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 > The need for renewable electricity > Comments

The need for renewable electricity : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 7/10/2016

If Mr Turnbull had his way on continued use of coal, government would fail to realize its Paris commitment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
The LGC subsidy at around $90 per Mwh for wind and commercial solar is roughly double the wholesale price of coal power. In 2014 when the subsidy was half that the RET Review found the cost of CO2 avoided was $59 per tonne of CO2. Carbon tax finished at $24.15 per tCO2. The RET is not a cost effective way of reducing emissions. It may or may not be extended after 2020. Given recent misgivings in SA it seems most unlikely to realise our Paris pledge. This is demonstrated dramatically by Germany which has had static emissions 2009-2015 (slight uptick in 2015) despite spending up to €25 bn per year in subsidies. Yet they still have a lot of coal and nuclear.

My guess is that electric cars with decent range will be charged off peak at home not so much by daytime solar. Batteries large or small that can make wind and solar dispatchable are still too expensive and collectively add up to just minutes worth of national electricity demand. If the cost or density breakthrough doesn't arrive it's back to reliable realtime generation.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 7 October 2016 8:01:30 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
The SA disaster and the 40% reliance on RE shows the screaming necessity of backup power, forever, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of RET targets. Targets are all very well, but the 2020 target of 50% reliance on RE still needs the backing of coal or nuclear. If we had the latter, it would obviate the need for the ugly, inefficient and costly renewable toys that the hysterics still believe will prevent climate "change".

Until these costly experiments prove beyond all doubt to be the foolishiness they really are, the banner should not be 'the need for renewable eletricity' but, 'the need for secure electricity'.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 7 October 2016 8:56:25 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
Now, on Bolt's blog. Frydenburg warns that Labor states' RET targets will cost $41 billion, with "another 4800 wind towers to wreck our views".
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 7 October 2016 9:09:55 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
I think the time has come to move away from the silly false dichotomy of "coal vs renewables". The energy companies certainly have.

Changes in an industrial paradigm are always disruptive and often leave some people feeling left out or disadvantaged, but as technologies advance they are inevitable.

Taswegian, I don't think you're considering all the implications of an autonomous electric vehicle fleet. For example, why would you own a car if you can have one at the door within a couple of minutes at very low cost? A major cost of ownership of a car is depreciation: I have a BMW E32 7 series that cost about $120k new in 1992. I bought it in 2009 for $3500 and it would have been much the same price for at least 5 years It's an extreme example, but a similar phenomenon is true for all cars. Why not spread that cost around among a lot of people?

An autonomous vehicle fleet allows for centralised charging facilities among other benefits and it will undoubtedly be a key part of making renewables viable as the primary generation source.

There are many other technologies coming on stream over the next few years, as the author points out. I have a personal interest in the field informed by some technical background and I'm surprised almost daily by news of some technological advance.

Sure, we can't rush headlong into a future we can't predict, some conservatism is necessary, but we can't let that slip into neo-Luddite stagnation.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 7 October 2016 9:58:04 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
Agree with most of this if the term renewable is replaced with carbon free alternative! Mr turnbull is not the only one dancin to the tune of Ideological imperatives of those who can only say renewable! And endlessly repeat loudly with fingers stuffed in ears!

Look, we have clean safe cheap thorium, fifties technology rejected because there's no weapons spin off! Its fertile not fissile and consequently the limited reaction cannot produce plutonium or make a bomb.

Thorium doesn't need to be enriched and is used as is! And is less radioactive than a banana!

Used in molten salt reactors, it lends itself to the safe disposal of current stores of nuclear waste products and preferentially the most toxic!

Which goes around and around through the cycle giving up valuable energy each time inside a system that is walk away safe, to finally reduce the remnant half life to just 300 years! Which others will pay us billions to store/recycle!

As the cycle goes around and around enormously valuable medical isotopes are easily removed! And suddenly incurable cancers become curable! fact not theory!

If I were to step outside my door and dig up around one cubic metre of topsoil, I'd recover around 3 MM's of thorium. Recovery and refining costs could be contained to around $100.00? And that's enough thorium to power your house and car for the next 100 years!

Do the maths, that's just a dollar a year!

Apart from SAFELY burning nuclear waste, molten technology is capable of combining Co2 and hydrogen, harvested from seawater into useful hydrocarbons, fact not theory!

And as the Co2 is removed, and given the affinity Co2 has with water, atmospheric Co2 is literally sucked from the sky to more or less replace what's been removed!

We have enough thorium in the ground to power the entire world for thousand years and that's before we need to start mining rock and crushed it to power the world for thousands more! Both the government and the renewable devotees need frank fearless advice that comes direct and unfiltered!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 7 October 2016 11:05:54 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
I expected to be attacked from both sides of this debate by the four trillion a year fossil fuel industry, whose returns would be seriously reduced by the rollout of this technology, and by renewable devotees for a variety of reasons, some ideological and only possible because of an unfounded and outdated fear of the word nuclear, which is invariably accompanied in their mind's eye by doom and gloom mushroom shaped clouds and stories of chernobyl and fukushima?

Simply put, if walk away safe molten salt technology had been the reactors in use in the latter examples? They would still be beavering away serving the need of their respective countries!

Walk away safe molten salt reactors and thorium could be built here and in the next five years! Sure, we'd need to import some expertise! But when has that ever been difficult!

Excuses, recalcitrant political intransigence anyone?

And we need to do it before the Chinese come waving IP's for technology that the west abandoned several decades ago! Control the world's energy and price structure and you effectively control or ruin the world!

Let me conclude by adding, if you combine cheap clean safe energy with new deionization desalination, which produces 95% potable water from salt water for around quarter of the price of previous desalination utilizing today's technology!

However, if you then use energy that could be made available to the average household for a dollar a year! The sky's the limit for any nation that has marginal riparian access to seawater and even higher than that by any country lucky enough to be surrounded by it!

If you need to validate my claims, get on U tube and listen to some highly credentialed experts far more knowledgeable than me, on this and allied topics!

Or attack me and everything I've posted, along with my atrocious Grammar; ruthlessly, in some sort of forlorn hope of preventing others doing their own validations, or demanding change we can all believe in!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 7 October 2016 12:03:30 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
G = 8 * Pi * T has been the physicists constant since the early 20th century and the resultant basis for the laws of thermodynamics. Recent new groundbreaking developments in physics indicate the equation above is likely incorrect and Lambda needs to be inserted adjacent to the "G".

The implication of this is immense for energy, including the fact energy may be able to be altered as never considered before. It also explains the origin of the so-called Big Bang, and the fact it results in a vacuum before the "bang" and after once our current cosmos collapses at some future point in time, no creator required, but that's another story entirely!

Anyway, the implications for energy mean energy should be able to be transformed in ways we have yet to understand.

Notwithstanding this, renewable energy, as in solar, wind, biogas etc, will remain a pipe dream because you can't run a growing modern society on the energy delivered if we intend to maintain the business as usual model. Trucking alone, which Australia relies on for so much of our just-in-time delivery systems, can't sustain itself on renewables.

Thorium nuclear technology would be a game changer if our vested interest pollies took off the blinkers and their political party donation interests.

As to the 6-9 metre sea level rise, bollocks it won't happen even if we go beyond 2 degrees C.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 7 October 2016 12:05:22 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
the amazing thing is that we pay economist and gw alarmist. They are useless at making predictions and only ever wise after the event. We need an exit from idiotic targets to impress unelected bureacrats around the world. They have stuffed things up simple things like immigration and now hold to the failed gw religion/dogma despite all the evidence revealing them as mugs. South Australia has its complete stupidity exposed and Mike writes this nonsense in complete denial. Our poor grandkids. I suppose with Brexit it shows that at least some are starting to think rather than the masses being dumbed down like the getup clowns and those who think wind farms are of any use without coal.
Posted by runner, Friday, 7 October 2016 4:25:25 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
Geoff of Perth: Do you really know what "G" is in that equation?
Posted by thinkabit, Friday, 7 October 2016 5:22:30 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
Renewables black out an entire state, & the ratbags come roaring out of the woodwork to scream it wasn't us, it's coal.

Germany, Denmark & the UK have woken up & are running away from windmills just as fast as their little legs will carry them, but our ratbag lefties refuse to open their eyes. Perhaps it's campaign donations that are blinding them.

God help us if some of them are not forced to grow up sometime soon.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 7 October 2016 6:18:13 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
Hasbeen, would you mind explaining why you think renewables (wind in this case) were the precipitating factor in the SA situation?

