Can we get to 90% renewable energy in 6 years???

Roundhead89 said :

Climate change ended when Tony Abbott was elected. The gravy train has been derailed.

Care to explain Direct Action then?

Most reports suggest this will be even more expensive than the Green/Labor policy.

Roundhead89 said :

…let’s forget about so-called renewable energy and get back to our good old reliable cheap energy.

We never really left. We have one of the highest proportions of fossil-fuel use, and the highest emissions intensity (/kWh) in the world.

Roundhead89 said :

Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed.

You and your ilk are not sceptics and you insult those of us who are by assuming the mantle.

Scepticism involves rigorous examination of the evidence before coming to a conclusion and a willingness – eagerness, in fact – to change your mind in the light of fresh evidence.

You could be many things – a shill for the fossil fuel industry; a shock jock who benefits by engendering a phony debate where there is none or someone who gets their “information” from such without having the intelligence, capacity or motivation to examine the evidence; motivated by some strange religious belief/s; or something else.

But a sceptic? Not in a million years.

My views on the climate change hoax are well-known but let’s be thankful we can express them here. Fairfax has instituted a policy that no letters or articles from climate change sceptics will be printed. The letters editor of The Sydney Morning Herald regularly boasts about this policy and has told contributors not to bother writing if they don’t support climate change theory.

I have been writing letters to the editor since 1972 when I wrote to the SMH about the Watergate affair. Over the years I have had many letters published about many subjects but I’ve never come across a subject such as this climate change thing where it is impossible to get a letter printed. It is almost as if the Left fear climate change sceptics because the house of cards the Left has built around climate change is rapidly falling down and if the truth is printed the game will finally be up.

Climate change ended when Tony Abbott was elected. The gravy train has been derailed. It is ridiculous for our Green Left government in the ACT to keep trying to breathe life into this rotting corpse. We have enough brown coal to last 500 years so let’s forget about so-called renewable energy and get back to our good old reliable cheap energy.

Deref said :

Robertson said :

Deref said :

This is a very good encapsulation of the techniques that denialists use.

On the contrary: your repetition of a couple of carefully-cherry-picked factoids intended to convey an implication at odds with reality is *exactly* denialist behaviour.

You said, “their emissions are rising”. This is a blatantly dishonest assertion.
Here is a picture, seeing as the words we have provided have failed to pierce your denial:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ger.html
As you can see, your statement is very, very wrong. And yet you cling to it. Because you are in denial.
(Projecting your denial onto me is also a symptom of denial).

I should have worded that better – apologies, Robertson. Let me try again…

Robertson has well-illustrated how Diggety’s post uses many of the techniques that denialists use to mislead the uninformed.

Before sending you two retards a Stackhat for Christmas, I’d you both have another look at the graph you’ve both relying on, then check the flipping date.

If you still want to bang on with the “Diggety’s a denier blah blah blah”, you’ll have to level the same charge to the following:

* The German Federal Environment Ministry
* The International Energy Agency
* European Environment Agency

But I suppose they’re all deniers too, right?

Robertson said :

Diggety said :

All of what I said in my initial comment was true, whether people like it or not, and

What you said in your initial comment *wasn’t* true. It was a misleading and incomplete reportaged of the facts.

You claimed “Germany is still building coal plants”. Your intention is clearly to imply that their achievement of 59% renewable power has not reduced their reliance on coal power. As Howeph pointed out to correct you, that is incorrect. The net result in Germany is that plenty more coal plants have been decommissioned than have been built.

You claimed “their emissions are rising”. You are clearly trying to imply that their conversion to majority renewable power has failed to reduce emissions. As Howeph corrected you, this is not true: they have reduced their emissions by 25%, as per their Kyoto commitment. The last annual rise in emissions of 1.6% is not indicative of the trend.

You can’t possibly “stand by” what you wrote: it was a factually-incorrect pile of propaganda you’ve gleaned from some sort of fossil-fuel-lobby-sponsored propaganda somewhere, and you’ve been shown how incorrect and shallow it is.

You presume implications all day Roberston, or you could simply ask.

Now, I’ll say it again:

1. German GHG emissions are rising (closing in on the second year in a row): fact
2. Germany has some of the highest energy prices in the world: fact
3. Germany are still building coal fired power stations: fact.

Now, you kids can bang on about ‘denial’ & ‘propoganda’ if that’s what makes you happy. But the facts are out there, they may change with time but they are true.

Robertson said :

Deref said :

This is a very good encapsulation of the techniques that denialists use.

On the contrary: your repetition of a couple of carefully-cherry-picked factoids intended to convey an implication at odds with reality is *exactly* denialist behaviour.

You said, “their emissions are rising”. This is a blatantly dishonest assertion.
Here is a picture, seeing as the words we have provided have failed to pierce your denial:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ger.html
As you can see, your statement is very, very wrong. And yet you cling to it. Because you are in denial.
(Projecting your denial onto me is also a symptom of denial).

I should have worded that better – apologies, Robertson. Let me try again…

Robertson has well-illustrated how Diggety’s post uses many of the techniques that denialists use to mislead the uninformed.

Deref said :

Robertson said :

Diggety said :

All of what I said in my initial comment was true, whether people like it or not, and

What you said in your initial comment *wasn’t* true. It was a misleading and incomplete reportaged of the facts.

