power prices and renewables

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by mik

Nah , all they are interested in is the green vote, the whole political system is flawed, as are all these party`s , their no 1. priority is getting power and lining their pockets, it would not matter if any party came up with the perfect plan to make this country great, ie better public transport/power/roads/schooling/infrastructure the other/s would quickly sabotage it, if they could not find something to shoot it down ..........something would be found/arranged ;), wink ,wink.

Most of the population are almost as guilty as these ******, majority of the population votes for who gives the most hand outs, not for whats best for the country.
no one even gives a toss our manufacturing has steadily declined for decades, "but hey baby i can buy a cheap import", made in Australia is almost non existent, the truth is majority don't really give a toss.
we could easily do something great with the power , we have masses of space and coastline to do stuff, but again , unless their is either money or power/votes to be had, no one wants to bother .

I think we're too far gone and heading for a big crash in the next 25 years unless we can find a new industry to bring in $$$, we can't just rely on China to buy our minerals for the rest of time, eventually they will also attempt to produce energy in a cleaner way than coal, they've already started looking into ways to clean up their country and thats included buying specific types of coal in the future.

We seem to be attracting many international students through TAFE and University to the country who are paying top $$$ to study here, maybe we put more effort into that area?

They were paying $20K a semester at my trade school when I was there and they're targeting that area specifically for more teachers at the moment, big growth area for their business.

[mik]

I dont know what the answer is , maybe we have had it too good here and have become spoilt, if im still kicking in 20 years...... we might still be talking having a winge about the same stuff because nothing has changed .

[jaysway]

Originally Posted by mik

Nah , all they are interested in is the green vote, the whole political system is flawed, as are all these party`s , their no 1. priority is getting power and lining their pockets, it would not matter if any party came up with the perfect plan to make this country great, ie better public transport/power/roads/schooling/infrastructure the other/s would quickly sabotage it, if they could not find something to shoot it down ..........something would be found/arranged ;), wink ,wink.

Most of the population are almost as guilty as these ******, majority of the population votes for who gives the most hand outs, not for whats best for the country.
no one even gives a toss our manufacturing has steadily declined for decades, "but hey baby i can buy a cheap import", made in Australia is almost non existent, the truth is majority don't really give a toss.
we could easily do something great with the power , we have masses of space and coastline to do stuff, but again , unless their is either money or power/votes to be had, no one wants to bother .

'She'll be right' ...

[superyob]

You state renewables are subsidised... but the fact is that so are fossil fuels... massively, to the tune of billions of dollars each year. (from Karj)

Could you please explain how?

[karj]

Originally Posted by superyob

You state renewables are subsidised... but the fact is that so are fossil fuels... massively, to the tune of billions of dollars each year. (from Karj)

Could you please explain how?

Generally through favourable tax arrangements that that foster investment and expansion of the fossil fuel sector, eg: fuel tax credits scheme, accelerated depreciation, etc.

Google it if you feel like it... or not. Fossil fuel subsidies have widely been acknowledged as distorting markets for a long time. It's not simply left-wing propaganda

[poppa smurf]

so much talk of "subsidisation" as if it is a bad thing with so little understanding of who actually gets "subsidised".

I've racked my brain and for the life of me I cannot find one large organisation/company that is not subsidised,

coal is heavily subsidised, motor vehicle manufacturing, power generators, power suppliers, gas explorers/ suppliers, farmers, fishermen the list goes on and on.

our largest players are the most heavily subsidised and pay the least amount of tax or in other words........they don't pay their way as far as govco is concerned....we the cash cows pick up the deficit this was discussed by differing pollies in our latest "BUDGET EMERGENCY".

why then is it okay for the major players to be heavily subsidised and take their money offshore rather than subsidise an industry that would support Australian jobs, Australian economic growth, pay tax, expand Australian knowledge industry and help the battlers.

we used to be in the front runners as far as intellectual property and construction of advanced systems not that long ago......this has all been allowed to be bought up, shut down, moved offshore or simply shelved due to lack of funding or plain outright red tape.

these industries are now thriving in other countries......why?????

baseload power can be easily covered by many systems if allowed to be constructed, our geo thermal power station based at port Augusta has the capacity to more than cover baseload at any given point in time with the ability for expansion.

wind and solar already cover South Australia's needs......

the problem, as I see it, is not if we can go "green" but should we go green, the answer is of course yes.

for those who would argue against I suggest you take a bit of time to study other first world nations power generation (as I have done) and find out why we are amongst the last to go down this route.