On a slightly different note, would you mind explaining why you are so violently opposed to renewable technologies? I don't really get why you're so passionate about it?

No need to go into too much detail, just a simple outline would be fine.
Posted by Craig Minns, Friday, 7 October 2016 6:32:48 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
thinkabit it's all to do with the curvature of space.

Consider the dogma where the universe is expanding at the speed of light and you then discover the speed of light has not always been a constant speed, it was slower just after the Big Bang and is now measured at a different rate!

You don't need to be a genius to realise this reality changes our assumptions in relation to energy and the assumed laws of thermodynamics.

So yes I do know what 'G' stands for.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 7 October 2016 6:35:03 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
Geoff Of Perth: Not that this has anything to actually do with the topic of the original article: But, the reason I asked is because in the equation you gave and the original description following it looks like you're saying that it is a numerical constant.

It isn't a number but a sophicated mathematical object called a Tensor. Tensor calculus allows us to summarise whole collections of equations in one nice neat equation. The equation you gave (when written correctly and accounting for symmetries) actually represents 10 equations where the G is a second order tensor (the T is also a tensor). It is defined as G= the Ricci Tensor - 1/2*the metric tensor*the scalar tensor; sometimes it is also written in terms of the Christoffel symbols but that is a long complicated expression which I can't really write here without advanced formatting.
So I was wondering if you actually know how to do this sort of maths? Cause I do but admittedly not very well (when I studied Tensors Calculus many years ago I kept confusing the sub&super indices of contravariant and covariant and kept making mistakes and consequently was turned off by the whole thing) but never-the-less I do know what this equation is/represents, and what you've said about the speed of light not being constant and assumptions regarding thermodynamics needing to be changed/updated isn't ringing true with what I know about it.
Posted by thinkabit, Friday, 7 October 2016 8:37:00 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
thinkabit,

I know my original post initially appears off point however, I would add the following:

"In the mid 1990s astronomers showed that exploding stars in distant galaxies had revealed that the Universe isn’t just expanding, it’s expanding at an ever-faster rate. The cause: a force even stronger than gravity, but acting in the opposite direction – and with no obvious source. This is the now-notorious Dark Energy.

Most theorists believe Dark Energy has its origins in the quantum laws of the sub-atomic world, which allow even apparently empty space to be seething with energy."

Additionally, "recent calculations by theorists in the US and Europe have shown that if General Relativity is combined with quantum theory, the resulting theory of ‘quantum gravity’ gives insights not only into the Big Bang, but also what came before it. And early results suggest that today’s Universe is just the latest in an infinite cosmic cycle of Big Bangs."

Therefore I am suggesting thermodynamics as we know it is likely not set in stone and therefore energy, including renewables, may totally change as our understanding grows and develops.

I was not suggesting anything mysterious but perhaps did not explain it well.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 7 October 2016 10:26:49 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
Perhaps not Geoff, and perhaps there was no big bang or something appearing from nothing! A logical absurdity? Or real magic?

Perhaps the real answer to creation lies in dark energy/dark matter, which could have projected part of itself into our dimension to become everything in it, via the transformation of indestructible energy? Which can be neither created or destroyed! So had to exist in some form before the big bang?

In Einstein's unified field theory, everything in the universe is reduced to its basic component parts, revealing everything in and of the expanding universe is energy, including you and I!

Although I'm not too sure about you, given you could be a figment of my over active overwrought imagination; and thinkabit probably could produce a mathematical formula to prove just that, or that maybe I'm just a figment of my own imagination?

Or perhaps part of a larger dream we all share, where we are just bit players acting out infinitely small microscopic parts for a few brief cosmological nanoseconds?

Can the universe think? Well you and I can and we are an integral part of it!
Cheers, Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 7 October 2016 10:58:04 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
A few issues here. 1. Thorium based reactors, how are you going to get the fact they use a form of Uranium passed the anti lobby? 2. Been build all around the world since 2012, yet no one is basing their back up power on them. Turning research reactors into a practical base load power supply could take twenty to thirty years.

In my mind the real issue with turbines is the ecological cost of building them. We won't do it here because of the pollution, they are not really green at all. Wave power, no successful generation as yet. Lots of expensive failed projects. Solar? Same again, we have no Solar industry because the production is so toxic and expensive. I addition can spend a fortune for an installation, and have it all destroyed in a decent hail storm.

Visited a Motel in the south of the state a couple of years ago, they called and asked us to wait a while. Their brand new solar system's inverter had exploded and nearly burnt the place down. As we waited we walked past a local authority building which proudly proclaimed their solar credentials, the unit about 5kw was producing 200watts.
Posted by Jon R, Saturday, 8 October 2016 8:27:13 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
We could build a thorium burning reactor in the time it will take molten salt reactors to come to market. That reactor is the AFCR variant of the CANDU heavy water reactor
http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/candu.html
China apparently intends to have one for every four conventional light water reactors. They not only burn thorium but spent uranium fuel along with the plutonium waste product.

I think SA should get one not only for their own electricity needs but in order to take spent fuel from east coast reactors that will replace coal baseload. Note that Hazelwood could close in 2017 and Liddell in 2022 so the SA reliability problem could spread to other states.
Posted by Taswegian, Saturday, 8 October 2016 9:12:00 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
Baseload is an artefact of demand management designed to minimise load variations so as to reduce the need to shed power into load banks. Large generation plant cannot be readily shut down and restarted, so whether there is demand or not they have to keep spinning, which means they have to keep burning fuel whether the power is being consumed by customers or just heating up resistor banks.

Real base is very small. Our generation providers give encouragement such as reduced time of use charges to large users to manage their consumption across the 24 hour cycle so as to enable a minimum of wastage.

Real base consists of loads that will exist whether they are subsidised or not. There are very few. Some hospital and other emergency services consumption; some domestic consumption; some streetlighting; some minor HVAC consumption in commercial buildings; some industrial consumption largely associated with secondary manufacturing such as metal smelting.

As renewables enter the picture more significantly and central generators are shut down, so too will time of use demand management incentives be reduced and so baseload will disappear as a concept.

In addition, advanced controls and efficient electronic technologies will reduce demand from lighting to perhaps 1% of current practise. LED lights that switch on in response to human presence already exist and they will become ubiquitous.

Seriously everyone, this is happening, it's not theoretical, and it's going to completely overturn the models that you are concerned about preserving. Move on or you'll always be half a dozen steps behind.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 8 October 2016 9:32:00 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
Craig Minns you may not be part of the base load, but the real people are. If greenie ratbags want to be readily shed let them join some register.

Yes the blackouts caused by the wind farms. It is fully reported & why they caused it.

I suppose it is against your religion to read anything that might prick the bubble of your fantasy world but many of us do. We will be well informed until your lot get control of the net & try to prevent us finding the facts.

Just for you, the sudden loss of hundreds of megawatts of generation, when farms closed down to protect themselves, [using your admired automatics], overloaded the Vic interconnector which then tripped out. All this in less than 10 seconds, tripped the rest.

They have been warned for years that this would happen, yes WOULD happen, but green lefty twits don't want to believe this is the result of their stupidity.

Labor & the Greens are in it for the donations it scores their parties, & refuse to see what the result must be, & ratbag greenies are their useful idiots.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:03:16 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
Of course, some of you will always be a lot further than half a dozen steps behind...
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:18:45 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
And the greenies will have rushed off down a false path, with unproven & obviously faulty dreams.

That's probably why they end up at the bottom of the garden, swapping ideas with the fairies.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:29:27 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
I'm just wondering when the last time was that you actually contributed anything useful to any discussion, anywhere, Hasbeen. About 1932 is my best guess: "Down the stairs and to the left, make sure you use plenty of sawdust or they won't pick it up"...
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:39:12 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
Did you read my post6 Craig?

If you did, how are you going to get about without your bubble to sit on, or are you shouting Na Na Na loud enough not to hear the truth?
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:44:15 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
I thought that it would not be long before the Thor-bores jumped on here to attack Mike Pope's fine argument for renewable energy.

I might point out that renewable energy systems are here already, can be established quite fast, and constantly improving.

