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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. All
John, your still at school so you should not have forgotten the rule..."show your working out".

The selective use of facts shows that you're not actually interested in having a conversation, just repeating a liberal party talking point.

Why not mention the fact the coal is currently 3 or 4 times cheaper then it was just a little while?
Why not mention that Warren is in it for the money so of course he wouldn't investment in something that wasn't going to make his financial goals. Last time I looked most of the bigger power companies in Australia where government owned, so profit doesn't have to be the motivator for this essential service.

Oh btw how many large coal fueled power stations have been built by private companies in Australia in the last say five years without any government assistance?

But your little piece here will go down well in this echo chamber.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 28 August 2015 10:56:50 AM
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 using two retired Geo's as your source on renewable just shows your bias nothing more. You can still find people who believe the earth is flat.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 28 August 2015 11:03:35 AM
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
Cobber the hound,

You seem conflicted. You said to the author of the post: "John, your still at school so you should not have forgotten the rule..."show your working out".

Then you use an ad hominem fallacy in attempt to discredit the author of the referenced post. He has shown his "workings out". So let's see your "workings out" to discredit it. Join the debate on that thread if you have anything substantial to offer. I am sure you don't.
Posted by Peter Lang, Friday, 28 August 2015 11:14:02 AM
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
John seems to have failed to realise that generating electricity from renewables has a very different cost structure from generating electricity from fossil fuels. The capital cost is much higher, but because there's no fuel cost, the running cost is much lower.

Thus he claims that the 50% target will see the crowding out of cheaper sources; in reality it will see the crowding out of more expensive sources.

Whether renewables or fossil fuels work out cheaper overall depends on the cost of finance. But even if they're not cheaper overall, it can still result in cheaper electricity as it reduces the opportunity for profiteering.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 28 August 2015 12:16:28 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
This piece and associated set of comments shows yet again the “yes they can/no they can’t” nature of opinions on renewables replacing current energy sources. The debate has been around for a lot more than the 20 years John Slater claims. It ought to be a simple technical question. Why is it not? The answer is complicated but stems fundamentally from a lack of public scepticism about a highly dubious proposition, that feeble intermittent wind and sun could ever possibly serve us as fossil fuels now do. As a result, every favourable report of a new idea or technical breakthrough or cost projection is seized on as proof that renewables will soon deliver the goods without harming prosperity. ‘Grid parity’ is forever just around the corner. Of course the advocates forget about comparing like with like, confusing the marginal cost of domestic rooftop solar with the real cost of utility-scale electricity generation. They forget about the universal principle of economy of scale. They forget that the first 5% of any replacement plan will inevitably be a much smaller challenge than the last 5%. They forget that electricity is only a small part of the whole energy story.

Many readers of this e-journal simply claim there’s no problem on the grounds that carbon emissions don’t affect climate. I hope they are right because the renewables advocates are certainly wrong. Sadly the most likely truth is that they are both wrong. We probably do have a problem and, as Ross Garnaut first said, it’s diabolical. Nuclear energy is the obvious long term answer for electricity, but transportable fuels for industry and commerce are a different matter (I accept that consumers will eventually adapt and small electric vehicles for private cars will become the norm).

Renewables are a distraction from the real challenge of converting the presently known large scale intensive energy source, nuclear fission, into forms for every application we need.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 28 August 2015 12:52:40 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 you seem to have a reading problem. I pointed out that any picture can be painted if you only explore that facts that support your contention.
Asking why the author didn't explore these area is reasonable comment.

if you're railing against government subs for wind generators than is it not reasonable to explain what subs are in place for coal power stations?

I also asked a very clear question, What coal fueled power stations have been built without government subs?

Peter take up the challenge, can you answer the question. Why deflect it?

I'm with Rhrosty here I think we should try some nukes. That would take billions of government assistance.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Friday, 28 August 2015 1:39:26 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 11
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. All

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