Karj is on the money.......a lot of subsidies are in the form of tax breaks, or favourable decisions in the upper echelons.

[mechanic]

Originally Posted by poppa smurf

so much talk of "subsidisation" as if it is a bad thing with so little understanding of who actually gets "subsidised".



.

Would have thought the vehicle manufacturing subsidy was a prime example of why we shouldn't continue subsidising off shore companies.
Hundreds of millions of $ thrown at them and still finished up with no industry.
The Mt Emerald wind farm proposal on the Atherton Tablelands is a Thai backed venture that will be in line for a truckload of govt money. Ratch Australia is 80% Thai and 20% Australian.
If we're going to keep shovelling money at businesses at least let it be Australian owned businesses.

[poppa smurf]

Originally Posted by mechanic

Would have thought the vehicle manufacturing subsidy was a prime example of why we shouldn't continue subsidising off shore companies.
Hundreds of millions of $ thrown at them and still finished up with no industry.
The Mt Emerald wind farm proposal on the Atherton Tablelands is a Thai backed venture that will be in line for a truckload of govt money. Ratch Australia is 80% Thai and 20% Australian.
If we're going to keep shovelling money at businesses at least let it be Australian owned businesses.

absolutely and this is what I'm on about.....why send money overseas when our product is as good as or better (or could be with a little help) as any that is bought in with high "incentives" (subsidy by any other name.

our produce and goods cannot be allowed into another country without heavy taxes, if at all, why do we actually encourage overseas companies to swallow up our local manufacturing and food production in the name of "the level playing field".

submarines and solar panels are a good example?????

these companies, including the vehicle manufacturing industry, are laughing at our inept system, simply take the money and go elsewhere.

we have many overseas investors who can see the benefit of investment in these green energy units, everyone except our pollies who are hell bent on taxing the crap out of us and go somewhere else when their term is up.

as Paul Keating once said "the best way to see Darwin is at 30,000 feet on the way to France!"

how can we fight a thought process such as that.

[mechanic]

Just saw this in the Daily Mail,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...efficient.html

I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the MSM but an interesting read nevertheless.

[poppa smurf]

with a little time I could find a dozen "articles" regaling the benefits of turbines.

wind turbines are one solution, not the only one, coupled with home solar they are a big one.

here anyway.

but the answer to total energy supply would rely on many differing generating potentials, a large study shows here in south aust. where the sun shines most days, solar thermal is very popular with many boffins.

at the moment we are too focussed on guaranteeing profits for multinationals rather than the good of the people.

[cheap]

More unintended consequence from wind power, bird strikes, thousands of dead birds. Where are all the feel good activists? They should hold their heads in shame, hanging dead birds around their necks would be fitting too.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...-farms/4668750

[karj]

Originally Posted by mechanic

Just saw this in the Daily Mail,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...efficient.html

I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the MSM but an interesting read nevertheless.

I'd be taking that article with a grain of salt.

Wind turbines are inefficient in the sense that they can only theoretically capture a maximum of 59% of the kinetic energy of wind (Betz's Law) so real efficiency is going to be less than that... but you could equally say that burning coal is inefficient because you lose about 60% of the energy converting it into electricity (neither of these figures include transmission losses btw). My understanding is that wind also has lower operational costs, both in general maintenance and a free fuel source, although initial upfront capital costs are high (but so are upfront capital costs associated with building a new coal-fired station).

The fact is that South Australia had between 25-30% of its overall power needs met by wind alone last year and according to this report, the average annual household electricity price last year in SA is lower than Victoria and NSW (average NSW is $1925, while in Victoria it is $1495 and in South Australia it is $1481). Our power network is also privatised.

As for house prices taking a hit because of wind farms as mentioned in that Daily Mail article, how much would house prices be affected by a nearby coal-fired power station? Wind farms don't necessarily look nice, but neither does a coal fired power station. Personally, I reckon the latter looks worse.

