired plant but the capacity of the stand-by didn't have to be 1,000 MWH because coal doesn't go on holidays for weeks at a time like the wind does and it doesn't stop at sunset like solar panels do. So the 'backup' resources in a 'green' grid have to enormous, many times larger than they were with a reliable grid powered by coal or nuclear.

You are not comparing like with like.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The Representative from SA will literally be blowing a fuse over this. Coal's apparently dead and we are moving on. Amazing how a few short years makes such a difference. I'm glad...coal is so 20th Century Exclamation

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/fastest-change-in-the-world-coal-s-demise-sparks-call-for-energy-market-reforms-20210429-p57nhc.html

Mike.
There you are again, trailing around in my wake like a lost puppy.


Is that the best you can come up with Representative from SA Question

You know you're a legend in your own lounge room. The seer and font of all alternative knowledge from the loony right. C'mon... how about some serious lambasting, I'm up for it.

M.
The Vinelander
So are you actually here to add to the conversation or just to troll?

Serious question.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I'll agree yes to increased CO2 will increase plant growth, pity so much plant growth is now under  roads and houses and every tonne of cement used released 400kg of CO2 just in the reaction, not the fuel to make it.

I'll say no to increase CO2 will increase coral growth as its a delicate pH balance and the oceans are much bigger than the coral  and potentially the reverse is true.

You didn't comment on the impact on atmosphere, so I'll take that as a no.
I've read that a few times now - increased acidity in the oceans from carbon dioxide permeating the water leads to increased coarl growth because they can form calcium carbonate from it. Do you have any other evidence to the contrary or is that just a 'feeling' that you have? And from what I've read there isn't any actual evidence that increased carbon dioxide will cause the ionosphere to warm - a theory that is borne out by the chart that I showed you.
I didn't ask what China may or maynot do, so I'll take this is a "what can I do, its all hopeless" response to again divert against what I suspect you know is correct but won't admit it.
Again, it's critically important to consider what other countries in the world are doing in relation to carbon dioxide because if they're building a new coal fired power plant every week then the issue becomes one of 'why are they allowed to have electricity at 8 cents when we have to pay 35 or 40? Why do they get to pump out increasing amounts of carbon dioxide when we aren't allow to build one single new HELE coal plant in this country?' I can't find a single, logical reason why the 'developing world' gets a free pass to continue to increase emissions at many times to the total output of Australia per year while we're not allowed to do anything to ensure energy security and affordability for the poorest Australians.
Personally I don't fall for "look how big China is" crap which is the fall out for all the right wing anti climate views. At the end of the day for me it gets down to CO2 per captia consumed. This is your actual CO2 foot print, not a political boundary which can be used and abused. On CO2/capita which is easier to use, but again very misleading Australia is nearly down that of China. Moral of the story, the Chinese have a smaller foot print than YOU! So anyone in Australia sitting back and pointing the finger at China as an excuse is either ignorant or arrogant.
So it's not a 'climate emergency' then? We can allow China to keep increasing their emissions until 2050 or beyond because the disasters that we're told will occur are as a result of the carbon dioxide that the developed world emits - not the developing world?

Is it an 'emergency' or not? If it is then EVERYONE should be making sacrifices to prevent the end of the world - not just the poorest people living in the developed world.
While there have certainly been govt stuff ups that have cost the community, I think the collective govts are now moving foreword with some common sense in the 25 year transition from coal to RE and the proof is now in the wholesale prices and finally talk about charging PV solar to feed into an oversupplied grid to encourage the next phase of the transition, home and grid sized batteries.
We're already a trillion dollars in state and federal liabilities thanks to COVID and now we have to spend another trillion on stuff made in China? How convenient for them that they can just burn coal to make those things for us. Almost like the Chinese are using the system to their own advantage to purposely make us weaker and more dependent on them.
don_dunstan
Lucky we have people in the world with actual qualifications in this field. You may have read, but you havn't shared the link and now you are doing your usual BS by saying do I have "Actual" evidence, but you can just state.

Don, its callled High Shool Chemistry.
Ocean, pH is 8.1, CaCO3 precipitates at pH 6 and above, the closer these two become, the rate of solubility will increase. The sea can buffer so much CO2 before it starts to change because of the salts, but its not infinite and fresh water systems usually have lower buffer capacity.

You may wish to read noaa.gov

You and your food source are not from the Jurassic period, nor is it available. Change the climate to that of the Jurassic Period and you may find your pantry rather bare.

The developing world isn't producing CO2 emissions at the rate consumers in the developed world are, hence the focus on the developed world. China around 8t/capita, Australia around 15. So unit you are down to 8, why would the Chinese do anything?

