• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Renewable Troubles in Australia

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They are out to prove that there's no such thing as affordable renewable energy in Australia. Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider. They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. Coal plants backed up the renewables, as must be the case since the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, but since coal plants can't turn on and off depending on when the sun shines and the wind blows they lose a lot of money keeping the plants hot. The government refused to subsidize this, so then some of the coal plants went out of business unexpectedly suddenly all over Australia. Huge shortages, blackouts and brownouts, were the result, and the price of electricity went up like a rocket. So now the government wants to force the coal plants to stay on line regardless how much money those companies and their shareholders lose.

I suppose that due to the increasing unreliability of the grid people are going to want to install generators, diesel, gasoline, or natural gas powered, in their homes and businesses, which would be ironic.

Link | Daily Telegraph
 
They are out to prove that there's no such thing as affordable renewable energy in Australia. Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider. They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. Coal plants backed up the renewables, as must be the case since the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, but since coal plants can't turn on and off depending on when the sun shines and the wind blows they lose a lot of money keeping the plants hot. The government refused to subsidize this, so then some of the coal plants they went out of business unexpectedly suddenly all over Australia. Huge shortages, blackouts and brownouts, were the result, and the price of electricity went up like a rocket. So now the government wants to force the coal plants to stay on line regardless how much money those companies and their shareholders lose.

I suppose that due to the increasing unreliability of the grid people are going to want to install generators, diesel, gasoline, or natural gas powered, in their homes and businesses, which would be ironic.

Link | Daily Telegraph

The USA would be in the same boat if the liberals had their way. They have no clue as to a slow easing over to green/renewable.
 
They are out to prove that there's no such thing as affordable renewable energy in Australia. Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider. They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. Coal plants backed up the renewables, as must be the case since the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, but since coal plants can't turn on and off depending on when the sun shines and the wind blows they lose a lot of money keeping the plants hot. The government refused to subsidize this, so then some of the coal plants went out of business unexpectedly suddenly all over Australia. Huge shortages, blackouts and brownouts, were the result, and the price of electricity went up like a rocket. So now the government wants to force the coal plants to stay on line regardless how much money those companies and their shareholders lose.

I suppose that due to the increasing unreliability of the grid people are going to want to install generators, diesel, gasoline, or natural gas powered, in their homes and businesses, which would be ironic.

Link | Daily Telegraph
There's a lot of liberals who want to make a lot of money increasing the cost of power by upwards of 250%.
 
They are out to prove that there's no such thing as affordable renewable energy in Australia. Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider. They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. Coal plants backed up the renewables, as must be the case since the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, but since coal plants can't turn on and off depending on when the sun shines and the wind blows they lose a lot of money keeping the plants hot. The government refused to subsidize this, so then some of the coal plants went out of business unexpectedly suddenly all over Australia. Huge shortages, blackouts and brownouts, were the result, and the price of electricity went up like a rocket. So now the government wants to force the coal plants to stay on line regardless how much money those companies and their shareholders lose.

I suppose that due to the increasing unreliability of the grid people are going to want to install generators, diesel, gasoline, or natural gas powered, in their homes and businesses, which would be ironic.

Link | Daily Telegraph

Is that in your article? Or are you talking about the US? Do you have a source because I've been paying my electric bill and I haven't seen a 100% increase since 2015.
 
They are out to prove that there's no such thing as affordable renewable energy in Australia. Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider. They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. Coal plants backed up the renewables, as must be the case since the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, but since coal plants can't turn on and off depending on when the sun shines and the wind blows they lose a lot of money keeping the plants hot. The government refused to subsidize this, so then some of the coal plants went out of business unexpectedly suddenly all over Australia. Huge shortages, blackouts and brownouts, were the result, and the price of electricity went up like a rocket. So now the government wants to force the coal plants to stay on line regardless how much money those companies and their shareholders lose.

I suppose that due to the increasing unreliability of the grid people are going to want to install generators, diesel, gasoline, or natural gas powered, in their homes and businesses, which would be ironic.

Link | Daily Telegraph

It is more or less the same story everywhere the governments are forcing through a planed switch to solar/wind.
 
[h=2]Finkel report destroys baseload coal power economics[/h]
[h=3]Demand enough renewables and you might as well ban coal[/h]There’s a lesson Australia needs to learn from South Australia. When intermittent renewables reach a certain percentage of daily average supply they make baseload power unfeasible. The situation develops into an impossible dead end that can only be solved with container-ships of cash.