Coal has provided us with affordable energy to establish and maintain a generally excellent quality of life... but it has also brought with it major health and environmental issues (not including climate change, I'm seriously not going there in this thread )

I echo poppa smurfs sentiments regarding the need to generate power from a diverse range of technologies. The reality is that all methods of electricity generation have their benefits/disadvantages and investment in a diverse range of technologies (including coal at this point in time) provides the greatest guarantee we will be able to maintain the lifestyle we enjoy. It shouldn't really even be a contentious issue.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by mechanic

Just saw this in the Daily Mail,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...efficient.html

I don't necessarily believe everything I read in the MSM but an interesting read nevertheless.

when I read that on the original site, they were saying that the EU was off on its CO2 efficiency targets.

nothing to do with the turbines.. maybe a miss quote by the news paper.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by cheap

More unintended consequence from wind power, bird strikes, thousands of dead birds. Where are all the feel good activists? They should hold their heads in shame, hanging dead birds around their necks would be fitting too.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...-farms/4668750

Perhaps you should have said "More unintended consequence from 1 1/2 years ago" ?

[mcflux]

Climate change/environment/economy/society/politics aside... Our baseload future, particularly in Victoria, will be very interesting indeed when all of the thermal coal generators constructed in the 60s-70s-80s reach the end of their service lives...

Hazelwood in Victoria keeps on having its life extended (originally intended to be shut down in the 90s). It's producing more power today than when it was brand-new, through ongoing improvements, but its design kicked off in 1949, was built in the 60s, is pushing 50 years old now and is clearly pushing the boundaries with its operational life. I have no idea what its replacement will be. Driffield (its intended successor) was never built & the 2nd half of Loy Yang B will never be built, especially after the insane costs of getting the other 3/4 of Loy Yang (A + 1/2 B) built back in the 80s.

Ignoring renewables/future tech... Who has the capital for a new ~2000MW coal or nuclear plant? Which political party wants to try & build another coal plant, or introduce our first nuclear plant, and risk their power in office on this?

Our current generation of state & federal govts/oppositions only have one goal, & that's to be in power.

2050 will be a very interesting time in Victoria with power generation.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

More unintended consequence from wind power, bird strikes, thousands of dead birds. Where are all the feel good activists? They should hold their heads in shame, hanging dead birds around their necks would be fitting too.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...-farms/4668750

A thousand dead birds, even the los of a species or two a few farmers with migraines even a few rural towns lost is better than the whole ******* planet dying.
Feel good I do

JP

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

2050 will be a very interesting time in Victoria with power generation.

It is actually an interesting time now, power price hikes, power cuts over summer due to excessive load demands.
The power companies are struggling now to meet demand & renewable energy is not the real solution atm.

[mcflux]

Agreed, interesting times already!

What I'm getting at is: in 2050 in Victoria there'll be no Hazelwood (gone by say 2030), no Yallourn W (2032), no Loy Yang (2048). That's probably 90% of Victoria's current baseload power supply.

[GasoLane]

The sooner Australia comes to grips with using Nuclear power the better.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Agreed, interesting times already!

What I'm getting at is: in 2050 in Victoria there'll be no Hazelwood (gone by say 2030), no Yallourn W (2032), no Loy Yang (2048). That's probably 90% of Victoria's current baseload power supply.

Cannot see them shutting down while there is no alternatives in place, actually there is talk of using higher technology for better coal usage, this will be viable if the economics will support this.

GasOLane comment is a good one as this should have happened years ago, imagine the controversy we going to get mentioning this alternative. (nuclear)

Cheers lads.

[mechanic]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

The sooner Australia comes to grips with using Nuclear power the better.

I'm with you 100% on that. The trouble with our system now is that the retirement benefits are so great that politicians will avoid the tough decisions just to stay in the job for the payoff.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by mechanic

I'm with you 100% on that. The trouble with our system now is that the retirement benefits are so great that politicians will avoid the tough decisions just to stay in the job for the payoff.

Every time Nuclear its shot down. Regardless of who is running the show and when they were in power. Unfortunately people are scared of the stuff so it will take a massive change in people's ideas about nuclear for it to happen...plus the enormous amount of money to actually build a plant.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

A thousand dead birds, even the los of a species or two a few farmers with migraines even a few rural towns lost is better than the whole ******* planet dying.
Feel good I do

JP

Whole Planet dying? WTF are you smoking? You seem to be on the wild alarmist warpath. I'll let you in on a secret, global warming and co2 have been overplayed, the models don't match measurements. It is false science, it is and always was a cult. Stop listening to left wing nut cases, Have you noticed that the IPCC has been a little less dramatic and not so certain with their absolute predictions - the gig is up!

The only factual statement is that it's all about how good you feel, which we kind of worked out already.

[mcflux]

Cannot see them shutting down while there is no alternatives in place, actually there is talk of using higher technology for better coal usage, this will be viable if the economics will support this.

The trouble is there are three factors that come in to play:

1. Their respective mining licences run out in 2030, 2032, 2048 - coincidentally this is when they will fully work out their current mining boundaries. Hazelwood has seen a river and highway shifted once already, after its initial lifespan was increased. Yallourn's had the river shifted twice, its 1980s boundary is "hard up" against the M1 and Gippsland train line, and the mine has consumed its namesake town. The Loy Yang mine has seen a highway cut and a new highway routed to pass between the power stations and the mine. It is constricted by rivers to the east and west, Traralgon to the north, and the power station itself to the south. Sure, there's more coal around, perhaps 500 years worth in the Latrobe Valley alone, but accessing it will become increasingly difficult (environmental & social factors), and costly. And what happens with the holes left behind?

2. They can't operate forever. If Hazelwood was still in operation by 2050 it would be 86 years old. Loy Yang B at the youngest would be 50-60 years old & reaching its nominal lifespan.

3. Future legislation passed by future governments may render traditional thermal coal power, or even newer coal technology unviable, or unattractive compared to renewables (or nuclear if public and political opinion changes).

At least, for now, we have our coal so we can figure out "what's next" while we indulge in (and this includes myself) our 20th/21st century affluent & unsustainable lifestyle.

I would love to see, locally (Victoria), a future in brown coal using new & genuinely clean technology. Problem is whenever a new venture is raised the current govt either pushes it past the next election, or an incoming govt scotches plans laid out by the govt voted out. Nothing seems to gain traction & we're stuck with the same infrastructure we had in the 90s.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by cheap

global warming and co2 have been overplayed, the models don't match measurements. It is false science, it is and always was a cult. Stop listening to left wing nut cases, Have you noticed that the IPCC has been a little less dramatic and not so certain with their absolute predictions - the gig is up!

I used to think like this. Mainly because the way my lecturers at uni presented/forced their material on us - in a gospel/evangelical manner. This put me on the path of doing whatever I could to disprove them.

Then I started looking for what the actual scientific consensus was. Here's a link from a few years ago, still at the top of google now:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Table 3 lists a search of 11,944 relevant papers written by 29,083 authors, between 1991 & 2011. 3,896 of these papers endorse climate change whilst 78 reject climate change.

Going by those numbers, that's either one hell of a left-wing nutcase cult pushing their broken models on us, or it's consensus amongst thousands of scientists' findings.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

I used to think like this. Mainly because the way my lecturers at uni presented/forced their material on us - in a gospel/evangelical manner. This put me on the path of doing whatever I could to disprove them.

Then I started looking for what the actual scientific consensus was. Here's a link from a few years ago, still at the top of google now:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Table 3 lists a search of 11,944 relevant papers written by 29,083 authors, between 1991 & 2011. 3,896 of these papers endorse climate change whilst 78 reject climate change.

Going by those numbers, that's either one hell of a left-wing nutcase cult pushing their broken models on us, or it's consensus amongst thousands of scientists' findings.

There are many reports of a pause in global warming, nearly 20 years of pause in temperatures rising. An unexpected pause and no models predicted this - they can have as many scientific papers as they like, but if these papers (theory) don't match the measurements - then these papers are useful for one thing. As is usual the same scientists now claim the temperature rise is trapped, hidden, stolen... take your pick with whatever excuse.

[mcflux]

Peer-reviewed journals usually consist of the methodology proposed, the results, and then discussion & conclusion based upon said results obtained via the methodology applied. The journals are then peer-reviewed, by fellow scientists, and are published when consensus on the journals' findings is satisfied. In other words they are basing their papers' findings on the measurements taken and others are agreeing with them.

[mcflux]

Hah, posted too slowly. I suppose I'm straying from the topic anyway.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Hah, posted too slowly. I suppose I'm straying from the topic anyway.

Your obviously educated and know what's going on. You have faith in science too. Good to see.

JP

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Your obviously educated and know what's going on. You have faith in science too. Good to see.

JP

Lets talk a bit more about science and the pause to temperature rises. The theory didn't predict the pause, a lot warmies would like to ignore the pause or for it to simply go away but it is what it is.

There are people like Mungo Malcolm who write about it all being a conspiracy of the right (yep the right is so powerful that they can control global temperatures).

I'm less into conspiracy however it does seem that global warming is failed science, but what would I know being surrounded by such intellect.