Meanwhile thorium nuclear reactors remain no more than a gleam in their disciples' eyes.
"Here are some facts:

There is no “thorium reactor.” There is a proposal to use thorium as a fuel in various reactor designs including light-water reactors–as well as fast breeder reactors.
You still need uranium – or even plutonium – in a reactor using thorium. Thorium is not a fissile material and cannot either start or sustain a chain reaction. Therefore, a reactor using thorium would also need either enriched uranium or plutonium to initiate the chain reaction and sustain it until enough of the thorium has converted to fissile uranium (U-233) to sustain it...." https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-energy/thorium-new-and-improved-nuclear-energy
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:56:04 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
careful Hasbeen, Craig might revert to 18C if you keep offending his religion.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 8 October 2016 10:56:17 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
Jon R, your technological info is dated! Thorium reaction now only needs an isotope of thorium to get the reaction started!

And then only possible inside the larger internal graphite chamber! Which is stopped/prevented when the fluoride is pumped around narrower tubes and other chambers, needed to add more material or remove medically useful isotopes!

If you study the diagrams available to anyone who can access U tube?

You will see that below the molten salt reactor is a chamber that safely stores molten salt, where is rapidly cools back to crystalline salt once more [fluoride/beryllium or fluoride/lithium,] and that the evacuation tube leading from the reactor to that chamber has cold air blown across it, which effectively is cool enough to recrystallize the salt!

This then becomes a plug, which in the event of loss of power for any reason is allowed to melt, allowing the entire liquid contents of the reactor to safely drain into a purpose built holding tank.

The reaction takes place at atmospheric pressure, meaning no containment pressure vessels are necessary nor any containment of escaping steam inside a purpose built building, given there isn't any!

And if deployed at chernobyl or fukushima, still busy creating power for up to 100 years.

Fluoride doesn't readily absorb neutrons and therefore has limited capacity to transfer them into surrounding infrastructure. Which allows far safer less costly decommissioning, or recycling?

In fact if you need to drive a turbine, hot air is all you need!

Understand, that with this very technology we can SAFELY BURN CURRENT NUCLEAR WASTE reducing the half life to around 300 years, given that's all that remains when you've extracted all the available remnant energy from it! And think other nations will pay billions to us for doing just that! Not completely without some manageable risk.

Incidentally, did you know it is possible to create plastic from methane and Co2 harvested from the atmosphere? But easier if garnered directly from the products of biological digesters, created to treat biological waste! Like that now thought to negatively impacting on the reef?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 8 October 2016 11:13:22 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
Technically coal and maybe gas powered electricity takes say 24 hour to start up, to be running at 50 hertz per second. Wild and sun especially at night are not stable enough to rely on.

I watched a US documentary on recycling steal. During the middle of the day, surplus electricity coming from solar sun light was used to melt steal. I watched 2 large (I believe carbon rods) melt steel.

All the global conferences agreements are little more than entertaining BS, news print fodder.
Posted by steve101, Saturday, 8 October 2016 11:19:59 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
I believe the thorium reactor built and operated without a single incident for five years, late sixties/early seventies, at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Was a molten salt reactor!

From where we rescued some notes; although apparently ordered destroyed, when honesty personified, Nixon ordered the plant shutdown and destruction of all technical material?

Only because some stalwarts had the courage to defy a President, do we have access to the technical material that proves molten salt reactors are tried and technically proven fact!

With a molten salt reactor, which could be built today for around one hundred million; you can turn out the lights, go home, take a week off and comeback to find an entirely automated and safe system is doing what it was designed to do, produce endlessly available heat!

Yes 400-800C is hot, and hot enough to melt steel, aluminum, copper and run turbines etc!

Remember we have conducted a few successful fusion experiments that require temperatures of one thousand million degrees!

So, although some anti nuclear ban the banana brigades, will declare that such heat as is required might be dangerous; not more so than a dozen industrial applications occurring in our literal backyards, and safely contained using purpose created ceramics, some of which along with assorted acrylics are stronger than steel, to the point of being bulletproof!

Let me conclude with the admission I once worked for a power authority, in a science related capacity. And before that as an industrial chemist utilizing nuclear isotopes as part of a daily analytical regime. And before that as a chemical engineer, operating a modest industrial complex.

Those that believe they have anything to fear from cheap clean abundant energy need to rethink, if only to understand, this will allow us humans to end all want and war!

And get started on progressive depopulation that is coupled exclusively to progressively improving the average lot and just by removing poverty in all its forms and guises, on the back of universally available clean cheap abundant energy.

Who in their right mind would argue against that!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 8 October 2016 12:59:41 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
Jon R you are incorrect in relation to wave energy.

Carnegie Wave Energy have been producing green energy and desalination at the HMAS Stirling naval base south of Perth for a couple of years.

Additionally they are about to commence testing a new 6MW unit based on their earlier, operational 1MW system in close proximity to the existing unit.

Read about it all here- http://carnegiewave.com

Cheers Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Saturday, 8 October 2016 3:16:01 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
Just yesterday, I watched the last ford roll off the production line, then heard ford stalwart, Dicky Johnson lament, we had to accept change! And inherently true! But this change?

We can make cars here as good as anyone and export them to the world! We have all the raw material here save rubber and available from Malaysia, one of our closest neighbors.

The ideological imperatives in play are, #1 the privatisation of energy and the cost to our industries of widescale rollout of renewables! #2, Turning our back on cooperatives, the only free market private enterprise model to largely survive the great depression largely intact!

And only rejected here due to an ideological imperative that essentially gifted free enterprise to the corporate model and like car manufacture, foreign corporations bereft of patriotic loyalty to us! Just the mighty dollar!?

In our case, our leaders have rolled over and begged for a tummy rub? Look there was/is and remains other choices that retains/expands manufacture here!

The first is the rollout of ultra cheap publicly owned and operated energy! The second the purposeful government initiation creation of employee owned co-ops recruited from former ultra experienced employees! And tasked with producing all components on a single site to eliminate transport and the tyranny of distance and multilayered cost and transport components that more than triple the cost of making anything here!

Cheap energy, profit or loss sharing employees and everything produced on a single site, is the only production paradigm that has a snowflake's chance in hell of allowing us to not only compete with china for our domestic market but with them for theirs including global markets!

When we have the balls to do that!? We can once again become one of the wealthiest nations on earth, with more than enough internal revenue! But once again a creditor nation at that!

And given the rollout of cheap clean safe energy? Make our nation drought proof with productive deserts that bloom! And all this is on the line, right here right now!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 8 October 2016 6:39:30 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
Mike Pope says:” The only way of avoiding these outcomes is to curb the rise in greenhouse gas emissions by reducing our use of fossil fuels “, but gives no basis for this statement.
There is no science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Professor Carter gives an excellent summary of the failed hypothesis of the climate fraud promoters regarding the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that, over the 20th century, global average temperature increased by about 0.7C, which it did, if you accept that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate. More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the "little Ice Ages" in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the "global warming", alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere
However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
the pause in global warming ceased since this paper was written, but the science is not affected. There is no basis for the assertion that human emissions cause warming.
Smarten up your ideas, Mike, your assertions about human emissions are baseless, and you are supporting the climate fraud.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 8 October 2016 11:53:08 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
The only country in the EU that has reduced GHG emissions to a fraction of those in the 1950s and done it while achieving the lowest energy cost in the EU is France who after recently commissioning a few new nuclear reactors generates 80% of its power from emission free nukes.

Germany on the other hand is decommissioning its nuclear reactors, and while having promised to replace this power with renewable energy has run foul of the lie that "base load is a myth" and has been forced to build a series of brand new coal fired generation plants, and now with Denmark has the highest electricity prices in the EU, and is finding that its industry is suffering.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 9 October 2016 9:48:36 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
Nobody with any competence has suggested that baseload is a myth, Shadowy Trollster. That is a straw man you plagiarised from your brief google search yesterday.

On the other hand, people with genuine knowledge of power distribution systems understand that it is so managed as to be artificially maintained at a higher level than it would be at without that management in order to allow inefficient centralised generation systems to be run a little less inefficiently over the diurnal cycle. Some of those people also understand that changing patterns of demand and improvements in control systems, as well as changes to generation models from centralised large-scale operations to more efficient and cheaper decentralised small scale plants of various types backed up with storage will mean the need to manage demand in that way will reduce over time, eventually leading to it becoming an obsolete concept.

Currently the most cost effective form of new generation plant is rooftop solar, followed by large-scale solar. Gas has a lower capital cost than large scale solar, but high operating costs. New coal generation currently runs at about 3 times the capital cost of rooftop colar and about 2.5 times that of large scale solar.

For an example of something obsolete, I suggest one may be found in the mirror nearest to you, Shadowy Trollster.

Alternatively, take a trip to your nearest coal generation plant.

If anybody has coal assets, I wouldn't panic, this will all take a little time, but you might like to revise your dividend projections downward significantly.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 9 October 2016 10:42:40 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
Well yes, there is a good case to be made for reducing emission! And one entirely reliant on historical data!

And another that says on current evidence, that decarb, just doesn't have to be handcuffed to so called renewables!

One of which is tried and not found wanting is very large scale solar thermal! Which when rolled out in a Californian desert by a private venture as renewable electricity. Demonstrated a cost competitive rollout with comparable coal, 3 cents PKH and suitable for peak demand/baseload!

Thanks to molten salt (thorium/fluoride) heat retention inside a giant vacuum flask and on demand night and day application!

And assisted by the predilection of thorium/fluoride salt to retain applied external heat!

We could do better if several of these large scale ventures solar thermal or thorium reactors, were rolled out as government supported employee owned and operated co-ops!

And sure to be resisted with their literal dying breath by labor and their union masters, given it would effectively exclude the union movement from any such workplace or genuinely inclusive wage setting negotiation!

In fact Australia could become the best place in the world to live, work and play, if that were the template for doing business and or manufacture/processing/value adding in this country!?

From where nothing should be exported without undergoing some transformation! We invented the one step steel smelting process!

Meaning, we are mad to sell our superior grade iron ore to the world, when we could, utilizing arc furnaces fired by the lowest costing carbon free power in the world, and controlled by maximised automation inside an employee owned and operated enterprise!

Dominate the finished steel market in a way no other nation could currently successfully compete with!?

Particularly if real tax reform and massive simplification, were part of the mix!

And make that a virtual certainty, with our own fleet of nuclear powered bulk freight forwarding shipping fleet!

Yes the government will need to get involved, given that's exactly what the national interest demands of them!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 9 October 2016 11:41:46 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
AlanB says:” there is a good case to be made for reducing emission! And one entirely reliant on historical data!
Only if you ignore the science, Alan.
From my post above, quoting climate scientist Robert Carter:” these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate. The case for renewable or alternate energy is baseless. Coal has proven reliable.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 9 October 2016 1:27:52 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
Good on yer, Craig Minns, for even bothering.

Clearly this fine article by Mike Pope had the coal and nuclear lobby in a lather. They pretend to compete with each other, but it's a thin pretense. they both see, correctly, that renewables are the future, unless they can stave this off somehow or other.

For the coal lobby, nuclear is good, because the ever promised "renaissance" mean that coal can drag on for the coal lobbiers' lifetimes. Nuclear's also good for them , when nuclear proponents also claim that climate change is not happening.

A problem for nuclear is that most savvy nuclear lobbyists work on their newly found belief in climate change - so they say that nuclear is the cure.

Never mind that it takes $billions and decades to build a "conventional" nuclear reactor. Never mind the "Generation IV" nuclear reactors don't exist except as blueprints. So nuclear's not going to have any impact on global warming. By the time they're all ready - that is, thousands of big reactors, and millions of little ones - it would be too late, climate change would have become irreversible. And anyway, the whole dirty nuclear fuel chain, from uranium mining to waste burial emits plenty of greenhouse gases
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Sunday, 9 October 2016 2:00:18 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
Craig,

Once again you play fast and loose with the numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Comparing the cost per capacity of wind and solar with coal is ignoring that solar only produces <20% of name plate capacity and wind about 30%. If you look at the levelised cost, coal is by far the cheapest followed by nuclear and closely after that by wind then solar.

The elephant in the room is that between 5pm and 9pm is the highest demand for which solar is useless and wind is wildly unreliable. The solar molten salt plants generate power for this peak but at a cost of >40c/kwh or $400/MWhr, and some of these plants are going bankrupt even with vast subsidies.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 9 October 2016 3:02:37 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
Shadow Minister,
That's a lovely reference, I think Wikipedia is an excellent resource. Sadly, it's also often out of date and sometimes wrong. As in this case.

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0306261916309400

The paper is titled

For those who don't have institutional access, this is the abstract and summary:

"Highlights

• Competitive-bidding simulation of low-carbon electricity generation for Australia.
• Spatial optimisation used a high-resolution set of GIS for entire continent.
• Influence of carbon price and biofuel availability on the energy carrier mix.
• Less than 20 TWh biofuel generation required to plug wind and solar resource gaps.
• Low-carbon electricity supply possible at about 160 GW capacity and 20 ¢/kWh.

Abstract

We offer a simulation of low-carbon electricity supply for Australia, based on currently and economically operating technologies and proven resources, contributing new knowledge by: featuring a GIS-based spatial optimisation process for identifying suitable generator locations; including expanded transmission networks; covering the entire continent; and investigating the significance of biofuel availability and carbon price. We find that nation-wide low-carbon electricity supply is possible at about 160 GW installed capacity, at indicative cost of around 20 ¢/kWh, involving wind, concentrating solar, and PV utilities, and less than 20 TWh of biofuelled generation. Dispatchable hydro and biofuel plants are required to plug gaps caused by occasional low-resource periods. Technology and cost breakthroughs for storage, geothermal, and ocean technologies, as well as offshore wind deployment would substantially alter our assessment."

A good summary can be found at:

https://theconversation.com/renewables-are-getting-cheaper-all-the-time-heres-why-64799
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 9 October 2016 3:19:13 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
In reply to Alan B

Just leaving aside all the other arguments about molten salt thorium etc - it's just TOO LATE, TOO SLOW - to have any impact on global warming, and to stem the renewables tide. Even if those designs were good, tried out in the past, cancelled - it doesn't matter now - they've missed the bus!
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Sunday, 9 October 2016 3:19:35 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
Craig,

The costing quoted in Wiki are from the government databases and best practise estimates from the some of the best technical and financial experts in the countries while your reference to a paper from UQ (which is not accessible the rest of us) is based on what?

On top of which the abstract included failed technologies (hot rocks) and unproven technologies and coming up with a cost of 20c/kWhr or $200 MWhr ex generation cost, which is 4x present generation costs, and 2x new nuclear costs.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 9 October 2016 3:37:33 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
Give me your email and I'll gladly send you a copy, Shadow Minister.

GY has my details.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 9 October 2016 3:41:14 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
shadowminister0@gmail.com
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 9 October 2016 4:25:22 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
You are the one missing the bus Chris! Because the Indians are busy building a 300 MW thorium reactor and are presently using the process to burn nuclear waste?

See reports available for anyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear on U tube!

Conventional power delivery, regardless of source, is part of the problem with transmission towers which can be blown down or blown up!

And very vulnerable to determined saboteurs!

It'll never happen here! Similarly nobody ever expected Pearl Harbor nor that determined hijackers would fly stolen planes loaded with innocent civilians into the twin towers, also loaded with innocent civilians!

Transmission lines come with an average 11% transmission losses and distribution losses can be as high as 64%!

Molten salt thorium reactors are safe enough to bury in any backyard or under a school playground, to supply very safe, clean cheap local power that minimises transmission and distribution costs and would need a direct hit by a bunker buster or thermonuclear device to shut down!

We need cheap clean power not coal fired activists out to prevent it at any cost!

You come with a veritable shipload of entirely irrelevant activist opinion, barely veiled abuse and highly flawed conjecture, whereas I bring relevant industry specific experience and a science related background to the debate!

Meaning neither President Putin nor his St Petersburg trolls nor manifestly moribund idealogues can tell me what to think!

Just the weaker minds, easily controlled by the anti-nuclear advocates quite deliberately, mischievously and vexatiously confusing uranium and thorium in this debate!

As well as risking all our best possible futures!

You can't make a bomb nor plutonium with thorium, which is less radioactive than a banana!

What's next Chris, the banana bomb or decommissioning all our banana plantations!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 9 October 2016 5:47:07 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
Oh for goodness sake - now the Thor-bores are bringing in the banana deception! https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/crooked-science-about-bananas-and-radiation/
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Sunday, 9 October 2016 6:07:30 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
Leo Lane, It's not yesterday's history that tells us what we can expect but that extracted from the paleontological one, and from around 90 million years ago!

This record, which is all but an open book for Paleontologists with eyes to see! Is that this was a period marked by a rapid rise in Co2 emission, caused by unusual volcanic activity!?

Which pushed average ambient temperatures up by around 2C. This was enough to begin to melt the PERMANENTLY FROZEN TUNDRA, which responded allowing millions of tons of previously frozen methane to escape, allowing an additional rise of ambient temperatures of 3C and added to the aforementioned 2C increase, meant an average increase in ambient temperatures of 5C as the mean total!?

And enough to all but destroy all life on planet earth! Thus endith the relevant history lesson for today!

As of today, Co2 levels are up in uncharted territory and the formerly permanently frozen tundra is once again melting!

If you accept the historical evidence? What does that tell us? That we can engage in endless egotistical pissing competitions?

Or bend to the will of those who are alright Jackie, and invite all else to go visit the nearest taxidermist?

Name your pleasure, effective affirmative planet rescuing, one minute to midnight, action, that comes with an upside for all its citizens!

Or more of the same? We can do one or the other, just not both!

Chose wisely, almost as if your children and their children's futures/survival depended on it!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 9 October 2016 6:21:56 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
AlanB, did you make that nonsense up yourself, or have you found some fraud promoting website?
Robert Carter was a paleontolodist, and studied the climate record. If you can fault his science, let us hear your basis.
Here is a history by a scientist, which does not align with yours. He deals with the baseless assertion by the IPCC, of human causation of climate change:
” Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5oC. This compares with a low of about 12oC during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22oC during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age.
http://www.cfact.org/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-earths-geologic-history-fundamentally-contradicts-co2-warming-fears/
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, Alan.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 9 October 2016 8:44:18 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
I'll back any university library and its section on paleontology, with numerous authors against Mr Carter's bogus recollections?

It's all too easy for a St Petersburg toll to manufacture links!? And suggest anyone needing confirmation only need visit a university library!

Yes, we could be in an ice age and probably explains the melting tundra, the lack of Alaskan summer sea ice, for the first time in living memory or the hottest consecutive years on record! And all consistent with Mr Carter's assertion that we are in a new ice age! Bah humbug!

What sort of mugs do you take us for? Is Mr Putin so concerned about thorium killing off his fossil fueled revenue stream? That he'd send his useful idiots out to kill the messenger?

No, I completely reject that its too late! Given SAFE, CLEAN, CHEAP nuclear technology allows us to harvest copious Co2 from seawater, then combine that with hydrogen garnered from the same source to produce purpose created hydrocarbons ready to go into numerous varied fuel tanks without any further refining!

And as the seawater gives up its Co2, the atmosphere gives up enough to very nearly replace that taken!

So no, it's not too late, except for more professional obfuscation and lack of decisive action!

And given ultra cheap thorium energy, fuel for a lot less than anything your russian masters can pump from the ground! So of course they have to rubbish me before it's too late and folk get on U tube to verify (fact check) the actual factual material! I DARE YOU!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 9 October 2016 11:32:49 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
Alan B, where are these thorium reactors producing industrial levels of power? There are around a dozen experimental reactors, and no one has taken them up as a viable alternative. Also they do produce by products which be used for "other" purposes. They are not as clean as their supporters claim. Especially as the reaction has to be started by plutonium! True Australia, has a huge amount of the chemical element which can become "thorium", but the process probably uses more power than it generates. A bit like wind farms.
Posted by Jon R, Monday, 10 October 2016 8:40:01 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
If Australia got to 100% renewables, the difference this would make to global CO2 levels would be of no consequence whatsoever - China increases its CO2 emissions by this amount every few weeks with new coal-fires power plants. But we're a rich country and should do our fair share to help the world avert unacceptable increases in CO2 levels so what to do? My view is that we should do the most efficient and cost effective things to reduce our fossil fuel consumption but most of our expenditure should be on R&D in those technological fields where the world still has not come up with cost-effective answers: 24 hour renewable energy, battery storage, increased efficiencies in solar panels, geoengineering (just in case the world doesn't decarbonise), etc. We should fund the CSIRO, universities and private industry to do the research and commercialisation needed to solve the world's existing problems, in particular, to develop technologies that the 4-5 billion people living in developing countries who we should assist to not make the same mistakes we made as we developed our economy over the past 100+ years.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 10 October 2016 11:30:22 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
Hi Bernie,
China is already massively investing in renewables and has plans to increase that investment on the path to complete fossil fuel replacement.

https://techxplore.com/news/2016-09-china-investing-heavily-solar-power.html

"China has made it known to the world that it plans to move from coal-fired powered plants to those based on renewable resources as quickly as possible—the smog from coal plants and the huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions the country produces have generated bad press for the country over the past several years. Now, there is new evidence that the country's leaders plan to make good on those pledges."

There has also been some marked reduction in the price of solar PV in very recent times

https://techxplore.com/news/2016-10-price-solar-panels.html

"Recently, researchers revealed that energy companies making bids to install large solar farms overseas have listed prices for solar panels that are dramatically lower than in the past. One bid, for a project in China, for example, listed a price of just $0.46/W for 500MW of solar power. Another for a project in Dubai listed $0.023/kWh for 1.2GW of solar power—such prices are approximately 25 percent lower than they were just a year ago."

This transition is going to be very disruptive to the electricity supply and distribution industries, but it's as inevitable as the introduction of steam was and just as important.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 10 October 2016 11:53:38 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
Craig, I accept that China is spending what seems like a lot of money on renewables but they continue to build fossil-fuel power stations and have stated they will continue to do so until at least 2030. They have a population of 1.3 billion and less than half are what we would define as 'middle class' economically. The Chinese govt places more importance on staying in power by meeting the needs of its citizens than on meeting its international obligations.

If you look at India, its population is due to be larger than that of China within a few years and it has more people living at or below the poverty line than China. And then we have Africa which the UN states will have a population of more than a billion by 2050.

To meet even the modest energy demands of these three countries or regions is beyond the ability of renewables at present. There is an urgent need to continue R&D into new technologies needed to give a reasonable life to the world's 2 billion people living in poverty in developing countries and Australia is perfectly placed to do this.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 10 October 2016 1:39:49 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
Jon J. Large industrial complexes? No, prototypes have been limited to around 40 MW. That size can be shipped anywhere in a shipping container!

Put ten inline and you have 400 MW! Or truck them far beyond the reach of transmission lines to provide very affordable power almost anywhere!
No, plutonium, given the process can be kick started by an isotope of thorium! Then run uninterrupted for a hundred years, at a cost to the average family at around a $1.50 a year!

Yes byproducts, medical isotopes and some waste. But unlike solid state uranium based reaction most of the thorium is consumed leaving significantly less waste.

Around 5%, which is vastly less toxic than that created in a conventional uranium fueled reactor and eminently suitable for long life space batteries. Solid state uranium based reaction only consumes 5% of its fuel leaving the unburnt 95% as waste.

Even so, a thorium based molten salt reactor can be used, and I understand the indians are trialing this, burn and reburn nuclear waste until every micron of fissile material is consumed leaving significantly less waste, with a remaining half life of just 300 years.

We know apart from the indians, the chinese are throwing billions at the technology. Knowing as they do, first to file can win the patent rights regardless of who invented it!

The first molten salt thorium reactor was built in Oak Ridge Tennessee during the sixties and ran without a single reported problem for five years until Nixon pulled the funding.

As the Wright brothers can attest, the lack of large international airlines didn't stop them building the first powered airplane! And look at the monsters plying the airways today!

Don't see any downside to adopting thorium as a preferenced power source, just a huge upside! While allowing others to gain control via the patents office, could come with huge negative implications for us and untold generations! The goal of the misinformation campaign!?

If you need more validated info, there's Google scholar or U tube and numerous highly credentialed experts!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 10 October 2016 1:55:55 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
Sure, the transition is going to take time, but 2030 is only 14 years away.

The bit about international opprobrium is a red herring, I think. There's a lot of dissatisfaction within China about the levels of pollution.

As well as the reduction in coal power, there have been huge programs to close polluting industries like old smelters and foundries, coal fired brickworks and the like, which have been accelerated by improvements in recycling. Recycling has also dramatically reduced demand in some places, since it requires far less energy to resmelt than to smelt from ore.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html

India already has a high penetration of solar and Africa is in a perfect position to start with a clean sheet in many places.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India

https://techxplore.com/news/2016-09-sub-saharan-africa-energy-infrastructure-electricity.html
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 10 October 2016 1:56:05 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
Craig, the issue I see is that we don't have the technologies to efficiently and cheaply provide industrial scale electricity to these developing countries. It's all well and good for a poor family in a remote village to have light at night and a small battery to keep their laptop and phone operating at night but neither of these will of themselves create meaningful employment that will generate an income to lift them out of poverty.

I note Alan B's comment about lining up 10 x 40megawatt prototypes but I'm not sure how he proposed to produce the 400MW of electricity every day to charge the batteries.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 10 October 2016 2:01:54 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
Craig,

Having read the paper you sent me, and while I understand what they are trying to do, I have a few comments:

1 At least they have recognised the need for base load, and are using CSP with storage to provide 1/2 of all the power with hydro and biomass fuel to cover the peak loads
2 Unfortunately their costings are more than a little off.
a)So far CSP with storage (without subsidies) is costing closer to 40c/kWhr not 13c.
b)Biomass fuel costs are low assuming that the waste is dropped off by municipalities. However, the quantity of energy they have allocated to Biomass generation would require about 10x as much biowaste as all Aus cities produce. Agriculturally produced fuel would be far far more expensive, closer to 20c/kWhr.
3 Hydro is designed for load clipping and would struggle to produce flat for 5 days as in their model.

The reality is that the country would spend about $800bn to replace existing infrastructure, giving us wholesale electricity for 5x the existing cost.

This would effectively wipe out any remaining heavy industry and many light industries.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 10 October 2016 5:52:14 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
Good points, Shadow Minister. The only current 'renewable' technology that I think could produce 24 hour per day, industrial scale electricity is Waste to Energy plants which are now being built in the US and Europe, partly because they are reasonably green and partly because they reduce landfill volumes by 80+%. We have two about to be built (I hope) in WA over the next year or two.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 10 October 2016 6:05:31 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
Shadow Minister, those are interesting observations. Do you have the references you're relying on to draw those conclusions?
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 10 October 2016 6:05:50 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
Theoretically we have a capitalist free market economy; in relation to fossil fuels major corporations benefit from a welfare state. The IMF has come up with some astounding figures. The IMF suggest that fossil fuels are subsidised world wide by $10 million per minute.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

The first two paragraphs from reference:

"Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments."
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 6:42:54 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
Craig,

Some of the stuff I can supply links for, some of the stuff I know from time working in the recycling industry which ran a fluidized bed boiler for waste produced on site and from nearby industries,

Biomass waste supply from Sydney.

http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/towards-2030/sustainability/waste-management

As for CSP with storage, the latest utility sized molten salt project Crescent Dunes has a 10hr storage capacity (not 20hr as req for 18hr running) and after >80% low interest guaranteed government loans sells power for US$135 /MWhr or AU$180. Given that construction costs in Aus are far higher than the US, an unsubsidized cost of between $300 and $400 is more realistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

Feel free to produce information that contradicts what I have produced.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:40:06 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
I'm sorry, you seem to have misunderstood, I asked for references.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:42:37 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
ant: "Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund."

Could you clear something up for me there. I've seen a figure in the trillions like this before and have wondered what exactly are these subsidies. I've assumed that they are indirect subsidies and not direct subsidies. So what are these subsidies?
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:56:26 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
thinkabit

Read the reference provided.

The IMF is quite a conservative organisation.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 9:43:30 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
ant: OK, I've just read the reference. So it turns out that direct subsidies are only about 333bn of the 5.3tn, the rest is indirect. And of the indirect it is almost all externalities.

Ie, the figure is *extremely* rubbery.
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 10:36:05 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
thinkabit

For the damage done $333bn is not much of an investment in fossil fuel companies.
The costs do not take into account the number of lives lost, in the millions from emissions.
Lord Stern believes the figures are quite conservative, he has provided a study in the past.

It is easy to say the figures are rubbery; but, what evidence do you have to support your opinion?
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 11:16:47 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
Craig,

I have provided 2 solid references which is one more than you have ever provided.

1 - link to Sydney council indicating that the bio waste suitable for power generation from Sydney is about 200 000 t/yr. Given that an optimistic yield would give 1 ton of biomass =1 -2 MWhr 16.3 TWhr will require at least 8 megatons of biowaste p.a.

2 - The link crescent dunes gives the details from my post.

For the rest try and do your own research, if you have any hope of being an engineer, you will be able to find most of this information. If you find anything contrary to what I've said, feel free to discuss it, don't expect to be spoon fed.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 1:40:37 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
Ah, but Shadow Minister, I provided you a comprehensive peer-reviewed report co-authored by no less than 5 experts in various fields, that was published in June this year, just 2 months after it was received. There was one revision asked for, which must have been minor, because it took less than a month.

For those interested, this is the DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.151.

The report is titled:

"Simulating low-carbon electricity supply for Australia"

The authors are:

Manfred Lenzen a, Bonnie McBain b,&#8657;, Ted Trainer c, Silke Jütte d, Olivier Rey-Lescure b, Jing Huang e
a ISA, School of Physics A28, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
b School of Environment & Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
c School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
d Seminar für Supply Chain Management & Management Science, University of Cologne, D-50923 Köln, Germany
e CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, Yarralumla, ACT 2601, Australia"

If anyone wants to explore further, I will happily publish the bibliography of some 90 references here, under Fair Use.

You provided a pamphlet and a wiki page...

I'll leave the reader to work out which is more credible.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 1:56:57 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
ant: the figures are rubbery cause that is the very nature of pricing externalities, ie. they are ultimately just approximations, guesstimates and opinions.

But let's see what the figures themselves tell us: take the figure given for Global warming costs; $1.628tn. By giving such a detailed figure- to 4 significant digits no less- they are effectively claiming that given all the weather events last year then they can tell me to closest 1 part in 10,000 how much of the events impact is due to global warming and how much is just natural. Do you really think these bean counters are that good at calculating this when even between the scientists who agree that humans are having an observable impact they can't agree which events are exceptions to natural events?

Regardless of these figures, since we're now already deep in the world of hypothetical and speculations let me ask you a question:

What do you think the economic cost would have been for 2015 if on 31st Dec, 2014 the global community decided to completely and immediately eliminate man-made CO2 emissions.

Well, here's my confident speculation: about $70tnUS. Why am I so confident in this figure? -Cause that is about the size of the world's economy. In other words- we would all now be DEAD.

And that right there is the problem of *forcing* people to change to renewables on the ridiculous time schedules that environmentalists propose. It will kill a lot more people than it will "save".

I should make clear, I'm not dogmatically against renewable energy. For instance, I'm planning on building a house on a rural block I own in early 2018 and will investigate the solar storage options as opposed to paying for about 1/2km of powerline. However, I'll only go solar if it is really is the cheapest option.

On current improvement trends, CO2-free energy will eventually unquestionably be cheaper than fossilfuel so just let the free market do its thing and the economy will swap over. Just don't force people to adopt it beforehand - cause that will cause more pain than it gains!
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 3:24:03 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
thinkabit, of course the transition to renewables will take time. I'd be surprised if we could get the world to better than 50% renewables within 20 years.

However, there is so much work being done on new technologies that it seems very unlikely that any current projections will be close to the real pace of change.

I suspect, although it's mostly speculative, that there will be a tipping point within perhaps 5 years that will massively accelerate the pace of the transition.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 3:33:08 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
Craig,

You open your mouth to change feet. Let's see the disciplines of the people that put together this "Simulation" to design a new power network.

1 Physics - reasonable understanding of the theory but bugger all relevant experience

2 Environment & Life Sciences - What a joke

3 Social work - You have to be kidding?

4 Management science - Seriously?

5 Oceans and Atmosphere - What can I say.

Garbage in = Garbage out.

Not one electrical or network engineer. They say "We offer a simulation of low-carbon electricity supply for Australia, based on currently and economically operating technologies and proven resources."

Yet I provide reported actual costings of the most recent, largest and most efficient CSP thermal plant, and not only are the highly subsidised costs far higher than the assumptions in the paper, but they are built in a country with far lower construction costs.
There are lots of references which you can google, I used Wiki which was the most concise, but the info is all the same.

There is a basic saying in engineering Garbage in = Garbage out.

Based on their initial assumptions the results are a pile of crap.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 4:54:13 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
The first 14, 76 to go. Enjoy...

[1] Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and
solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies.
Energy Policy 2011;39:1170–90.
[2] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and
solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of
infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 2011;39:1154–69.
[3] Fthenakis V, Mason JE, Zweibel K. The technical, geographical, and economic
feasibility for solar energy to supply the energy needs of the US. Energy Policy
2009;37:387–99.
[4] Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ. Response to ‘‘A critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s
proposals for a world renewable energy supply” by Ted Trainer. Energy Policy
2012;44:482–4.
[5] Trainer T. A critique of Jacobson and Delucchi’s proposals for a world
renewable energy supply. Energy Policy 2012;44:476–81.
[6] Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA. Response to Trainer’s second commentary on a
plan to power the world with wind, water, and solar power. Energy Policy
2013;57:641–3.
[7] Trainer T. 100% Renewable supply? Comments on the reply by Jacobson and
Delucchi to the critique by Trainer. Energy Policy 2013;57:634–40.
[8] Trainer FE. Can renewable energy sources sustain affluent society? Energy
Policy 1997;23:1009–26.
[9] Trainer T. Can renewables etc. solve the greenhouse problem? The negative
case. Energy Policy 2010;38:4107–14.
[10] Hart EK, Jacobson MZ. A Monte Carlo approach to generator portfolio planning
and carbon emissions assessments of systems with large penetrations of
variable renewables. Renew Energy 2011;36:2278–86.
[11] Budischak C, Sewell D, Thomson H, Mach L, Veron DE, Kempton W. Costminimized
combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical
storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J Power Sources
2012;225:60–74.
[12] Brouwer AS, van den Broek M, Zappa W, Turkenburg WC, Faaij A. Least-cost
options for integrating intermittent renewables in low-carbon power systems.
Appl Energy 2016;161:48–74.
[13] Obara Sy, Utsugi Y, Ito Y, Morel J, Okada M. A study on planning for
interconnected renewable energy facilities in Hokkaido, Japan. Appl Energy
2015;146:313–27.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 6:38:48 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
Craig,

Now you mention it, it looks like an incestious little clique who write papers on the same subjects and refer to each other, with apparently not an engineer amongst them.

Who did the peer review, an interpretive dance professor, or maybe a gender studies major?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:10:16 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
Denier Agencies have been very successful in thwarting climate science; if there had been a transition into renewable a couple of decades ago we would not be in such a mess as we are in now. Agencies such as Heartlands, IPA et al have been spreading misinformation for many years. Heartlands was responsible for continuing to create doubt in relation to smoking long after the science was settled.

Deniers are all over the place in relation to climate change from its not happening, it is natural variation, the climate is cooling, to CO2 has a marginal impact.
In relation to natural variation; it took millions of years for fossil fuels to be created, we are expelling emissions from fossil fuels in a few moments in comparison. In previous epochs there were no factories or vehicles. In several major cities many citizens wear nose masks.

In September 2016, WUWT published an article about the sea ice extent in the Arctic expanding rapidly suggesting it showed climate scientists are wrong. If the author had known anything about sea ice extent in the Arctic they would know that it varies daily up and down. Currently, sea ice formation has done a U turn and very little is being created in October. If the author had any knowledge he would have realised that commenting on a few days displayed either ignorance or mischievously creating lies. Sea ice extent changes from year to year and the only measures which are meaningful are in April for maximum extent, and September for minimum extent. Sea ice extent being an illustration of the nonsense published by Anthony Watts from WUWT.

Sea ice volume is another measure that fluctuates from year to year; but, the trend line is downward as with sea ice extent and sea ice thickness. The volume in 1979 had been 16,700 km3; whereas, for 2016 around 4,400 km3 (PIOMAS). In 2016 a British yatch was able to sail through one route of the fabled North West passage; and then, sail back on the other route.

continued
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 6:40:26 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
continued

What happens in the Arctic has a significant impact on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere particularly.

A business as usual approach which many are still promoting means stealing the future from our children. The costs of mitigation and adaptation increase with time.

Following the super storm Meranti, it was suggested that a category 6 should be added to the scale used to measure storms.

ExxonMobil continues to be in trouble:

http://thinkprogress.org/exxon-water-lawsuit-b36335e4e093#.sxpq1hqke

The transition away from fossil fuels will take time but is urgent, it becomes more urgent with the passage of time.

http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 8:10:20 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
Another 15, just 61 to go...

[15] Deane JP, Drayton G, Gallachóir BPÓ. The impact of sub-hourly modelling in power systems with significant levels of renewable generation. Appl Energy 2014;113:152–8.
[16] Krakowski V, Assoumou E, Mazauric V, Maïzi N. Feasible path toward 40–100% renewable energy shares for power supply in France by 2050: a prospective analysis. Appl Energy 2016;171:501–22.
[17] Weisser D. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 2007;32:1543–59.
[18] Sathaye J, Lucon O, Rahman A. Renewable energy in the context of sustainable development. In: IPCC (ed.) Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2011. <http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report>.
[19] Elliston B, Diesendorf M, MacGill I. Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy 2012;45:606–13.
[20] Elliston B, MacGill I, Diesendorf M. Least cost 100% renewable electricity scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy
2013;59:270–82.
[21] Turner GM, Elliston B, Diesendorf M. Impacts on the biophysical economy and environment of a transition to 100% renewable electricity in Australia. Energy Policy 2013;54:288–99.
[22] AEMO. 100 per cent renewables study – modelling outcomes. Australian Energy Market Operator; 2013. Internet site <http://www.climatechange.gov.
au/reducing-carbon/australian-energy-market-operator/100-centrenewables-study-modelling-outcomes>.
[23] Huva R, Dargaville R, Caine S. Prototype large-scale renewable energy system optimisation for Victoria, Australia. Energy 2012;41:326–34.
[24] Trainer T. Can Australia run on renewable energy? The negative case. Energy Policy 2012;50:306–14.
[25] Needham S. The potential for renewable energy to provide baseload power in Australia. Research Paper no. 9 2008–09, Canberra, Australia: Parliament of Australia; 2011.
[26] Anonymous. EU lawmakers agree to phase out land-based biofuels. Renew Energy Focus 2015. Available from: <http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/42009/eu-lawmakers-agree-to-phase-out-land-based-biofuels/>.
[27] Holm A, Blodgett L, Jennejohn D, Gawel K. Geothermal energy: international market update. Geothermal Energy Association 2010.
[28] ARENA. Highlights of the barriers, risks and rewards of the Australiangeothermal sector to 2020 and 2030. Australian Renewable Energy Agency;
2014. Internet site <http://arena.gov.au/files/2014/07/ARENA-summaryreport.pdf>.
[29] Huang J. Dynamic downscaling of Australian climate for solar energy resource
assessment using CCAM. In: AMOS national conference 2014, 12–14 February2014. Hobart, Australia; 2014.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 8:53:44 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
Craig,

Well done, you now qualify for a mickey mouse competency badge for cut and paste.

I'm not sure what the purpose of your posting of the references used in the dubious paper, other than to demonstrate that you don't know what references are for.

What I did do is check their references, especially with regards pricing, and lo and behold what did I find? They have cherry picked their way through various estimates and chosen the lowest value. A method guaranteed to get an estimator fired.

Looking at the AETA report 2013, the LCOE of the latest CSP storage plant (at that time Gemasolar 2011 (wet cooling, 15hr storage) was US33c /kWhr with the expected cost projections to drop by 50% by 2030.

The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project is by far the biggest, most efficient and lowest cost /kWhr CSP storage plant built giving a heavily subsidised price of AU18c /kWhr, and the LCOE is likely to be double that included in your paper.

PS, how many of these plants will they build in Sydney to be close to the demand? Note that they will need 1300 of these to meet 50% of the renewable requirement at a cool $1300bn and about 900 000 hectares of land.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 12:06:58 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
LCOE is a poor measure, SM. Perhaps you might try reading references before you respond to them?

http://www.eia.gov/conference/2013/pdf/presentations/namovicz.pdf

"Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) has been used by planners, analysts, policymakers, advocates and others to assess the economic competitiveness of technology options in the electric power sector
•While of limited usefulness in the analysis of “conventional” utility systems, this approach is not generally appropriate when considering “unconventional” resources like wind and solar
•EIA is developing a new framework to address the major weaknesses of LCOE analysis
–Based on the “levelized avoided cost of energy” (LACE)
–Provides a better basis for evaluation of both renewable and conventional generation resources"

Here's a few more from that paper I sent you (which you still haven't thanked me for).

[30] Trainer T. Limits to solar thermal energy set by intermittency and low DNI:implications from meteorological data. Energy Policy 2013;63:910–7.
[31] ARENA. Hydropower. Australian Renewable Energy Agency; 2015. Internet site
<http://arena.gov.au/about-renewable-energy/hydropower/>.
[32] GA. Hydro energy. Geoscience Australia; 2015. Internet site <http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energyresources/hydro-energy>.
[33] Rentzing S. When will solar batteries become economic al? Solar Energy Storage; 2013 <http://www.solarenergystorage.org/en/wann-werdensolarakkus-wirtschaftlich-2/>.
[34] Parkinson G. Lazard: energy storage sector at ‘‘inflection point” as costs fall. Renew Economy; 2015. <http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/lazard-energystorage-sector-at-inflection-point-as-costs-fall-39784>.
[35] Parkinson G. LG Chem pushes Australian battery storage prices further down the curve. One Step Off The Grid; 2015. <http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/lgchem-pushes-australian-battery-storage-prices-further-down-the-curve/>.
[36] AEMO. An introduction into Australia’s National Electricity Market. AEMO_0000-0262, Melbourne, Australia, Australian Energy Market Operator; 2010.
[37] Orr K, Skeers N. National power stations database. Canberra, Australia:Geoscience Australia; 2014. <http://dx.doi.org/10.4225/25/544EE47D2C1DE>.
[38] WALIA. Western Australia energy resources and infrastructure, Perth,Australia: Western Australia Land Information Authority; 2010. Internet site
<https://http://www.finance.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles Public_Utilities_Office/Energy_in_WA/OOE_Map_2010_A4_2.pdf>.
[39] PowerWater. Northern Territory Electricity Network, Darwin, Australia: Power and Water Corporation; 2014. Internet site <https://http://www.powerwater.com.au/community_and_education/student_resources/maps/electricity_map>.
[40] ESAA. Australia’s electricity markets. Melbourne, Australia: Energy Supply Association of Australia; 2014. Internet site <http://www.esaa.com.au/policy/australian_electricity_markets_1_1_1>.

Only 50 left...
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 2:21:51 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
The flea says Exxon Mobil continues to be ib trouble.
The Exxon Mobil investigation by the compromised Attorney General Schniederman appears to have collapsed,flea, so your ignorant, and baseless presumption of guilt has dissipated:

"How the Exxon Case Unraveled
It becomes clear that investigators simply don’t know what a climate model is.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s investigation of Exxon Mobil for climate sins has collapsed due to its own willful dishonesty. The posse of state AGs he pretended to assemble never really materialized. Now his few allies are melting away: Massachusetts has suspended its investigation. California apparently never opened one.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/31/as-exxonknew-collpases-conservative-think-tank-sues-ag-schneiderman-over-exxon-probe-records/
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 2:48:20 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
I'm happy to put up the rest of the references from the paper referred to earlier if anyone wants them.

Just let me know, there are some very interesting reads.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 7:54:43 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
It is nice to see, flea, that the U.S.Senate is going after Attorney General Schneidermann for details of his dealings with other AGs, and green groups, in relation to his pursuit of Exxon Mobil :” House Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued its own subpoenas. In mid-July the committee, led by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), asked the attorneys general to produce their communications with environmental groups and the Obama administration about their investigations.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-prosecutors-cant-dodge-congress-forever-1471818648
The Senate will look at the pursuit of Exxon Mobil, to consider any improper actions by Schneidermann and his cohorts. His motivation was obviously improper. He refers to “deniers” when he knows that there is no science to deny.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 8:31:20 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
Leo

AS suggested before Watts got it wrong with the article about sea ice extent.

This is of interest in relation to ExxonMobil:

http://www.wired.com/2016/09/governments-top-financial-regulator-investigating-exxonmobil/

Quote:

"On September 20, the Wall Street Journal broke news that the US Securities and Exchange Commission—the highest federal financial regulator—is formally investigating Exxon’s accounting. The company stands accused of ignoring and possibly even lying about how market fluctuations affect its profits."
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 9:01:33 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
This is an extract from the flea’s reference:
“ the company stands accused of knowingly pushing an anti-climate agenda. If the SEC gets the goods on Exxon, “
The first sentence refers to the case being investigated by Schneidermann, which has fallen over,(see my previous post) The second sentence starts with”If” The flea works, like any ignoramus, on “guilty until proven innocent”
You could not be more wrong, could you, flea.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 12 October 2016 10:13:08 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
Craig,

I see that there is yet another area in which you are blissfully ignorant, i.e. statistics.

The requirement for quantitative measures such as GDP, LCOE etc are that the calculations are:
Relatively simple,
Repeatable / Consistent
Have a meaning value for investors
While the LCOE does not address many factors such as availability and cash flow it is solid indicator of cost vs yield.

The LACE indicator meets almost none of these criteria. For the construction of a generator of identical cost and yield. The LACE is a complex calculation that differs widely on different applications and even for the same application based on different scenarios, and as a result is meaningless for comparison between projects and meaningless to investors.

P.S. Here is an excerpt of an Indian telephone directory that has the same relevance as the references you have been posting:

A.N. SINGH 06438-223524 PATHARCHAPTI,, -, 814153 Jharkhand
AJAY KR. SINGH 06438-223783 -, -, 814153 Jharkhand
AJEET KUMAR SINGH 06438-234252 S/O LATE S.L.SINGH, -, 814149 Jharkhand
AMARJEET SINGH 06438-274648 -, -, 814146 Jharkhand
ANADI PD. SINGH 06438-234266 -, -, 814149 Jharkhand
ANAND KUMAR SINGH 06438-234314 S/O LT PASUPATI SINGH, VILL:=CHAUD CHORA, 814149 Jharkhand
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 13 October 2016 8:53:41 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
I suggest you take it up with the US Energy Information Agency, SM, I just quoted their words. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest I know better than they do, but then, I'm interested in learning, not in pushing the ricketty barrow that you're attached to.

I'll bid you farewell, I'd like to say it's been interesting, but really it's just been a tedious exercise in trying to polish the turd of your self-interested wilful ignorance.

Do yourself and whoever you work for a favour and move into the 21st century, remaining stuck 100 years out of date isn't doing anyone any good.
Posted by Craig Minns, Thursday, 13 October 2016 9:01:41 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
Leo

The article says ExxonMobil is accused of....
When writing about ExxonMobil I use the word "alleged".

I have never stated they are " guilty until proven innocent". I have quoted a number of sources in relation to the matter in the past.

Incidentally, I've been aware of the Republicans trying to subpoena materials from State Attorneys for some time; its not surprising as fossil fuel companies are very generous with their donations to Republicans.

An example:

https://thinkprogress.org/pa-senator-touts-the-future-of-coal-and-natural-gas-in-bid-for-re-election-9f15b8e377f9#.16jzlim86

Quote:

"Toomey is attempting to paint McGinty, the first woman to chair the White House Council on Environmental Quality, as a clean energy profiteer, but his own campaign is leaning heavily on fossil fuel donations, including from companies and individuals in the coal and natural gas industries."
Posted by ant, Thursday, 13 October 2016 10:15:44 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
Craig,

When you find something and use it completely out of context, then you have learnt nothing. I seriously doubt that you even understand how LACE is calculate and the meaning of the results it gives.

I have no problem with LACE being used for a detailed analysis of a particular project, but it is completely useless to compare between different applications, and to say that LCOE is a poor measure when it is the gold standard world wide is to expose your unpolished turd ignorance.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 13 October 2016 11:29:05 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
The flea says:” Denier Agencies have been very successful in thwarting climate science; if there had been a transition into renewable a couple of decades ago we would not be in such a mess as we are in now.”
The flea has never contested the fact that he is an unqualified ignoramus, and now gives proof of it. He is well aware that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, but uses the scurrilous term “denier” for people propagating the truth.
We can take the flea’s comments on arctic ice as being those of an unqualified ignoramus. He gives no sources
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 14 October 2016 1:32:49 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
Leo

You stated:

"We can take the flea’s comments on arctic ice as being those of an unqualified ignoramus. He gives no sources"

Except as per usual you are wrong, I had previously given a reference (12 October 2016, 10.20am):

http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-extentconcentration/

The second graph using data from NSIDC, shows how your reference given elsewhere was completely wrong in relation to sea ice extent:

http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/files/2016/10/nsidc_sie_currentyear.png

From the same site sea ice volume can be found:

http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-figures/
Posted by ant, Friday, 14 October 2016 4:21:29 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
Leo

Another reference in relation to sea ice volume in the Arctic, there is now around 25% volume in comparison to 1980. The short article below is written by Dr Joe Romm, a Physicist.

http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383#.mygrbe2mf

Quote:

"The sharp decline in Arctic sea ice area in recent decades has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a warming-driven collapse in total sea ice volume - to about one quarter of its 1980 level."

In 2016 a yatch sailed from Britain and sailed via one route of the fabled North West Passage and returned via the other passage.

The article written by Paul Homewood, you referenced, and later presented by Watts is complete garbage.

I pointed out at the time that the article was wrong and why; yet, you persist in continuing to present rubbish.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18507&page=0#330329

My comment on 28 September 2016 7:28:00 AM,was shown to be correct by sea ice extent in October 2016, as shown above .... 12 October 2016.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 15 October 2016 7:33:14 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

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