The intermittent supply of wind and solar is the immoveable problem. It eats into the daily chart of the cheapest stable electricity supply — which is coal fired. Coal can’t be ramped in and out in minutes. It is a creature that runs best non-stop, efficiently, smoothly, at a high capacity factor (meaning it works best when it is producing around 90% of it’s design limit continuously).

Tom Quirk points out that sometime after these intermittent renewables hit 30% of the average daily supply, as they have in South Australia — locally sourced coal power becomes uneconomic. There are times during the daily cycle when renewables are providing almost all the demand. There is little demand left for the massive coal turbines to supply, so they spin on pointlessly, but costs remain, and profits are zero.
In SA, the owner of the last coal fired station was still willing to pour in money, but even large cash injections didn’t change the daily bad news cycle, and the coal station was closed.

If the electricity markets were left to run free, and compete purely on price, coal would provide the baseload (unless we had nukes) and obviously, electricity would be cheaper. But no amount of word mangling can dress up the situation. The insistence on having a large slab of intermittent power forces coal out of the system, and that forces prices up. . . .


 
[h=2]Surely not: Climate revolt and another Australian PM?[/h]
It’s hard to believe Turnbull could fall for this one twice.
Dennis Shannahan warns us:
There is a revolt in the Coalition ranks and there are those prepared to say that Finkel is dead or worse.

More than 20 Coalition MPs spoke against the Finkel report last night, including Tony Abbott, all concerned that the priority is for cutting emissions and not electricity prices.
History repeats?
David Crowe on what he’s heard about the same liberal party room meeting:
Former prime minister Tony Abbott was a sharp critic of the clean energy target and made interjections throughout the *discussions.
“He was the most sceptical about it — he said it wasn’t going to cut prices or provide certainty for consumers,” one Liberal said.
“He was probably the strongest critic throughout the whole *meeting.”
One of the senior Liberal figures who took notes on the meeting said last night that about 32 people spoke and about one-third of them were not in favour of the Finkel proposal, while one-third supported the clean energy target and another third asked questions or had suggestions for changes. Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, who has held his marginal electorate against determined assaults from Labor, was one MP who argued fiercely for a policy outcome that focused on *affordability.
People keep hoping bipartisanship will finally solve the climate question, but this is a neverending loop as long anyone is talking about using windmills to change the climate. How many reruns of the same pointless dilemma will we do before we find the Ship called Bipartisan is docked in a town where no one uses a solar panel to prevent droughts, cause rain, or “save Greenland” from being … green?
Commenter Sophocles asks: Whenever you’re told a reform is going to be `cheaper’ start demanding proof. Loudly. Numbers.
So lets gets real data. Let’s separate one state in Australia, run it on 42% renewables, and see what the price is… Oh wait. Experiment done: spot the renewable mega success in South Australia: blackout costs $367m, normal electricity twice the price, reserve shortfalls coming in January
Time to write to your Liberal MP’s. Can someone get an email list ready so I can update the old one?
Links from The Australian.
 
Is that in your article? Or are you talking about the US? Do you have a source because I've been paying my electric bill and I haven't seen a 100% increase since 2015.

The link to the article is at the bottom of the OP where it says "Link".
 
The link to the article is at the bottom of the OP where it says "Link".

Can you quote the part that backs up your assertion that "Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider." I can't find anything even remotely related to that number. I've googled the **** out of it also.
 
My opinion is use the resources that are cheap and plentiful in a particular area of the country. In the western united states and even the great plains region where sun and wind are plentiful wind and solar are ideal. Nuclear and hydroelectric should be a back up for the rare times when the wind stops blowing or it rains. In the NE part of the country where it is rainy and overcast more often than sunny wind and solar are not ideal sources of energy. Wind power is viable in certain areas but by no means is a steady source of power. However the NE is sitting on billions of tons of soft and hard coal as well as natural gas. To not develop efficient ways of using these valuable and plentiful resources is just plain ignorance.
 
[h=2]Stupid Nation: Australians crave cheap energy, yet think “low cost” renewables need support[/h]
It’s like an Easter Island moment for an advanced economy: somehow “cheap” energy can’t compete in a free market without government subsidy. A Nation of Serfs have forgotten what a free market is. Will cheap desirable stuff sell itself, or not?
The contradictions mount. Electricity and gas prices are hitting escape velocity:
The wholesale electricity spot prices was about $35 a megawatt hour during 2011, rose to $58 after the carbon tax was introduced and is now about $130 as gas prices push up energy generator costs.
Not surprisingly 70% of Australians want cheaper, more reliable electricity. Only one person in four would rather cut emissions than cut the bill. Yet the agitprop telling people that renewables are “cheap” has been so pervasive that fully 38% of Australians think the government should raise the renewable energy target, and 23% think it should stay the same. It follows that around 4 in 10 Australians apparently hold the bizarre idea that wind and solar are cheap and yet in need of government support, as if there are no investors willing to put money into supplying something that 100% of people want at a price cheaper than what they currently pay. So screwed is our national commentary that a large slab of the nation think a cheap and highly desired product can’t profit without complex schemes and assistance.
Message to Australia, if renewables were cheap they wouldn’t need a RET, LET or CET scheme. People would just buy them!
No wonder there is policy gridlock. The situation won’t be resolved until the propaganda bubble pops and the national debate advances to the point where people know how expensive renewables are. Find me one country in the world running on wind and solar that has cheap electricity and no interconnector supplying coal or nuclear powered electrons. Exactly.
The answer for the Liberal-conservatives is clear, unless they get the message out that renewables are a hideously expensive deadweight burning a hole in our wallets they can’t possibly win this debate. As long as the nation blindly drinks from the Kool-aid-Cauldron the Conservatives are on a hiding to nothing – locked into endless cycles of “uncertainty” and hip-pocket pain.
Welcome to the clean green future — pack the whole family under one electric blanket while boat loads of our cheap coal set sail for China.
[h=3]Canberra offers tips on snuggling up for a clean, green winter[/h]Angela Shanahan
A few weeks ago I received a pamphlet from the ACT government on energy-*saving tips. For winter it featured a picture of a family all in overcoats and beanies, huddled under an electric blanket.
Welcome to your clean green future huddled under an electric blanket, and reverting to wood fires to keep the house warm.
The Finkel report aims to provide incentives for all energy *sources that produce electricity with lower greenhouse gas emissions, but the suggested benchmark means a high-efficiency, low-emissions power plant with carbon capture and storage would not qualify. That is why plenty of people think this is a backdoor attempt to block coal and even gas with an effective “tax on coal”.
The crisis has arisen because of the over-reliance on wind and solar power. In South Australia, combined with the closure of two coal-fired power plants, one in SA and one in Victoria, it has destabilised the whole grid. Added to that is the shortage of gas and the lack of storage for renewables.
Meanwhile, despite the domestic opposition to coal, we send our coal to Japan and China to be used in high-*efficiency, low-emissions coal-fired generators to produce cleaner and cheaper power where people don’t have to sit *inside wearing beanies under an electric blanket.





 
They are out to prove that there's no such thing as affordable renewable energy in Australia. Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider. They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. Coal plants backed up the renewables, as must be the case since the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow all the time, but since coal plants can't turn on and off depending on when the sun shines and the wind blows they lose a lot of money keeping the plants hot. The government refused to subsidize this, so then some of the coal plants went out of business unexpectedly suddenly all over Australia. Huge shortages, blackouts and brownouts, were the result, and the price of electricity went up like a rocket. So now the government wants to force the coal plants to stay on line regardless how much money those companies and their shareholders lose.

I suppose that due to the increasing unreliability of the grid people are going to want to install generators, diesel, gasoline, or natural gas powered, in their homes and businesses, which would be ironic.

Link | Daily Telegraph

Your article is nothing more than the usual full of **** ranting of a climate change denier. Complete lies nothing else.

When your article says, " They put a lot of wind and solar in and gave it top priority. " Who is " they", certainly not the government.
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/03/australian-electricity-prices-have-doubled-since-the-carbon-tax-was-abandoned/
"To drive down prices, we need more renewables, more storage and a national transition plan," said Bandt on behalf of the Greens. Industry stakeholders in Australia's struggling electricity market are also clear that the government's opposition to renewables and unclear policy are presenting major barriers to investment in the sector — and driving up electricity prices.

This is not about renewable energy it is instead about how climate change deniers are nothing more than the lackeys of those who will create excessive profits for their own greed.
Comparing Australia's electricity charges to other countries shows why competition isn't working
The Grattan Institute recently published a blunt critique that went one step further. It suggested that not only are retailers charging a great deal, but that this is explained not by high costs but by excessive profits.

This thread is just another example of the pathetic lack of intelligence in your cherry picked crap to deny climate change
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article, with excellent comments! :thumbs: Comment #23 was especially interesting - "Too many people believe that wind and sunlight are "free" and therefore cheap, no matter how much cost there is to extract this "free" energy. Even smart people seem unable to grasp the fact that when it costs so much to extract this "free" energy, it's a bad investment!

I agree with that poster! If it were simply that there would be huge costs to begin, and then nothing further after that, I could probably go along with it, but we all know that any windmills or solar collectors are eventually going to have to be replaced and updated at some point as the original equipment wears out, OR new technology is introduced, and costs never seem to get less expensive!

Obama was quite specific in his warning to us that "your utility costs will necessarily skyrocket," which made a lot of people wonder why he was even spearheading something that most average income people living paycheck to paycheck probably could not afford now, let alone at some point in the future! I know, I know - we have to prevent the planet from getting .003 percent warmer in the next hundred years? :wow: Will I lose sleep worrying about that dreadfully scary scenario occurring! :no:

:rantoff:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article, with excellent comments! :thumbs: Comment #23 was especially interesting - "Too many people believe that wind and sunlight are "free" and therefore cheap, no matter how much cost there is to extract this "free" energy. Even smart people seem unable to grasp the fact that when it costs so much to extract this "free" energy, it's a bad investment!


He is talking about research, and maintenance costs. All power supplies have that cost whether renewable or not. Any claim of his that it costs so much is very debatable when matched up at costs of non-renewables.
and costs never seem to get less expensive!

Hearsay, and not even true. I can easily find links on why renewables are not only cheaper than non but are also getting less expensive. Where as your excuse is probably more appropriate for house decorating magazines.
 
Last edited:
He is talking about research, and maintenance costs. All power supplies have that cost whether renewable or not. Any claim of his that it costs so much is very debatable when matched up at costs of non-renewables.


Hearsay, and not even true. I can easily find links on why renewables are not only cheaper than non but are also getting less expensive. Where as your excuse is probably more appropriate for house decorating magazines.

[h=2]Another glorious solar scheme fails ignominiously, “fast clouds”, “rusty pipes”, dumb decisions[/h]
Another award winning solar project collapses: it was a $105 million dollar scheme. One company, Areva, lost about $50m and so did the taxpayer. Everything went wrong, management, planning, cheap poor quality steel from China, industrial dispute that left 80% of the pipes rusting on a dock. Three thousand solar reflectors are sitting unused in what was a potato paddock in Dalby. Nobody wants to buy them. They’re obviously worthless. CS Energy is state owned power utility, and it spent $50m but pulled to pin to save wasting another $50m.
In 2011 Julia Gillard raved about how it was going to save 35,000 tons of carbon.
“Ms Gillard says the project could be one of many under the new carbon tax scheme.
“With the clean-energy future I want for our nation, I want it to be a norm,” she said.”

Fans of renewables will cite the management problems as the reason for the failure, not some inherent problem with solar. But the “Clean Energy Culture” is the problem — the same pathetic, uninformed and corrupt decision-making that subsidizes solar so unnecessarily also creates the same dud decisions in management, legal, and industrial relations. The environment that makes a complicated, uneconomic project look appealing because it might change storms a hundred years from now is the kind of culture that piles up toxic Green Tape, buys crappy steel, and can’t accomplish something as simple as getting pipes off a flooded dock. And that was six years ago and we are just hearing about it now thanks to the Clean Energy Media Brain.. . .
 
He is talking about research, and maintenance costs. All power supplies have that cost whether renewable or not. Any claim of his that it costs so much is very debatable when matched up at costs of non-renewables.


Hearsay, and not even true. I can easily find links on why renewables are not only cheaper than non but are also getting less expensive. Where as your excuse is probably more appropriate for house decorating magazines.

[h=2]Australians duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap[/h]
Crazy World Quiz #2349:
Let’s close the cheapest generators of electricity. Will electricity bills:
a/ go down, b/ go up, or c/ be paid by The Tooth Fairy?
A quarter of Australians don’t know. A half think the answer is “b” or “c”. It’s that bad.
A new survey came out this week which fans of renewables are using to argue we need more renewables, but hidden in the data is the big misinformation that underlies this attitude.
[h=4]Coalition supporters back quicker shift to renewable energy[/h][Sydney Morning Herald]
Adam Morton says:
The wisdom of a campaign by the Turnbull government emphasising the risks of moving too rapidly to renewable energy has been thrown into question by polling that suggests a majority of its supporters don’t agree.
Not at all. The real issue, that Adam Morton misses, is that so much of the country is horribly misinformed. All the key questions in the survey depend on what would happen to electricity prices, and nearly half the country lives under the delusion that “renewables” make our electricity prices cheaper.
All Malcolm Turnbull has to do to turn these figures around is to tell the fact that coal fired electricity is generated for 3 – 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Then run this survey again, and see support for a renewables target crash.
Most Australians have no idea that coal fired power is the cheapest power by far. The Tooth Fairy subsidies mean that some people with solar panels on their roof think they are getting “cheap electricity” when really someone else is paying part of their bill.
Just find us one nation running on wind and solar that has cheap electricity. They don’t exist. The only cost effective renewable energy comes from hydro. Wind and solar theoretically provide cheap electrons sometimes, but we need electricity all day every day, and the net effect the intermittent sources have on the whole grid makes for expensive electricity. The intermittent generators stop us from getting cheap electricity. The subsidies to pander to them (like the RET) force the cheap generators out of the market. . . .
 
He is talking about research, and maintenance costs. All power supplies have that cost whether renewable or not. Any claim of his that it costs so much is very debatable when matched up at costs of non-renewables.


Hearsay, and not even true. I can easily find links on why renewables are not only cheaper than non but are also getting less expensive. Where as your excuse is probably more appropriate for house decorating magazines.

Greetings, soylentgreen. :2wave:

Most windmill blades have a warranty of two years but are expected to be operable for 15 to 20 years until they must be replaced. Lightening strikes and corrosion seem to be a common problem with windmills, which is not unusual, and repairs to blades are costly, since each blade weighs several tons which requires a crane to lower them to the ground for repairs - at a cost of $350,000 per week, which was the latest figures I could find BTW, and then the cost of actually repairing the damaged blade kicks in. I have no idea of how many windmills there are worldwide, but it seems to be many, many thousands in numbers, and it still requires gas, coal fired, or nuclear plants to make up the difference in power available to the consumer every day.

Here in NE Ohio, we don't receive sufficient wind or sunlight to go green, but we do have two nuclear power plants in our State that supply all our energy needs, and "so far, so good" as the saying goes! Time will tell.....
 
Greetings, soylentgreen. :2wave:

Most windmill blades have a warranty of two years but are expected to be operable for 15 to 20 years until they must be replaced. Lightening strikes and corrosion seem to be a common problem with windmills, which is not unusual, and repairs to blades are costly, since each blade weighs several tons which requires a crane to lower them to the ground for repairs - at a cost of $350,000 per week, which was the latest figures I could find BTW, and then the cost of actually repairing the damaged blade kicks in. I have no idea of how many windmills there are worldwide, but it seems to be many, many thousands in numbers, and it still requires gas, coal fired, or nuclear plants to make up the difference in power available to the consumer every day.

Here in NE Ohio, we don't receive sufficient wind or sunlight to go green, but we do have two nuclear power plants in our State that supply all our energy needs, and "so far, so good" as the saying goes! Time will tell.....

I have repeatedly said that windmills are not cost effective over their life. As an Engineering Technician in automation, I understand quite a bit about these things. maintenance costs increase dramatically for structures like this as time passes.

I hope all the Green Weenies who support wind power will acknowledge in the future just how wrong they are today...
 
Greetings, soylentgreen. :2wave:

Most windmill blades have a warranty of two years but are expected to be operable for 15 to 20 years until they must be replaced. Lightening strikes and corrosion seem to be a common problem with windmills, which is not unusual, and repairs to blades are costly, since each blade weighs several tons which requires a crane to lower them to the ground for repairs - at a cost of $350,000 per week, which was the latest figures I could find BTW, and then the cost of actually repairing the damaged blade kicks in. I have no idea of how many windmills there are worldwide, but it seems to be many, many thousands in numbers, and it still requires gas, coal fired, or nuclear plants to make up the difference in power available to the consumer every day.
.

Maintenance costs only and still cheaper and getting cheaper than the non renewables.

Here in NE Ohio, we don't receive sufficient wind or sunlight to go green, but we do have two nuclear power plants in our State that supply all our energy needs, and "so far, so good" as the saying goes! Time will tell....
To each his own. I am not knocking the use of renewables, only the absolute bull**** assumption that non renewable are cheaper and more efficient than renewables. Especially annoying is using a corrupt regime like the australian government and big business have with each other as an example of attempting to put the blame on renewables.

My condolences on your lacking any weather in ohio and if nuclear works for you then fine. However new zealand is the opposite. It has an abundance of wind, hydro, sun and thermal energy. But if you google up a map of new zealand showing the fault lines and volcanoes it becomes apparent why nuclear would not work here. Rather than "so far, so good" it would be "any moment now."
 
I have repeatedly said that windmills are not cost effective over their life. As an Engineering Technician in automation, I understand quite a bit about these things. maintenance costs increase dramatically for structures like this as time passes.

I hope all the Green Weenies who support wind power will acknowledge in the future just how wrong they are today...

Yet I can read article after article, both on the net and in books and magazines of the agreement that it will reduce in cost as technology improves and is more efficient. Very few are saying the technology has peaked and it will not get better.

Yet the technology for non renewables has hit stumbling blocks. Low emission coal technology costs as much as running coal fire plants as they are now. And they have yet to invest money in any research.
 
Electricity is now 100% to 260% higher in cost since 2015 depending on which state you consider.

You still haven't said where you got this information. Did you just make it up?
 
[h=2]Australians duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap[/h]
Crazy World Quiz #2349:
Let’s close the cheapest generators of electricity. Will electricity bills:
a/ go down, b/ go up, or c/ be paid by The Tooth Fairy?
A quarter of Australians don’t know. A half think the answer is “b” or “c”. It’s that bad.
A new survey came out this week which fans of renewables are using to argue we need more renewables, but hidden in the data is the big misinformation that underlies this attitude.
[h=4]Coalition supporters back quicker shift to renewable energy[/h][Sydney Morning Herald]
Adam Morton says:
The wisdom of a campaign by the Turnbull government emphasising the risks of moving too rapidly to renewable energy has been thrown into question by polling that suggests a majority of its supporters don’t agree.
Not at all. The real issue, that Adam Morton misses, is that so much of the country is horribly misinformed. All the key questions in the survey depend on what would happen to electricity prices, and nearly half the country lives under the delusion that “renewables” make our electricity prices cheaper.
All Malcolm Turnbull has to do to turn these figures around is to tell the fact that coal fired electricity is generated for 3 – 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Then run this survey again, and see support for a renewables target crash.
Most Australians have no idea that coal fired power is the cheapest power by far. The Tooth Fairy subsidies mean that some people with solar panels on their roof think they are getting “cheap electricity” when really someone else is paying part of their bill.
Just find us one nation running on wind and solar that has cheap electricity. They don’t exist. The only cost effective renewable energy comes from hydro. Wind and solar theoretically provide cheap electrons sometimes, but we need electricity all day every day, and the net effect the intermittent sources have on the whole grid makes for expensive electricity. The intermittent generators stop us from getting cheap electricity. The subsidies to pander to them (like the RET) force the cheap generators out of the market. . . .

Your links are meaningless. they have less validity than if you were quoting the bible at me. Because with religion, science has no business. But with you and your deniers the science is quite clear that you are wrong. It has long gone past the time when your cult needs to be listened to.

I am willing to debate climate changer deniers beliefs on same level as i would with the religious, ie. with an understanding that it is not science, just opinion. Your posts where you copy and paste only from a bible of your views has no more credibility than the bible.
 
Yet I can read article after article, both on the net and in books and magazines of the agreement that it will reduce in cost as technology improves and is more efficient. Very few are saying the technology has peaked and it will not get better.

Yet the technology for non renewables has hit stumbling blocks. Low emission coal technology costs as much as running coal fire plants as they are now. And they have yet to invest money in any research.

I think Coal is likely at the tail end of what it can do, but can take advantage of the newer combined cycle
technology from natural gas. I think coal will die because of the logistics of moving around a bulky fuel.
The technology in the mechanical portion of windmills if very likely hardened steel bearings, that are near a century old.
They can use modern material science to make the surfaces harder and smoother, but the weight likely means
it is still a bearing surface.
Solar seems to be the real winner in the cost and maintenance area.
I was trying to figure out what the prorated cost of the electricity would be, on a real example system.
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/1892...system-with-sma-and-40x-solarworld-340-panels
$19,287 (say $25 K with installation) produces 1,885 Kwh per month.
1885 times 12 months times 20 years= 452,400 Kwh.
$25,000/ 425,400Kwh = $.0552 per Kwh.
It would be kind of difficult to beat that unless you have a live stream behind your home!
 
Your links are meaningless. they have less validity than if you were quoting the bible at me. Because with religion, science has no business. But with you and your deniers the science is quite clear that you are wrong. It has long gone past the time when your cult needs to be listened to.

I am willing to debate climate changer deniers beliefs on same level as i would with the religious, ie. with an understanding that it is not science, just opinion. Your posts where you copy and paste only from a bible of your views has no more credibility than the bible.

I don't seem to be the dogmatic cultist in this exchange.:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom