New nuclear cannot compete with already built coal fired power stations in the absence of serious emissions limits. With the manufacturing downturn there will be an oversupply of cheap coal fired electricity. If both the carbon tax and the RET go it will be hard for other generation sources to get a look in. That will the case be until those coal stations need replacing, some not until the 2030s.

I doubt if Direct Action will achieve much except squabbling. If the emissions reduction target was 15% for the years 2000-2020 not a weak 5% then things could move along. Everything but coal (unless you believe in CCS) would have a role to play i.e. gas , renewables, planned nuclear, conservation.

I love the irony of this piece.

Quote
There is a tombstone in an English churchyard with the following six word epitaph. "I told you I was sick."
End quote

This is exactly what will be written on the tombstone of the Earth if we don't start accepting the science, that adding vast amounts of carbon to the atmosphere is stuffing up the climate.

Other wise the article is just a piece of unmitigated lobbying laced with spin.

A year ago I plotted the price paid by the grid operator for electricity from NSW fossil fuel generators. The increase over fifteen years was about 1.6% per annum compound and for the last year the cost was about 5c per Kwh.

The capital payback cost per Kwh for renewables according the author of Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal, Dr Robert Hargraves, is about 20c. So the 20% imposition on power companies to include 20% of renewables into their mix adds 3-4cents per Kwh to every power bill.

The gold plating of the grid is a completely misleading argument. Extension or improvement to the grid is a capital expense and should be charged to the consumers over the life of the equipment.

My neighbour has a mass of solar panels and receives 66c per Kwh for power fed back to the grid. So their power bill is negative and they pay nothing for their use of the grid as a backup during cloudy weather.

Much of the extra charge is due to the nonsense idea of privatisation. How really is it possible to have competition when there is inly one service into each consumer's property.

The article is complete rubbish. For the key to the declining industrial base take a peek at Australian productivity growth. It's been in the toilet for 15 years. This is starting to hurt. Your failing because the lack of investment has allowed competitors to get a foot in the door.

Foyle
most of what you wrote is right as far as it goes, but overall its quite wrong..

Renewables in Aus have always been seen as an add-on to conventional networks and they have what is known as capacity factors.. PVs, for example, have a capacity factor of 18 per cent and, to cut a long story short, that means they replace very little conventional plant .. when you see cost comparisons they are usually comparing cost per output and not the whole cost of running networks which is a different matter entirely.

PVs have been built on roof tops solely because of those great deals your neighbour gets which is (or was)legislated. If distributors were left to themselves they would not look sideways at PVs or wind, at least on any scale. They are too much trouble to have on a network. They are used because the government has passed laws..

'I love the irony of this piece.

Quote
There is a tombstone in an English churchyard with the following six word epitaph. "I told you I was sick."
End quote

This is exactly what will be written on the tombstone of the Earth if we don't start accepting the science, that adding vast amounts of carbon to the atmosphere is stuffing up the climate.'

and what would be added to the epitaph

'but unfortunately we treated you for your mental fever instead of addressing your cold.