The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Renewable energy evangelists preach a fact free utopia > Comments

Renewable energy evangelists preach a fact free utopia : Comments

By John Slater, published 28/8/2015

Building enough solar and wind power to meet Labor's new target would cost the country 80 to 100 billion dollars.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All
Warmair,
The way you harp on about nuclear build times is as if it's the nuclear industry's fault. Did you ignore the way Greenpeace and other activists get in their and challenge every build in court? Or the way anti's fired rocket launchers at the Phenix reactor in France? Or every other delaying trick in the book? Are you seriously trying to blame the nuclear industry for this?

Also, harping on about build delays in decades gone by, with older technologies, is a little bit like condemning the whole modern aviation industry because of the Hindenberg. You need to get with the times. ThorCon have a plan for *assembly line* produced thorium BURNERS (not the BREEDERs which are 10 to 15 years away) at about HALF the price of coal. Designs, safety, and costs are all modularised and systematised and factory produced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfsOYzOpYRw

Lastly, you haven't actually said how Germany are going to deal with the problems of renewable energy I have listed. But have you forgotten France?

"In one decade (1977–1987), France increased its nuclear power production 15-fold, with the nuclear portion of its electricity increasing from 8% to 70%.

In one decade (2001–2011) Germany increased the non-hydroelectric renewable energy portion of its electricity from 4% to 19%, with fossil fuels decreasing from 63% to 61% (hydroelectric decreased from 4% to 3% and nuclear power decreased from 29% to 18%).
Next Big Future Jan 2014"
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/climate-and-carbon-emission-study-by.html
Posted by Max Green, Monday, 7 September 2015 1:21:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang,

"A classic example of you not reading links and not looking back to see the link."
Huh? You said you'd explained it in a comment, and now when challenged you're claiming you only linked to an explanation, and calling me dumb because when I tried to find your comment that explained it I couldn't.

(BTW I have seen an explanation of how LCOE is calculated; just not by you).

"In your words 'How dumb is that?'"
They're actually your words, although I did previously use them against you.

You seem to have trouble comprehending the different cost structures of different electricity sources. Do you dispute that the capital cost of renewables is higher per unit output than nuclear, and that for fossil fuels it's a lot lower? My main point is a logical result of that. I don't need to do the full calculations to be able to tell you that cheaper finance cuts the cost of renewables more than that of nuclear, while it has much less effect on electricity generated from fossil fuels.

(TBC)
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 1:15:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued)

"Then there’s your ignorant dismissal of the classic economic text 'Economics in one lesson'."
While the irony of you ignorantly dismissing my very brief criticism of it as an "ignorant dismissal" is amusing, it does highlight a much deeper problem: you're assuming anyone who disagrees with your opinion to be ignorant, even when the ignorance is actually on your part.

I could've said much more about EI1L. For example I could've mentioned the misplaced criticism of the saying “In the long run we are all dead.” Keynes said that not in regard to the long run effects of the policies he favoured, but in response to claims that the policies he opposed would work in the long run. Or I could've mentioned that while investment and savings are related, there is no simple relationship between the amount saved and the amount invested. But that's not of much relevance to the matter we're discussing; I mentioned the one thing that was.

I'm not saying there aren't physical constraints; I'm saying the physical constraints can be overcome.

Unstated assumptions include, but are not limited to, which renewable and nuclear options are being compared, the cost of finance, the way things are funded, the location of the infrastructure, the availability of storage, the pattern of demand, the availability of energy from other sources, and the ability to vary demand. I don't have sufficient information to tell you how each one affects the figures, and I wouldn't waste my time on it even if I did!

You're the one who keeps raising trivial issues; I make no apology for ignoring them.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 1:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan,

You didn't answer these two questions:

1. Tell me the percentage saving for cost of electricity (including grid costs) for nuclear versus renewable if discount rate is reduced from 10% to 5% (using AETA LCOE figures for technologies and OECD figures for grid costs http://www.energyinachangingclimate.info/Counting%20the%20hidden%20costs%20of%20energy.pdf ). Go on – see if you can do it. I reckon you can’t.

2. Please state what are the unstated assumptions and what is the significance of them – tell me the percentage change they’d make to the result if changed. I bet you can’t do that.

BTW, there not unstated assumptions. Comparisons that are done on a properly comparable basis demonstrate: "Nuclear generated electricity is about 1/3 the cost of renewables when all system costs are included"

As I said "Aidan, you continually avoid the relevant facts and raise trivial issues."

In your own words, your comments: " PROVES YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION AT ALL!" You are clearly incapable of doing basic analyses to check your beliefs before you post ill-informed comments. But you are two tied to your ideological beliefs to challenge them or to allow facts to change your mind.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 5:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

I'm not going to do your calculations for you!

BTW unless you state exactly what a "properly comparable basis" involves, the assumptions are unstated.

I notice you did not answer my questions either, even thought they did not require you to do any calculations.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aidan,
can I chime in here and ask which reports have convinced you that Australia can do 100% renewables cheaper and faster than nuclear power?

What do you make of studies like this?

"An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute finds that the entire German solar sector produces less than half the power that Fukushima Daiichi – a single nuclear complex – generated before it was hit by the tsunami. To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/doing_the_math_comparing_germa.shtml
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 8 September 2015 10:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy