He's dreamingReally has nothing at all to do with what's being discussed, we're talking about the capital cost of replacing established centralised grid systems with a 'diffuse' grid desperately trying to get power from where-ever it can. So automatically we're talking about the construction of hundreds of billions worth of new HV lines pretty much everywhere.
1. All those aging coal and gas turbine power stations will at some point need replacement and decommissing regardless of what is happening.
2. HV upgrades were mostly required anyway as the new coal power stations would not always be built at an existing site as we have seen in the past for a number of reasons and as HV equipment gets life expired.No sorry just not true, what you're saying is that they'd have to build (for example) the Latrobe Valley power stations somewhere that's physically distant from the mines... for some reason that you don't identify. That's just plain stupid, why would they do that?
3. The steel, concrete and CO2 emissions required to build RE is similar to that required to build coal or gas.Evidence? Links?
Anything at all?
4. The $1.13 trillion estimate is a complete pile of Bull$hit, most of the cost is being undertaken at end of life replacement of existing capacity and other upgrades. And even if RE wasn't on the agenda, things like Northern Power station would have been retired and not replaced as it was a high cost option for which there are more modern efficent options.Rubbish! At the very least can you tell me the cost of a new high efficiency low emission (HELE) power plant in Australia?
No of course you can't - because you haven't researched and you don't know.
This goes back to your core problem, which I've had to lecture on for the second time today - which is that you run off at the cuff without Googling things. Try looking at places like Germany and Japan that are still building brand new coal-fired power plants and tell us what a cutting edge technological process can do with old fashioned coal-burning power plants in 2021 and how much it really costs.
5. Currently 1 in 5 Australian houses has solar PV, some of them older smaller systems that need upgrading to 6.6kW systems in the future including my FIL. Combined the current PV roof top is providing 7.5% of demand and some of its curtailed, so potentially 8-10%. If every house to have a 6.6 kW system on average would therefore push the out put to closde to 50% of the total NEM grid demand, on average. The commerical solar farms are around 4%, again partly curtialed during peak out put periods. It wouldn't be hard to push these to 5 - 10 x in capacity which is not even 1% of the 22,000 farms to be claimed to be required. So 1/3 to 1/2 of the NEM grid demand.Again, there's so much wrong with just that one paragraph that I hardly know where to start.
Existing solar rooftop installations are heavily subsidised by other grid users who are generally captive to the grid - those people are generally renters and are poor, but I'm guessing you're going to get around that by using public money to put a 6.6k/w system on the roof of every single household in Australia. What you're asking is for the huge grid-user and taxpayer gouge to be extended even further by not only upgrading existing private plant at public expense - including private landlords apparently - and then also subsidise their feed-in with poor people who are grid captive. Right?
You have a real cash figure for all that of course. And it's apparently substantially less than the $1.1 trillion cited in this article - because that's what you said at the start? What about the plant that's life-expired - much of it is 10+ years old and will need replacing soon - are you factoring that into the equation or just winging it? Nah you really have no idea do you...
And you're quoting MAXIMUM capacity of all those solar installations - which they almost never achieve - ever. The very essence of the problem with 'renewable' energy is that it very seldom runs to any sort of plated capacity because its entirely dependent on the vagaries of the weather and at any moment the supply could fall off a cliff. I'm guessing that's why the author had to throw the six nuclear power plants into the report because we can't possibly run a nation of 23+ million (in the NEM area) on renewables alone. It simply can't be done, not even for $1.13 trillion.
7. No one ever said every consumption of fossil fuel needs to replaced. The clear target is on big impacts items for which practical affordable solutions are progressively coming on stream such as power generation and transport. Aviation and mining type machinery are longer term outlook problems.Of course they have to be replaced, that's the whole point of ZERO NET emissions - almost all the dirty old carbon spewing industries and vehicles will have to go. Unless you rely on the complete bullsh*t that is planting trees in lieu of having your guilty pleasure of a V8 Landcruiser or an international flight - that stuff is just a middle class guilt abrogation.
Zero is zero is zero, I don't believe in the capacity of planting trees to allow you to fly halfway across the planet - that's a cop out and completely unscientific.
1) Yes you posted same in #1 "replace and decommission"
2) The grid was never truely centralised, some states more than others. Qld has 8000 MW of generating capacity spread over 1700 km. Most of the RE being built in Qld to date are being built in the same location.
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.
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.
3) Most of the current generation of coal fired power stations were not built near or ontop of previous ones. Their replacements are by no means guarenteed to be all in the same place. Latrobe valley maybe an exception but they won't be built along side retired ones and HV lines will need upgrading as new power stations replace multi older ones.
4) Blind Freddy can tell you a new coal power station rated at aroudn 2GW is around $3-4B based on over seas projects.
But DOn, your stupid parroting is your downfall. $1.13 T, are you serioius? I mean have you even turned your brain on when posting this number?
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.
So time for some thing Don, how long did it take to return to greenfield Northen Power station and/or Hazelwood? Now how long would it take to demolish 2000 MW of 5 MW wind turbines? Might give an idea on amount of stuff used and hence cost.
6) JApan and Germany built the coal power stations because of a commitment to phase out nuclear in lieu of a practical alternative.
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.
Never said I agreed with the subsidies from day 1. The transition to RE must be based on commerical rates or return.
I was quoting actual grid feed data which doesn't include power generated not reported to the grid on older systems.
8) Replacement of D9's diesel engine is hardly a major focus at this time is it Don? Again focus on the practical and obvious solutions and power and large volume transport.