You claimed “Germany is still building coal plants”. Your intention is clearly to imply that their achievement of 59% renewable power has not reduced their reliance on coal power. As Howeph pointed out to correct you, that is incorrect. The net result in Germany is that plenty more coal plants have been decommissioned than have been built.

You claimed “their emissions are rising”. You are clearly trying to imply that their conversion to majority renewable power has failed to reduce emissions. As Howeph corrected you, this is not true: they have reduced their emissions by 25%, as per their Kyoto commitment. The last annual rise in emissions of 1.6% is not indicative of the trend.

You can’t possibly “stand by” what you wrote: it was a factually-incorrect pile of propaganda you’ve gleaned from some sort of fossil-fuel-lobby-sponsored propaganda somewhere, and you’ve been shown how incorrect and shallow it is.

This is a very good encapsulation of the techniques that denialists use.

On the contrary: your repetition of a couple of carefully-cherry-picked factoids intended to convey an implication at odds with reality is *exactly* denialist behaviour.

You said, “their emissions are rising”. This is a blatantly dishonest assertion.
Here is a picture, seeing as the words we have provided have failed to pierce your denial:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ger.html
As you can see, your statement is very, very wrong. And yet you cling to it. Because you are in denial.
(Projecting your denial onto me is also a symptom of denial).

Robertson said :

Diggety said :

All of what I said in my initial comment was true, whether people like it or not, and

What you said in your initial comment *wasn’t* true. It was a misleading and incomplete reportaged of the facts.

You claimed “Germany is still building coal plants”. Your intention is clearly to imply that their achievement of 59% renewable power has not reduced their reliance on coal power. As Howeph pointed out to correct you, that is incorrect. The net result in Germany is that plenty more coal plants have been decommissioned than have been built.

You claimed “their emissions are rising”. You are clearly trying to imply that their conversion to majority renewable power has failed to reduce emissions. As Howeph corrected you, this is not true: they have reduced their emissions by 25%, as per their Kyoto commitment. The last annual rise in emissions of 1.6% is not indicative of the trend.

You can’t possibly “stand by” what you wrote: it was a factually-incorrect pile of propaganda you’ve gleaned from some sort of fossil-fuel-lobby-sponsored propaganda somewhere, and you’ve been shown how incorrect and shallow it is.

This is a very good encapsulation of the techniques that denialists use.

Diggety said :

All of what I said in my initial comment was true, whether people like it or not, and

What you said in your initial comment *wasn’t* true. It was a misleading and incomplete reportaged of the facts.

You claimed “Germany is still building coal plants”. Your intention is clearly to imply that their achievement of 59% renewable power has not reduced their reliance on coal power. As Howeph pointed out to correct you, that is incorrect. The net result in Germany is that plenty more coal plants have been decommissioned than have been built.

You claimed “their emissions are rising”. You are clearly trying to imply that their conversion to majority renewable power has failed to reduce emissions. As Howeph corrected you, this is not true: they have reduced their emissions by 25%, as per their Kyoto commitment. The last annual rise in emissions of 1.6% is not indicative of the trend.

You can’t possibly “stand by” what you wrote: it was a factually-incorrect pile of propaganda you’ve gleaned from some sort of fossil-fuel-lobby-sponsored propaganda somewhere, and you’ve been shown how incorrect and shallow it is.

My apologies. It seems I was wrong…

Renewable Energy Now Cheaper Than Fossil Fuel

Renewable energy is becoming more and more competitive. Alternative and renewable energy sources are increasingly becoming more affordable. According to a new study published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, it is now less costly in America to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels, than it is to get it from coal-fired power plants.

howeph said :

Diggety said :

Germany used to be the copy/paste suggestion, not any more, and for good reason.

Do you still want to stand by that assessment?

Yes I do, and I’m not the only one.

Across the world countries are taking different paths to that of the German experiment. Directions like subsidies, grid architecture, tech mixes, and even reconsidering the potential for renewables to deliver energy independence (the latter being the primary driver for the German Energiewende).

All of what I said in my initial comment was true, whether people like it or not, and

you can do this today- why wait 6 years?
20kwh a day seems like it could be an average household electricity bill (mines under that for a fully electric household of 4). 90% is 18 kwh a day or about 125 kwh a week
Plenty of people Australia wide are putting up solar panels and selling the bit of their power that makes it renewable in the form of STCs for less then $0.04 per kwh
125 x 0.04 = $5 a week or about $10 if you get actew to buy the stcs for you and brand it greenpower.
So on the back of that envelope the price looks fine.

Chop71 said :

howeph said :

The problem is that we are in a race. A race against man made climate change. There is no debate on this. It’s simple physics.

Till we have the next decent volcanic eruption and we all start complaining how cold it is.

This reminded me of bumper stickers I saw in my youth that said “Ban mining, let the bastards freeze in the dark”

I don’t see smog in Australia or Canberra. Australia is not the polluter.
The Indian F1 2 weeks ago was that smoggy you couldn’t see 500m . China Olympics the same thing can’t see 500m because of smog.

Go and bleet your climate scare mongering propaganda to them

Diggety said :

Deref said :

Speaking of which…

Germany Reaches 59% Renewable Energy Peak, Power Grid Doesn’t Blow Up

Pity their emissions are rising,…

Source?

I think that you are referring to this:

“Germany’s stable CO2 number contrasts with a 1.6 percent rise in emissions of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) including CO2, also reported by UBA, which reflected more coal burn and more gas use for heating in a colder-than-normal winter season. That in turn was a reversal of 2011, when Germany posted a 2.8 percent fall in greenhouse gas emissions.”
[ source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/germany-carbon-idUSL6N0BP87J20130225 ]

But:

* This is a one year increase.
* Emissions fell 2.8% the previous year.
* Germany has blasted past it’s Kyoto target achieving a 25.5% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels – all while maintaining economic growth and a healthy, large manufacturing sector.
* At the same time Germany has started to phased out, largely CO2 free, nuclear power. In March 2011 nuclear accounted for 25% of its energy now it is about 18%. Eight nuclear power units were shutdown in 2011.
* Germany remained a net exporter of electricity, and during a February 2012 cold snap, even exported nearly 3 GW to power-starved France [the poster child for nuclear proponents], which remains a net importer of German electricity.

Diggety said :

… electricity prices are some of the highest in the world

HUGE over simplification.

German wholesale power prices have fallen about 30% just in the past two years to near eight-year lows…

Even so, Germans pay a lot for their household electricity, about $0.34/kWh in 2012. The household tariff includes a “renewables surcharge,” expected to amount to roughly $249 per three-person household this year. That’d be three-fifths smaller if households weren’t subsidizing many businesses, mainly large ones—exempted from nearly the whole renewables charge, allegedly to boost German competitiveness—by 3–4 billion Euros a year. Yet German industry enjoys the lower spot prices that renewables create, so it pays about the same for electricity as it did in 1978, and less than French industry pays today.
[ Source: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewable-germany-the-very-model-of-a-new-energy-order-53357 ]

So yes, due to their particular tariff systems – the domestic, household prices is high. But the wholesale and the price to their manufacturing industry is very low.

Diggety said :

and they are still building coal fired power stations.

Yes they are building about 10 new plants that have or will go into service by 2014 capable of generating 11.5 gigawatts.

However more than two dozen proposed proposed coal power plants that would have generated almost 25 gigawatts have been mothballed, and at the same time as the new plants come online 18.5 gigawatts of older less efficient conventional power stations are being shut down.

So the net effect is 6 gigawatts less of coal power and 25 gigawatts of coal power prevented.

And that’s assuming that these new plant operate at capacity. Most analyists are predicting that these new plants will operate at a capacity far less than planned.

[ source: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130724/why-germanys-greenest-city-building-coal-fired-power-plant ]

Diggety said :

Germany used to be the copy/paste suggestion, not any more, and for good reason.

Do you still want to stand by that assessment?

Deref said :

Speaking of which…

Germany Reaches 59% Renewable Energy Peak, Power Grid Doesn’t Blow Up

Pity their emissions are rising, electricity prices are some of the highest in the world and they are still building coal fired power stations.

Germany used to be the copy/paste suggestion, not any more, and for good reason.

Although there were some good things to come from it (economies of scale capex, improved grid systems, R&D, etc.)

Speaking of which…

Germany Reaches 59% Renewable Energy Peak, Power Grid Doesn’t Blow Up

laraeddy said :

Oh lordy, deref – agree with everything you said until the nuclear bit !

Hey – I didn’t say I was in favour of it. 😉 Not an ice cube’s hope in hell! But it is, at least, a legitimate part of the discussion, unlike the Abbott Manifesto.

Robertson said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Governments own a great deal of risk. And by and large, they do a good job managing it, at least in this country. If Australia deployed nuclear power generation, the government would be expected to regulate all such capabilities and facilities very carefully.

Let’s have a thought-exercise: can you think of the worst-case risk scenario for a wind-farm, the results of which would have to be borne by the taxpayer?

Now, compare this with the untold billions that Fukushima/Chernobyl have already cost, and the untold billions they will cost in the future.

If the various risks posed by nuclear were properly factored into the costings for it, then nuclear – which is already a monumentally expensive method of generating power – would be clearly shown to be completely unaffordable.

Nuclear is a ridiculously expensive and hugely dangerous way of boiling water. It’s only around because it was a method of justifying spending on defence technologies. It belongs in the 1950s and none of us here in the 21st century should even consider it as an option.

Agree that while in the worst cases nuclear has a huge downside, yet many people don’t think that coal and oil mining/drilling isn’t as bad, because its rare to have a significant cataclysmic event.

I’m all for further research into nuclear energy though. I’m kind of 50/50 on it, but it may be a mute point if we do get most of our energy from wind/solar/hydro/tidal/other renewable energies.

I just think there are people who a quick to criticise nuclear for the really bad negative side, yet don’t acknowledge the issues and deaths resulting from coal and oil, that are spread over a much larger timescale but outnumber those from nuclear.

Some articles i found regarding this, maybe pro nuclear propaganda, however I agree when something goes wrong with nuclear its expensive to fix. As I said I use nuclear more to put into perspective what coal and oil deaths are like as its easy to sensationalise a big disaster and hide behind a steady trickle of deaths related to another energy source.

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/
and here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

And don’t forget the taxpayer is paying bucketloads not just for on-going management of dangerous old reactors, growing mountains of radioactive waste, and irradiated decommissioned sites, they are also paying for R&D into the new generations of reactor that are so magically super-safe they need less containment.

Here is an example of the sort of thing the taxpayer forks out for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant

“Monju (?????) is a Japanese sodium-cooled fast reactor,”
(Yes, liquid sodium to cool what is effectively a steam engine heated by nuclear fission – what could possibly go wrong?)

“An accident in December 1995, in which a sodium leak caused a major fire, forced a shutdown.”
Liquid sodium coolant catching fire? Nah, couldn’t happen, these new generation “magic” reactors are 100% safe.

“As of June 2011, the reactor has only generated electricity for one hour since its first testing two decades prior. As of the end of 2010, total funds spent on the reactor amounted to ¥1.08 trillion. An estimated ¥160-170 billion would be needed to continue to operate the reactor for another 10 years.”

Ooh, yes, I can see why Nick Minchin wants some of these here in Australia. Who cares if it produces virtually no power? Somebody’s made $billion$, and – haha – the taxpayer’s footing the bill.

…or 5 factors, even…

And just to point out – whenever a nuclear apologist trots out figures to justify nuclear’s “cheapness” as a power-generating option, they unfailingly exclude the following 4 factors:
– establishment cost
– risk
– waste disposal (uncostable because no successful disposal method has yet been devised. The taxpayer paid a bomb for Yucca mountain, and Yucca mountain was a failure)
– CO2 emissions from the complete fuel cycle
– decommissioning cost

And they compare this fake cost of nuclear against the full cost of establishing the alternative it’s being compared against, including full commissioning costs.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Governments own a great deal of risk. And by and large, they do a good job managing it, at least in this country. If Australia deployed nuclear power generation, the government would be expected to regulate all such capabilities and facilities very carefully.

Let’s have a thought-exercise: can you think of the worst-case risk scenario for a wind-farm, the results of which would have to be borne by the taxpayer?

Now, compare this with the untold billions that Fukushima/Chernobyl have already cost, and the untold billions they will cost in the future.

If the various risks posed by nuclear were properly factored into the costings for it, then nuclear – which is already a monumentally expensive method of generating power – would be clearly shown to be completely unaffordable.

Nuclear is a ridiculously expensive and hugely dangerous way of boiling water. It’s only around because it was a method of justifying spending on defence technologies. It belongs in the 1950s and none of us here in the 21st century should even consider it as an option.

laraeddy said :

Oh, and despite the fact that the operator (TEPCO) is a private corporation who have been pocketing the profits all along, the ‘risk’ will, of course, fall to the taxpayer, as ever.

Interesting comment. Governments can never outsource risk in the same way they can outsource function. This is the same in Australia. For example, if an IT supplier to Centrelink goes bankrupt and stops supporting certain components, who owns the risk? If a major bank goes bankrupt and citizens lose everything, who owns the risk? The government was supposed to regulate the bank, so they own the risk.

Governments own a great deal of risk. And by and large, they do a good job managing it, at least in this country. If Australia deployed nuclear power generation, the government would be expected to regulate all such capabilities and facilities very carefully.

Renewables. Are. Cheaper.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

Deref said :

Goodness – this thread has certainly brought out all of Canberra’s climate change deniers, hasn’t it.

Get over it. Sooner or later we’re going to be 100% sustainable – the only question is when. Most of the info I’ve read indicates that the sooner you do it, the cheaper it is. And don’t trot out that old “wind/solar/wave only work when the wind’s blowing/sun’s shining/waves are waving” rubbish – there are plenty of ways of storing energy and releasing it as needed, and efficiency is increasing all the time. Yes, it’s more expensive than burning coal but. as far as I know, owning a car is more expensive than keeping a horse.

If you want to have a sensible discussion then by all means talk about the nuclear option, but denying the facts simply doesn’t cut it.

As the meme says – what if it’s all a hoax and we build a better world for nothing?

Oh lordy, deref – agree with everything you said until the nuclear bit ! Talk about ‘externalities’, there is the granddaddy of them all ! Yep, cheap power for all until you have to work out what to do with the extraordinarily toxic (for a few thousand years) crap it churns out. Seems the only available options are to reprocess it into something we can liquidize our neighbours with, or dump it on Aboriginal people out the back of Katherine – Maralinga revisited !

Apparently they are currently trying to work out a way to shift the Fukushima mess in Japan. All options appear to involve billions of yen/dollars and, unless it goes to plan, the possible evacuation or irradiation of Tokyo. Oh, and despite the fact that the operator (TEPCO) is a private corporation who have been pocketing the profits all along, the ‘risk’ will, of course, fall to the taxpayer, as ever.

Goodness – this thread has certainly brought out all of Canberra’s climate change deniers, hasn’t it.

Get over it. Sooner or later we’re going to be 100% sustainable – the only question is when. Most of the info I’ve read indicates that the sooner you do it, the cheaper it is. And don’t trot out that old “wind/solar/wave only work when the wind’s blowing/sun’s shining/waves are waving” rubbish – there are plenty of ways of storing energy and releasing it as needed, and efficiency is increasing all the time. Yes, it’s more expensive than burning coal but. as far as I know, owning a car is more expensive than keeping a horse.

If you want to have a sensible discussion then by all means talk about the nuclear option, but denying the facts simply doesn’t cut it.

As the meme says – what if it’s all a hoax and we build a better world for nothing?

Chop71 said :

howeph said :

The problem is that we are in a race. A race against man made climate change. There is no debate on this. It’s simple physics.

Till we have the next decent volcanic eruption and we all start complaining how cold it is.

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.

…

Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. … Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space.

Source: http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

The net cooling effect of volcanic eruptions only last for a few years.

Whilst the warming effect “of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever.” Source: http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html.

Conclusion: volcanic eruptions only have a short term effect, of a few years on climate. CO2 emissions – against human time scales – have an effect now and forever.

Chop71 said :

howeph said :

The problem is that we are in a race. A race against man made climate change. There is no debate on this. It’s simple physics.

Till we have the next decent volcanic eruption and we all start complaining how cold it is.

Indeed, we could have another Tambora sized eruption which could knock half a degree of the Northern Hemisphere’s summer temperatures; taking them back to the bitterly cold summers they had in the 1980’s.

howeph said :

The problem is that we are in a race. A race against man made climate change. There is no debate on this. It’s simple physics.

Till we have the next decent volcanic eruption and we all start complaining how cold it is.

Gira2617 said :

Umm what has the snowy hydro electric scheme been doing for the past 50 odd years? Isn’t that renewable?

Hydro has by far the best Energy Return on Energy Invested. By a long mile.
Unfortunately, there are severe geographical limitations on where it can be implemented, so other power-generating options are necessary.
Some lucky jurisdictions, like Tasmania or British Columbia produce the majority of their power from hydro.

breda said :

Simple question – if “renewable” energy is so viable, how come it needs subsidies (paid for by consumers and taxpayers) to make the projects viable?

Probably for the reason that the fossil-fuel industry receives billions in taxpayer-subsidy every year.

breda said :

Simple question – if “renewable” energy is so viable, how come it needs subsidies (paid for by consumers and taxpayers) to make the projects viable?

Simple questions are deceptive. Do you want a simple answer – that ignores a whole bunch of caveats? Or do you want an accurate answer – but will require you to put the time and effort in to understand; to overcome your prejudices or preconceived ideas?

The simple answer is that some renewable technologies, wind first and now solar PV, have already reached the “tipping point”. They are unstoppable (e.g. see Global Wind Power Cumulative Capacity). Others such as concentrated solar and hot rocks geothermal still need significant investment, that will only happen with government (Australian or Other) support, before the R&D costs are covered and the economies of scale kick in.

But the simple economics are that the cost of conventional energy (including nuclear) is getting higher; whilst the cost of renewable is getting cheaper. In some situations renewable is already cheaper than conventional. As the trends continue, for more and more situations, renewable shall become the cheapest option. It is unstoppable.

The problem is that we are in a race. A race against man made climate change. There is no debate on this. It’s simple physics.

We (the world) needs to effect the decarbonising of our economies in a very short period of time in order to avoid the highly likely risk of catastrophic climate change effects.

Meeting this time constraint will be a lot easier with effective government policies that support this change.

There is also a part of the renewable puzzle yet to be solved in a cost effective way. Storage. A number of storage options exist (pumped hydro, hydrogen, batteries, compressed air, flywheels, molten salt, capacitors, …) and a mix will be required to support a 100% renewable energy system that meets the needs of our economy.

And so far we have only talked about electricity. We still have to find solutions for transport and agriculture; which are harder problems yet…

breda said :

It’s not an academic arguement. The poorest people in the ACT have to pay higher electricity prices to subsidise inefficient feelgood wanks like solar and windmills. According to Simon ( aka Che) Corbell, this is the way of the future. We (actually they, the poor) may have to suffer, but We Are Saving The Planet!

Renewables (wind and solar PV), along with improved energy efficiency, have lowered Australia’s wholesale electricity price in Australia since 06/07; and yet the retail price has increased.

Why?

It’s complicated.

It’s not – as we have just shown – because the renewable energy is more expensive, because it isn’t.

It’s because the retail price is set by the Australian Energy Regulator and the regulations under which the Regulator operates don’t cater for the emerging renewable energy system. The regulations are based upon the assumption of the traditional conventional grid of large energy suppliers (consisting of lower cost base load suppliers and very expensive peek load suppliers), network operators and simple energy consumers.

Renewable energy has disrupted this cosy situation between the regulators and the regulated.

Consumers of energy are now also suppliers of energy i.e. roof top solar PV. In the summer solar PV produces cheap power at the same time as demand peeks – cutting into some of the traditional energy suppliers most profitable energy production.

Wind power – installed under the RET – provides cheaper power than existing inefficient coal power stations forcing the early closure of a number of coal power generation units. These stranded coal “assets” represent lost revenue potential for those power companies.

The traditional power companies are attempting to maintain their profits and so, with the help of the regulator, they have increasing the retail price. But that isn’t a sustainable strategy. Increasing the retail price just makes rooftop solar PV even more cost effective and eventually will make battery storage in the home a viable option – which would further decreases demand for power from the grid.

breda said :

Any cost/benefit analysis, or computation of what the actual effect of these measures would be in changing the climate are noticeably absent.

No they aren’t. The two best know once are:

* <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review"The Stern Review; and
* The Garnaut Climate Change Review

breda said :

It’s the vibe. Now just give us more of your money, because We Really Care.

Open you eyes Breda. You are mistaken on this issue. All the evidence is against you. Unfortunately you either have to become part of the solution, or you’re part of the problem.

breda said :

” The government’s modelling? Any chance they will release it for independent scrutiny? Because it defies the laws of mathematics.

You can do the math yourself. The LCOE for wind in the region is about $100/MWh compared to a wholesale market price of say $70. So that’s a $30 increase in wholesale price, on a retail price of $200/MWh (assuming that stays the same), that’s around a 15% increase. Its not rocket science.

Umm what has the snowy hydro electric scheme been doing for the past 50 odd years? Isn’t that renewable?

breda said :

Simple question – if “renewable” energy is so viable, how come it needs subsidies (paid for by consumers and taxpayers) to make the projects viable?

You could say by the same token if Coal is so cheap and viable why does it need subsidies and tax concessions paid for by consumers and taxpayers?

Concesssions are made to the Coal industry each year that add up to billions of dollars Australia wide.

Some articles (Note I have no idea how biased or unbiased these articles are particularly the 3rd)

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/coal-curse-the-black-side-of-the-subsidised-resour

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2011/11/1/smart-energy/nsws-great-big-coal-subsidy-scandal

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/fossil-fools-in-the-sunshine-state-23357

$5 per household … detail please! Family of four. Family of two. Sole householder. Otherwise this is useless (presumably deliberately so).

Simple question – if “renewable” energy is so viable, how come it needs subsidies (paid for by consumers and taxpayers) to make the projects viable?

It’s not an academic arguement. The poorest people in the ACT have to pay higher electricity prices to subsidise inefficient feelgood wanks like solar and windmills. According to Simon ( aka Che) Corbell, this is the way of the future. We (actually they, the poor) may have to suffer, but We Are Saving The Planet!

Any cost/benefit analysis, or computation of what the actual effect of these measures would be in changing the climate are noticeably absent.

It’s the vibe. Now just give us more of your money, because We Really Care.

more lies, you cant trust their costings as every project Labor have done here has a blown out budget with the only exception being road repair .

Robertson said :

You mean, don’t use Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones as your source?

Same goes for asylum seeker / immigration policy too…

howeph said :

What I would like to see is people using their brain not their gut instincts. People referencing relevant facts and analysis not their made up lies.

You mean, don’t use Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones as your source?

breda said :

@ howeph: OK, lets take them one at a time.

Solar and wind are multiple times more expensive than conventional production…

Source?

Here are the facts: Lazard’s Levelized Const of Energy Analysis – version 7 August 2013
———————————————————————
Well, this is what the US Energy Administration says (hardly “denialists”):

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm

Breda, I’m typing this extra slowly so that you might have a chance of following:
you don’t actually know what you think you know.

Here is the released report:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

It clearly shows Wind is cheaper than Coal, and Solar less than 150% the price of coal.
(And remember, the price reported here for coal includes the massive subsidy represented by the externalised cost of emitting CO2, the true cost of coal being much, much more than what is currently being paid).

You also seem to be buying into the fossil-fool industry’s propaganda about coal-power’s inefficient inability to adjust to demand somehow being some sort of virtue called “baseload power”. More fool you.

You realise no new coal plants are under construction in this country, and two plants were decommissioned due to the introduction of the carbon tax last year, don’t you?

As for solar not producing power unless it’s sunny – what I suggest is that you choose one of the following options:
– stop commenting on things about which you are ignorant
or
– inform yourself as to the facts and then join the conversation

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsZoWXE_LuZGKQA6V7xWlZZPZPCw
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/07/nighttime_solar_power_being_tested_in_arizona_newscred/

The fossil-fool industry is subsidised to the tune of $100million in “R&D” every year in this country.

Here’s your first assignment in informing yourself, Breda – how much R&D does the government pay for, for,
– solar power?
– wind power?

breda said :

@ howeph: OK, lets take them one at a time.

Solar and wind are multiple times more expensive than conventional production…

Source?

Here are the facts: Lazard’s Levelized Const of Energy Analysis – version 7 August 2013
———————————————————————
Well, this is what the US Energy Administration says (hardly “denialists”):

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm

Note that the comparatively low effective output of wind and solar cancels out the lower construction and maintenance costs. In other words, you can buy and old banger for a lot less than a reasonably good car, but don’t rely on it getting you from A to B. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Of course, you’re paying rego all the time. This kinda matters, in power production.

Presumably there is no need to explain why, when the sun is not shining and/or the wind isn’t blowing, these sources produce zero energy. Hence, there is a need for 100% backup from conventional power sources.

Thanks, your source agrees with mine. Solar and wind are NOT multiple times more expensive than conventional production.

From your table 1 of your source:

Extract from Table 1 Estimated levelized cost of new generation resources, 2018: Total system levelized costs:

Conventional Coal: 100.1
Wind: 86.6 [wind is cheaper than coal!]
Solar: 144.3

Thanks for proving you don’t know what your talking about.

breda said :

OK, so where is this 90% “renewable” energy going to come from? Inquiring minds want to know. The “Plan” doesn’t even begin to explain it in terms of hard numbers and engineering. Leaving aside hydro (and contemporary Greens would have opposed that tooth and nail) – where is it going to come from, and how?

Read the plan again. (Hint: You’ve constructed a strawman argument understanding of what the 90% target is; so that you can proclaim it as being impossible)

breda said :

It doesn’t matter what I think. I am asking how this can possibly be achieved, what it will cost, who will pay, and how much.

You’ve proclaimed it as being impossible whilst simultaneously demonstrating that a) you don’t know the basic facts – your “assumption” around costs have been shown to be grossly wrong (more than 100% overestimating renewable costs) – and b) you don’t understand what is even being planned and legislated.

breda said :

For some reason, ACT government modelling doesn’t fill me with confidence…

For some reason I don’t trust your gut instincts.

breda said :

The GFC was five years ago.

Tell that to people in Europe.

breda said :

What is happening now? Well, in Germany Der Spiegel which is a middle-of-the road publication, reports:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693.html

“The insane system to promote renewable energy sources ensures that, with each new rooftop solar panel and each additional wind turbine, more coal is automatically burned and more CO2 released into the atmosphere.”

Meanwhile, in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2477703/JAMES-FORSYTH-Clegg-starts-melt-Dave-turns-energy-price-heat.html

” Some green charges will be scrapped

while others will be taken off bills and instead funded by Government directly. If extra public money is needed to pay for this, that will be provided by additional spending cuts.”

Why? Because UK energy bills are soaring because of subsidies to wind and solar, and the political reality is coming home. Nothing to do with the GFC.

Explain how either article is relevant to Australia or more particular to the ACT 90% target.

breda said :

As for Spain, poster child of the “renewable” movement, it is broke, youth unemployment is around 50%, subsidies for solar have been cut back or removed (as they have been around the world) because they were absurd and unaffordable – not really a model for us, I would have thought.

So you are saying the renewable energy caused the GFC / and ongoing Great Depression?

breda said :

What I would like to see is the proponents of “renewable” energy using it exclusively at home. No wind, no sun, no power. Maybe they could deal with that. But if their employer had to, most would soon be out of a job.

At least The Planet Would Be Saved!

What I would like to see is people using their brain not their gut instincts. People referencing relevant facts and analysis not their made up lies.

@ howeph: OK, lets take them one at a time.

Solar and wind are multiple times more expensive than conventional production…

Source?

Here are the facts: Lazard’s Levelized Const of Energy Analysis – version 7 August 2013
———————————————————————
Well, this is what the US Energy Administration says (hardly “denialists”):

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm

Note that the comparatively low effective output of wind and solar cancels out the lower construction and maintenance costs. In other words, you can buy and old banger for a lot less than a reasonably good car, but don’t rely on it getting you from A to B. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. Of course, you’re paying rego all the time. This kinda matters, in power production.

Presumably there is no need to explain why, when the sun is not shining and/or the wind isn’t blowing, these sources produce zero energy. Hence, there is a need for 100% backup from conventional power sources.

————————————————————————————————–
“Try reading the plan AP2 – A new climate change strategy and action plan for the Australian Capital Territory. Maybe then you can ask some more sensible questions.

Johnboy said “One wonders where the huge biomass facility for still (non-windy) nights is going to go and what the neighbours will think of that…”

Skimming the plan linked above, the only biomass in the plan that I saw is from the waste facilities.”

OK, so where is this 90% “renewable” energy going to come from? Inquiring minds want to know. The “Plan” doesn’t even begin to explain it in terms of hard numbers and engineering. Leaving aside hydro (and contemporary Greens would have opposed that tooth and nail) – where is it going to come from, and how?
——————————————————————————————–
“What’s utter bollocks?

Are you a denier? I’m guessing what you mean is that the scientific theory of global climate change is “utter bollocks”. In which case don’t beat around the bush, just say it straight off. Whenever you comment on one of these issues you should start your comment with “I don’t think human induced climate change is real; therefore… ” That way we can all know how much credibility we can put in your claimed “facts” and opinions.”

It doesn’t matter what I think. I am asking how this can possibly be achieved, what it will cost, who will pay, and how much.

For some reason, ACT government modelling doesn’t fill me with confidence in the face of what has happened elsewhere in the world – which brings us to:
————————————————————————————-

“What happened/ing in Spain, UK and Germany?

Is the GFC (elsewhere called the Great Recession) the fault of renewable energy now?”

The GFC was five years ago. What is happening now? Well, in Germany Der Spiegel which is a middle-of-the road publication, reports:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693.html

“The insane system to promote renewable energy sources ensures that, with each new rooftop solar panel and each additional wind turbine, more coal is automatically burned and more CO2 released into the atmosphere.”

Meanwhile, in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2477703/JAMES-FORSYTH-Clegg-starts-melt-Dave-turns-energy-price-heat.html

” Some green charges will be scrapped while others will be taken off bills and instead funded by Government directly. If extra public money is needed to pay for this, that will be provided by additional spending cuts.”

Why? Because UK energy bills are soaring because of subsidies to wind and solar, and the political reality is coming home. Nothing to do with the GFC.

As for Spain, poster child of the “renewable” movement, it is broke, youth unemployment is around 50%, subsidies for solar have been cut back or removed (as they have been around the world) because they were absurd and unaffordable – not really a model for us, I would have thought.

What I would like to see is the proponents of “renewable” energy using it exclusively at home. No wind, no sun, no power. Maybe they could deal with that. But if their employer had to, most would soon be out of a job.

At least The Planet Would Be Saved!

Mothy said :

No, he said used. Well I’ll be…

So wonder how he’ll factor out the coal-fired stuff coming down the wires from interstate?

Read the plan: AP2 – A new climate change strategy and action plan for the Australian Capital Territory

breda said :

Solar and wind are multiple times more expensive than conventional production…

Source?

Here are the facts: Lazard’s Levelized Const of Energy Analysis – version 7 August 2013

breda said :

… – and they can’t be relied on. So they need 100% backup from conventional power sources.

Source?

breda said :

And where are they going to put thousands (because that’s what it would need) of windmills and solar panels in the next 7 years? Who is going to pay for them? How much will they cost?

Try reading the plan AP2 – A new climate change strategy and action plan for the Australian Capital Territory. Maybe then you can ask some more sensible questions.

Johnboy said “One wonders where the huge biomass facility for still (non-windy) nights is going to go and what the neighbours will think of that…”

Skimming the plan linked above, the only biomass in the plan that I saw is from the waste facilities.

breda said :

It’s utter bollocks. But as I said above, rest assured that an awful lot of our money will be required in the meantime so that these people can feel good about themselves.

What’s utter bollocks?

Are you a denier? I’m guessing what you mean is that the scientific theory of global climate change is “utter bollocks”. In which case don’t beat around the bush, just say it straight off. Whenever you comment on one of these issues you should start your comment with “I don’t think human induced climate change is real; therefore… ” That way we can all know how much credibility we can put in your claimed “facts” and opinions.

breda said :

Never mind what happened in Spain, and is now happening in the UK and Germany, thanks to these self-regarding fantasists. What does Simon Corbell know that Angela Merkel and David Cameron don’t?

What happened/ing in Spain, UK and Germany?

Is the GFC (elsewhere called the Great Recession) the fault of renewable energy now?

Breda, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Stop mistaking your gut reaction – often erroneously called “common sense” – for informed analysis.

Mothy said :

Aeek said :

If you limit it just to electricity production that is under ACT control, i.e. within the ACT, aren’t we well ahead of that already.

This. Did he say 90% of energy CONSUMED or energy PRODUCED?

Neither. Second paragraph of the quote in the post: “90% of electricity used in the ACT”.

No, he said used. Well I’ll be…

So wonder how he’ll factor out the coal-fired stuff coming down the wires from interstate?

Aeek said :

If you limit it just to electricity production that is under ACT control, i.e. within the ACT, aren’t we well ahead of that already.

This. Did he say 90% of energy CONSUMED or energy PRODUCED?

I don’t imagine it will have quite the same resonance as “triple your rates” (which will still very much be an issue in 2016), but the restrictions on the types of electric water heaters which may be installed or replaced in ACT homes could become a difficult issue for the Government – particularly if the predictions of big increases in gas prices prove to be correct.

” the government’s modelling says it works out at $272 per household per annum peaking in 2020. ”
———————————————————-
The government’s modelling? Any chance they will release it for independent scrutiny? Because it defies the laws of mathematics.

Solar and wind are multiple times more expensive than conventional production – and they can’t be relied on. So they need 100% backup from conventional power sources. How on earth can producing 90% of power at multiple times the cost only result in $5 a week on our bills? It’s nonsense.

And where are they going to put thousands (because that’s what it would need) of windmills and solar panels in the next 7 years? Who is going to pay for them? How much will they cost?

What about the Nether Spotted Slow-worm that will inevitably be found on these sites? Gosh, nobody is thinking of the Slow-worm’s grandchildren here.

It’s utter bollocks. But as I said above, rest assured that an awful lot of our money will be required in the meantime so that these people can feel good about themselves.

Never mind what happened in Spain, and is now happening in the UK and Germany, thanks to these self-regarding fantasists. What does Simon Corbell know that Angela Merkel and David Cameron don’t?

He must be a Bear of Enormous Brain.

if you do it on a net basis the government’s modelling says it works out at $272 per household per annum peaking in 2020. When it gets expensive is when you try and become self-reliant for your energy – the technology isn’t available for that yet. On a net basis sometimes you are >90%, sometimes less.

This will be the last term of the Labor/Greens Government.

Thank God.

Except the bit where we end up burning more coal because at night our solar won’t work but during the day we’ll over produce energy. Can’t turn gas power down easily to average out demand so that leaves us with keeping coal power plants going while using less, less polluting gas power plants.

Win win for no one.

If you limit it just to electricity production that is under ACT control, i.e. within the ACT, aren’t we well ahead of that already.

Easy done.

Coal is renewable, it just takes quite a long time to renew….

Reprobate said :

“a 90% renewable energy (electricity) target for the ACT to be achieved by 2020.”

Just like “No Waste by 2010”?

Bwahahahahaha…

I look forward to the resultant slogan being painted over in six years’ time.

MERC600 said :

Time to haul out the maps and find another joint to wither away. Don’t appreciate being treated as a lab rat.

Yeah because burning coal in another state doesn’t affect us in the least 🙂

Grandstanding pretending to be policy.

Reprobate – snap!

Just like No Waste By 2010?

Pipe dreams and unicorns. But we are going to be slugged hard in the wallet for them.

“a 90% renewable energy (electricity) target for the ACT to be achieved by 2020.”

Just like “No Waste by 2010”?

Bwahahahahaha…

Time to haul out the maps and find another joint to wither away. Don’t appreciate being treated as a lab rat.