Also China is not increase CO2 emissions from the power sector, its actually contracting.

Hence the focus will shift to CO2 t/capita consumed. Gross emissions per country in a global traded economy is about as useful a metric as measuring CO2/penis length.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Again, you're not comparing the same thing. True, we did have gas standby in the old days when we had a coal fired plant but the capacity of the stand-by didn't have to be 1,000 MWH because coal doesn't go on holidays for weeks at a time like the wind does and it doesn't stop at sunset like solar panels do. So the 'backup' resources in a 'green' grid have to enormous, many times larger than they were with a reliable grid powered by coal or nuclear.

You are not comparing like with like.
don_dunstan
Your comment is incorrect.

The capacity of SA's gas and diesel generation system is currently rated at around 3500 MW, most of it predating any wind capacity and actually larger than the 800 MW, (not  the 1000 MW you stated) coal power stations you had before of which the 240 MW Playford B was basically a museum piece that was only operated in the final 15 years during period of known peak caused by extreme weather (I know the guy who used to run it, worked with him in India). It was not available for emergency use as it took around 36-48 h to activate.

SA solar output will continue to grow and by 2024-25 will routinely provide 100% of the states power for around 8h a day, more in summer, less in winter leaving wind, battery, gas/diesel and intertie to Snowy to manage the remaining hours of the day.

Even with the coal power stations, the state still needed reserve gas and diesel to ensure the state kept the lights on should the plant trip.

My employer generates 5000 MW of its own power using base load CCGT technology, yet we still have 25% spare capacity against major failure of any of the units and 48h of diesel in permanent storage as a back up against the gas pipeline failing.

Realistically even when SA had coal, it should have had a major intertie with NSW Snowy for the same reasons it needs one now.

Even without wind/solar, today, Northern and Playford would never have been replaced by coal. Gas turbine technology is far far advanced compared to coal and SA such a small but volatile load coal is out of its depth. If you were too build it all new today, with no wind or solar, it would be a mix of CCGT, peaking OCGT and some gas/diesel reciprocal for both black start and high peaking demand.

For example SA might have
3 x Siemen's H-blocks in CCGT format, ~ 1950 MW, these have an efficiency of 62%
3 x Siemen's H-block OOGT gas turbine only ~ 1350 MW
250 - 350 MW of reciprocal gas/diesel.
Total ~3600 MW,
But I think this would be still insufficient buffer and a 4th OOGT is likely to be required to reduce the risk of outages during peak periods and allow for PM's. For example in Dubai, DEWA does all their major turbine PM's during winter, summer is only essential and breakdowns.

All this would cost around $2.5-3.5B. We are installing a single H block Siemens for 1M AED, so about $300M on our land with existing tie in infrastructure.  

On top of this 48 - 72h of diesel storage incase of gas pipeline failure, this is normally done in conjunction with the oil refinery or oil import tank farm in that two reserves can be over lapped as the risk of needing both at the same time is rare enough to pass insurance requirements and political risk.

Some cost and risk could be saved by having intertie to east coast.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Lucky we have people in the world with actual qualifications in this field. You may have read, but you havn't shared the link and now you are doing your usual BS by saying do I have "Actual" evidence, but you can just state.

Don, its callled High Shool Chemistry.
Ocean, pH is 8.1, CaCO3 precipitates at pH 6 and above, the closer these two become, the rate of solubility will increase. The sea can buffer so much CO2 before it starts to change because of the salts, but its not infinite and fresh water systems usually have lower buffer capacity.

You may wish to read noaa.gov
RTT_Rules
Ocean ph is dropping, not rising; it's actually been falling since the 19th century.

Remind me again about how the coral reefs are in danger due to ocean acidification from carbon dioxide?

It's purely a theory - nothing has ever been demonstrated in the real world. And even if its true nothing we do in this country will avert that fate. Nothing.
You and your food source are not from the Jurassic period, nor is it available. Change the climate to that of the Jurassic Period and you may find your pantry rather bare.
RTT_Rules
This is just a theory that you (and others) have absolutely no evidence for. None.

Last time I checked the planet is not losing gases to space, nor is it adding substantial amounts of gas, nor has it changed substantially since the Jurassic period apart from the concentration of carbon dioxide going down due to coal and gas sequestering gasses in the mantle.

The composition of the planet really hasn't changed that much since the formation of the oceans and yet we're supposed to starve to death due to climate change.

Again, no evidence.
The developing world isn't producing CO2 emissions at the rate consumers in the developed world are, hence the focus on the developed world. China around 8t/capita, Australia around 15. So unit you are down to 8, why would the Chinese do anything? Also China is not increase CO2 emissions from the power sector, its actually contracting. Hence the focus will shift to CO2 t/capita consumed. Gross emissions per country in a global traded economy is about as useful a metric as measuring CO2/penis length.
RTT_Rules
It isn't contracting, its expanding. From Reuters 3/2/2021:

Including decommissions, China's coal-fired fleet capacity rose by a net 29.8 GW in 2020, even as the rest of the world made cuts of 17.2 GW, according to research released on Wednesday by Global Energy Monitor (GEM), a U.S. think tank, and the Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

"The runaway expansion of coal-fired power is driven by electricity companies' and local governments' interest in maximising investment spending, more than a real need for new capacity," said Lauri Myllyvirta, CREA lead analyst. China approved the construction of a further 36.9 GW of coal-fired capacity last year, three times more than a year earlier, bringing the total under construction to 88.1 GW. It now has 247 GW of coal power under development, enough to supply the whole of Germany.

Where does it say that China is NOT increasing CO2 emissions from its power industry? All the information that I've found points to the opposite - a massive expansion in the coal-fired power industry across China but especially in the south.

This is yet another point in time where you've made a 'broad brush' kind of statement without any links to back it up - only for me to find within two minutes information that directly contracts your claim.

And you wonder why I can't take anything you say seriously. It's because its nearly always wrong.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Your comment is incorrect.
RTT_Rules

Here we go again. You make a whole lot of elaborate and well-thought out claims about how we are going to make the transition to 'net zero' which I will need to go through and pull apart one-by-one until there's nothing left.

Give me a reason why I should waste my precious time going though your long diatribes pointing out the inaccuracies to you? I've already found one really glaring one just scanning through it - solar panels will run eight hours a day every day.

No, they don't. And they won't.

Honestly, you need to read up more about scientific methods and debating properly - you constantly confuse opinion and heresay with fact, you don't research and/or link properly and you post things that are frankly ridiculous - like China's power industry moving towards net zero. There's no evidence for that claim at all but you happily repeat it as if its fact.

If you post things that are well researched and are actually true, I'll think about writing back to you but for the moment I think you need to work on how you argue things a bit more.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Some cost and risk could be saved by having intertie to east coast.
RTT_Rules

Once Liddell etc is closed then their grid will be just as unreliable as ours.

So three billion dollars down the drain. And for what?
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
Give me a reason why I should waste my precious time
don_dunstan
You do seem to waste quite a lot of that with meaningless posts on here...
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Give me a reason why I should waste my precious time
You do seem to waste quite a lot of that with meaningless posts on here...
Graham4405
You always have the option of going through the list of new posts and saying to yourself: Ugh, not Don Dunstan - I'm not even going to read what that expletive deleted has written.

And if you do read it then by all means feel free to contribute - I'm not pretending to have all the answers am I.
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

The Representative from SA will literally be blowing a fuse over this.
No, he won't. He doesn't have any fuses. "Literally" is one of the most misused words in the lexicon, and means something that actually happens. Mr SA may well be metaphorically blowing a fuse, but he can't literally do it.

Thankyou for that helpful contribution valvegear. Smile

Nevertheless the representative from SA's rants about the wonders of coal fired power stations and the deficiencies of renewables and other advanced means of generating energy, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary because he is obviously so well learned about such matters, in all likelihood by the far right media which will say anything contrary to the mainstream media in a vain effort to keep itself relevant. But I digress.

Posts from that contributor are like listening to Andrew Blot... completely off with the pixies and appealing to the limited intelligence, gullible, loony right wing, conspiracy theory embracing flat Earthists.

Mike.
The Vinelander
Japan has just dropped the building of a coal fired power station.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
The Representative from SA will literally be blowing a fuse over this.
No, he won't. He doesn't have any fuses. "Literally" is one of the most misused words in the lexicon, and means something that actually happens. Mr SA may well be metaphorically blowing a fuse, but he can't literally do it.

Thankyou for that helpful contribution valvegear. Smile

Nevertheless the representative from SA's rants about the wonders of coal fired power stations and the deficiencies of renewables and other advanced means of generating energy, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary because he is obviously so well learned about such matters, in all likelihood by the far right media which will say anything contrary to the mainstream media in a vain effort to keep itself relevant. But I digress.

Posts from that contributor are like listening to Andrew Blot... completely off with the pixies and appealing to the limited intelligence, gullible, loony right wing, conspiracy theory embracing flat Earthists.

Mike.
Japan has just dropped the building of a coal fired power station.
nswtrains
Well, that is going to save the world!
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Some cost and risk could be saved by having intertie to east coast.

Once Liddell etc is closed then their grid will be just as unreliable as ours.

So three billion dollars down the drain. And for what?
don_dunstan
No, only the naive or stupid would make this comment. The power it produces will be replaced by a serious of project from gas turbine, beefing up Bayswater, battery, Snowy 2.0 and increasing intertie capacity into Qld.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Some cost and risk could be saved by having intertie to east coast.

Once Liddell etc is closed then their grid will be just as unreliable as ours.

So three billion dollars down the drain. And for what?
No, only the naive or stupid would make this comment. The power it produces will be replaced by a serious of project from gas turbine, beefing up Bayswater, battery, Snowy 2.0 and increasing intertie capacity into Qld.
RTT_Rules
You mean the gas plants that Zali Steggal and the Greens are campaigning against (are are likely to succeed?)

And you mean the Hunter Valley coal plants that the NSW government is trying to force AGL close in their entirety as soon as possible?

Which will leave NSW with sunshine and breezes to power a state of 6 million people. And when there's a 'wind drought' the batteries and Snowy pumped hydro will be useless - zero times zero equals zero.

Really smart thinking isn't it. I personally am not concerned because I've got a generator in the shed ready to power our essential household items so I don't have to throw away the contents of my freezer (again). Our household is ready for the exciting new era of zero emissions and spontaneous power outages.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Japan has just dropped the building of a coal fired power station.
Well, that is going to save the world!
Donald
These idiots really think that's what they're doing when in reality all they're doing is punishing the very poorest Australians with high-priced, unreliable power and forcing yet more jobs off-shore.

How do we compete with 8 cents an hour? The answer: BRING BACK COAL.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Some cost and risk could be saved by having intertie to east coast.

Once Liddell etc is closed then their grid will be just as unreliable as ours.

So three billion dollars down the drain. And for what?
No, only the naive or stupid would make this comment. The power it produces will be replaced by a serious of project from gas turbine, beefing up Bayswater, battery, Snowy 2.0 and increasing intertie capacity into Qld.
You mean the gas plants that Zali Steggal and the Greens are campaigning against (are are likely to succeed?)

And you mean the Hunter Valley coal plants that the NSW government is trying to force AGL close in their entirety as soon as possible?

Which will leave NSW with sunshine and breezes to power a state of 6 million people. And when there's a 'wind drought' the batteries and Snowy pumped hydro will be useless - zero times zero equals zero.

Really smart thinking isn't it. I personally am not concerned because I've got a generator in the shed ready to power our essential household items so I don't have to throw away the contents of my freezer (again). Our household is ready for the exciting new era of zero emissions and spontaneous power outages.
don_dunstan
The Greens and Zali do not control the govt.

The NSW govt is not trying to force the early closure of the coal power stations.

Once again you are trying to apply the 2020 technology to the 2040 solution.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The Greens and Zali do not control the govt.
RTT_Rules
Gladys is one seat from minority; if the Nats lose on the 22nd of May by-election then they're going to need their votes to stay in government. Nightmare scenario for responsible government in NSW.
The NSW govt is not trying to force the early closure of the coal power stations.
RTT_Rules
This is becoming repetitive.

Do some basic Googling before you make statements like that - start with thing like the NSW Electricity Strategy passed into law in November last year. All NSW coal plants should be (in theory) closed by 2036 but they clearly want to accelerate that 'transition' and are preparing a statement specifically to accelerate this process. Mark Latham has written extensively about the cost to NSW power consumers and the danger to the grid of accelerating those closures - NSW Environment minister Matt Kean is expected to announce a funding package later this year to ensure all coal capacity in NSW is closed by 2025-2030.

The main issue is that NSW is still - STILL in 2021 - 75-80% typically supplied by black coal at any one time - as I write this the NEM say NSW is 77% coal this morning. How on earth they think that accelerating the closure of these resources (as well as the ones in QLD and VIC simultaneously) will NOT directly lead to blackouts is beyond me. We simply won't be ready and the supplies will be too unreliable no matter how much they spend on adding 'redundancy' to the grid. And the irony of SA building a HV interconnector to NSW Hunter Valley power plants that soon won't be there - if they have wind drought then it's useless.
Once again you are trying to apply the 2020 technology to the 2040 solution.
RTT_Rules
That's right, I forgot - we'll all be in flying cars and have holidays on the moon by then.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
The Greens and Zali do not control the govt.
Gladys is one seat from minority; if the Nats lose on the 22nd of May by-election then they're going to need their votes to stay in government. Nightmare scenario for responsible government in NSW.
The NSW govt is not trying to force the early closure of the coal power stations.
This is becoming repetitive.

Do some basic Googling before you make statements like that - start with thing like the NSW Electricity Strategy passed into law in November last year. All NSW coal plants should be (in theory) closed by 2036 but they clearly want to accelerate that 'transition' and are preparing a statement specifically to accelerate this process. Mark Latham has written extensively about the cost to NSW power consumers and the danger to the grid of accelerating those closures - NSW Environment minister Matt Kean is expected to announce a funding package later this year to ensure all coal capacity in NSW is closed by 2025-2030.

The main issue is that NSW is still - STILL in 2021 - 75-80% typically supplied by black coal at any one time - as I write this the NEM say NSW is 77% coal this morning. How on earth they think that accelerating the closure of these resources (as well as the ones in QLD and VIC simultaneously) will NOT directly lead to blackouts is beyond me. We simply won't be ready and the supplies will be too unreliable no matter how much they spend on adding 'redundancy' to the grid. And the irony of SA building a HV interconnector to NSW Hunter Valley power plants that soon won't be there - if they have wind drought then it's useless.
Once again you are trying to apply the 2020 technology to the 2040 solution.
That's right, I forgot - we'll all be in flying cars and have holidays on the moon by then.
don_dunstan
Don,

RE: NSW govt majority
What wako planet are you sitting on?    Glady has an 8 seat majority.

RE: NSW coal power stations
What planet are you sitting on here? All but one of NSW 5 active coal power stations are expected to be closed by 2035 due to old age.
Liddel will go next year, Vales Point in 2028, Eraring and Bayswater in 2035 and 2034 respectively.
Only Mt Piper is expected to operate to 2043.

AGAIN DON this is not a political agenda, its age based when the respective stations are expected to reach 50 years old. Whether Mt Piper operates beyond 2035 or not, I'll guess we will find out in due course, but this is 15 years away.

To replace all of the above with new coal is $12 - 15 B.

"how will NOT directly lead to blackouts is beyond me"
Well based on your various comments in this post o far, its not  bloody hard to see how 2+2 would no doubt be beyond you.

In 2007, the last year in SA before any wind, the whole price was $45/MWh and coal provided around 52% of all the states power, 36% local, 17% import. Oh life was so much better back then when 1/6 electrons was sourced from Vic

2021, YTD whole price is basically the same before inflation correction, 13% of power imported - 3% export so net 10%, so basically less than 10% of the electrons is coal.

2021, The whole sale price was $51 before inflation correction with net 1% export.

... and you have the hide to claim the state was better with coal operating, seriously what a joke statement.

Again, "how will NSW survive in 15 years without coal"? Yes Don it is clearly beyond you level of thinking while you cannot come to terms what happened in your own state, which yes had a number of glitches in the early stages but now better controlled.

Wind droughts are managed through buffer, such as SNOWY 2.0 which con provide 2000 MW continuously for around 10 days and back up gas/diesel sources which is what happens now for peaking demand. Even if these coal power stations were to be replaced with new coal, the decision to proceed is required around 4 years prior, so time and technology is on the govt side.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Don,

RE: NSW govt majority
What wako planet are you sitting on?    Glady has an 8 seat majority.
RTT_Rules
If you'd pulled your finger out and Googled something properly before commenting you'd know that's not true.

Berejiklian government faces by-election minority government in the NSW Legislative Assembly

Given the very first thing that you wrote was completely wrong I'm going to punish you by not reading or responding to the rest of that post which I can assume was probably all equally wrong given you couldn't even get the first paragraph right. Its quite sad that you don't seem to have mastered this interwebs thing enough to Google the very most basic things about subjects that you're commenting on especially given how out-of-touch you are with the Aussie political scene.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Don,

RE: NSW govt majority
What wako planet are you sitting on?    Glady has an 8 seat majority.
If you'd pulled your finger out and Googled something properly before commenting you'd know that's not true.

Berejiklian government faces by-election minority government in the NSW Legislative Assembly

Given the very first thing that you wrote was completely wrong I'm going to punish you by not reading or responding to the rest of that post which I can assume was probably all equally wrong given you couldn't even get the first paragraph right. Its quite sad that you don't seem to have mastered this interwebs thing enough to Google the very most basic things about subjects that you're commenting on especially given how out-of-touch you are with the Aussie political scene.
don_dunstan
35 LNP
13 NAT
3 Shooters (who will support the govt)
= 51

There are also 3 IND, I have not bothers to check which side they lean as unlikely to be relevant.

Loosing one still equals 50 in a 93 seat house. To have a majority the govt needs 48, 47 + speaker.

State-wide polls have shown support for the Berejiklian government improving since the 2019 election, mostly through its firm handling of floods, fires and the pandemic.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from: