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 > Electricity: no end to the damage regulations are doing > Comments

Electricity: no end to the damage regulations are doing : Comments

By Alan Moran, published 17/2/2017

There is no let up in the lies, ignorance and dissembling that passes for debate on Australian energy policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
It’s a terrible shame that Alan Moran, who really understands energy and economics, bases his entirely justifiable criticisms of renewable energy (mainly wind but implicitly solar too) on his doubts about the climate effects of carbon dioxide. His arguments would have exactly the same merits and force without those doubts. All he does by raising the ‘global warming fraud’ is lose some of his credibility and audience. What a shame.
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 17 February 2017 1:08:57 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
Tombee is absolutely spot on.

Everything else in this post is exactly what should be said and understood. Wind power has indeed degraded the reliability and capacity of the nation's networks, SA being the prime example.

An unnecessarily offensive throw-away comment about BHP's CEO distracts and diverts attention away from the reality that, regardless of the reasons for the swing towards wind, the costs and operational issues that attach to that decision must be faced or Australia's electricity will continue to become more unreliable and more expensive with time.

Keep writing, Alan Moran. You have much to offer the discussion, but first ensure that you don't chase your audience away.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Friday, 17 February 2017 3:42:52 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
There's an obvious market failure. It's not regulations that are the problem, it's too little government participation in the market! Privatisation was rushed into for ideological reasons before it became clear that what's most lucrative for the generating companies is totally different from what's most beneficial for the customers. The market won't repair itself any time soon, even if all subsidies are abolished, because fixing the problem is not in the participants' interest. Things would work a lot better if the government were willing to buy some of the power stations (including Pelican Point, which I suspect the SA government is now considering buying).

And when did Australia EVER have the world's cheapest electricity? Surely those countries with abundant hydroelectric resources have always been ahead of us? And didn't some of those countries with nuclear power have cheaper electricity than Australia in the late 20th century?

We could and should invest in renewables in a way that brings our cost of electricity down. But that's incompatible with the government's desire to make a commercial rate of return on investment.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 17 February 2017 5:22:52 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
Why on earth (pun intended) do we trend to the more expensive, more polluting forms of electricity generation? We are equating convenience with cheapness.
There is not much dispute that two forms of demand exist - base load and peak. Of these, base load is least affected by variables such as weather temperature, wind conditions, and time-of-day use.
Natural resources are cheaply available but may have high cspital utilisation cost whereas coal, natural gas, and oil fired steam boilers are expensive to build, generally in locations close to their energy source which means high cost electricity delivery networks to consumers.
Solar is a natural variable but will be financially more attractive when storage battery cost reduces, and has the advantage of installation exactly where the output is used.
We are not making use of nuclear. Many countries are, and we have ample supplies with lower transportation overheads, albeit the problem of safe disposal of degraded stock after use.
Yet it is a heat source which is on hand, despite also needing power transmission networking unless we can overcome our 'nimby' reaction (pun intended) and install one in each household or community.
Why not?
Posted by Ponder, Saturday, 18 February 2017 9:24:38 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
Renewables do not give us cheaper power prices, reticulated supply that has increased by 106% in just the last ten years!

Look, I could step outside my door, or almost anywhere and fill a one cubic metre box with dirt. Then using very simple gravity separation, and for a cost of around $100.00, separate out around 8 grams of thorium. The most energy dense material in the world!

The energy contained therein, enough to very safely, power my home and car for the next 100 years.

Do the sums, $100.00 to refine the thorium, which needs no enrichment, is less radioactive than a banana, and able to power my house and car for 100 years.

That's just a dollar a year! And it's carbon free!

Moreover, our dirt contains enough to power the planet for a thousand years and thousands more when we begin to mine igneous rock.

Our future and that of our children and their children absolutely dependant on clean, green, cheap energy! And none cheaper, cleaner, greener or safer than tried and proven, Molten salt thorium.

Or free if it's used to consume problematic nuclear waste/bomb making material and plutonium. All while extracting miracle cure nuclear isotopes and while the reactor is running at normal atmospheric pressure! And given the time needed to reprocess all current waste, centuries of virtually free power!

Had this tested and proven, walk away safe system been used in chernobyl or fukushima, they'd still by working away supplying the world's safest, cleanest, cheapest, power!

The word nuclear is used and the abysmally ignorant go into melt down and refuse to look at the overwhelming irrefutable evidence? Without question we need a pragmatic solution! Thorium or something cleaner, cheaper, better?

And resisted to the last breath by the ideologically driven coalition or green controlled and even less pragmatic moribund labor?

Which means they all need to be removed and replaced by patent no nonsense pragmatists! And sadly, they're a little thin on the ground!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 18 February 2017 12:24:04 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
You sometimes see negative spot prices on the AEMO homepage but to my recollection never at -$85 per Mwh. That's because wind and large solar can still make a net dollar via the subsidy. That is the direct cost. The indirect cost relates to what I'd call 'emissions not avoided' from thermal plant having to inefficiently throttle back when wind and solar get priority. God help us if we ending up paying thermal plant to remain on standby so we have double subsidies.

Nuclear is cheap enough to power aluminium smelting in countries like the US and Russia that went nuclear in the 1970s. It will be too pricey in Australia probably at over $100 per Mwh. If carbon constraints are imposed the package should include tariffs on carbon intensive imports. It would be bizarre if Australia lost its smelters then 100% imported aluminium products made from our own bauxite/alumina and some electricity from our thermal coal. If we lose the smelters but keep exporting ingredients I'd call that 'value subtracting'.
Posted by Taswegian, Saturday, 18 February 2017 12:24:10 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
Professor Anderson has a very fascinating history having worked on oil rigs as an engineer, later studied climate science, and has studied economics. He is very contemptuous of economists who venture outside of their field of expertise and down play climate change.

At the time of the Paris deliberations Professor Anderson was stating that the aspirational goal of keeping temperature rise around 1.5 was a nonsense on the basis that the goal will be broken.

Moran, writes about lies; does he mean "clean coal" when writing about lies. Clean coal technology is horrendously expensive and efficiency is lost. The the majority of emissions from clean coal power plants still void CO2 and other nasties into the atmosphere.

A kilogram of coal when burnt in a power station will produce 2 to 2.5 kilowatt hours of electricity, less if treated as "clean coal". Whereas, 1 kilogram of silicon can produce around two square metres of solar panels. After 2 days with 5 hours of full sun the solar panels will have produced as much energy as the kilogram of coal. Solar panels can continue to produce energy for decades.

Last year, Dr Romm a Physicist, wrote about how the cost of renewable energy in overseas countries has been rapidly reducing. Tony Seba has discussed how the horse and buggy was very quickly replaced by the T Model Ford. Seba states how old technologies are overwhelming an acceptance of technology; for example, mobil phones being replaced by android phones,cassete disks replaced by CDs, Tony Seba's comments relate energy.

Overseas coal is being pushed aside, battery technology is improving and coming down in price.

http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/fec4332de4c32ece44eedde7dd76b6c7.pdf

Material from economists generally pay little attention to climate change:
.huge costs incurred through disasters
.costs in relation to infra structure lost
. fresh water shortages; happening and looming, especially where glaciers are relied upon for water resources.
.breakdown of the cryosphere which moderate climate generally.

The Arctic Ocean has lost 75% of its volume since 1979, scientists are predicting that the Arctic will be ice free in Summer by 2030.

A further matter as Oceans warm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.c916338d4d10&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Posted by ant, Sunday, 19 February 2017 9:22:34 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
It seems that we have an official bipartisan policy generated at the highest level to exclude nuclear power forever!? That one that can never ever exclude coal?

We are the biggest exporter of coal in the world! And all those tax avoiding, profit repatriating foreign coal mining firms, would be considerably harmed financially along with the countries that buy "OUR" coal to effectively use it against us, to in a word, kill our manufacturing sector!?

And as kick the ball Sammy Kekovich would say, you know it's got to make sense!

Let's be rational, it's only a question of time before we remain just a handful of nation that use coal? And as for anyone building a new coal fired power station here? If a government won't do it? Then it has buckleys.

Moreover there's an official BIPARTISAN boycoutt at the highest levels on nuclear power?

Then even in a completely benign form, resistance remains completely and irrationally illogically implacable!

Simply put, the only possible conclusion I can reach is, we govern ourselves with permission?

Otherwise we'd have long since built several nuclear power stations,as molten salt thorium to then use the cheapest, cleanest, safest power in the world to generate export incomes far greater than anything "WE" earn from the sale of "OUR" coal!

Prices seem to have made a temporary recovery and we're counting on clean coal (a goal or aspiration) to become a viable certainty to eventually get out from under an exponentially expanding deficit!

And on the face of it, our only allowed and official locked in, plan for baseload energy? With the irrevocable case against it ignored along with the fact, that not only is there not one working example of zero emission clean coal but that the much vaunted geosequestration is prohibitively expensive!

Without question, the only way to change our official policy, is to change those implacably welded to it! And at the very next poll that counts, put the incumbent and preferencing partners, last and next last on the ballot paper! Anything less, or squibbing, then more of the same!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 19 February 2017 10:06:51 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 if you think renewables will save us here's a couple of recent articles
http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/how-renewable-energy-advocates-are-hurting-the-climate-cause/
and
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-02-14/questioning-our-renewable-future/
Romm must ask whether he is holding back progress either in emissions or helping the poor.
Posted by Taswegian, Sunday, 19 February 2017 10:51:16 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
The most energy dense material in the world is thorium. Just 8 grams of unenriched thorium, enough to power my home and car for the next 100 years.

This is proven old technology rejected because, there were no weapons spin off! Why you can't even make bomb making material with it, but as a slow breeder reactor you can very safely burn most nuclear waste and plutonium.

Because molten salt thorium reactors operate at normal atmospheric pressure, they don't need costly time consuming shut downs/restarts,
just to inject the (free energy) waste or harvest the miracle cure nuclear isotopes from it!

Meaning doubled or trebled supply and from a single reactor! Think what four or five could do for medicine and our economy?

Very safe operating temperatures can be as high as 1200C, with around 750C being a sweet spot for gas powered turbines, using helium, nitrogen or even Co2.

Meaning, they can be located almost anywhere or in anything that can hold a shipping container sized reactor and companion turbine.

A molten salt thorium reactor has been very thoroughly road tested in Oak Ridge Tennessee, between the fifties and the seventies, and shut down and starved of funding by Presidential decree.

By allegedly criminally corrupt Nixon of watergate infamy. Who then apparently diverted that funding to his home state of California and seriously deficient liquid metal FBR reactors. Two+ meltdowns/enforced shutdowns and only able to arrive at a 6% efficiency apparently?

The time for equivocating asinine prevarication is so over!

The chinese and the Indians are beavering away feverishly at thorium technology. U tube even has a guided tour of the Indian facility, to the accompaniment of a silent geiger counter. And or various highly credential expert scientific commentary, which includes a detailed blow by blow description of the assembly of the walk away safe, Oak Ridge molten salt reactor.

He who controls the world's energy supplies, controls the world!

We who Own so much of it, should never allow ourselves to be quite deliberately, placed in such an invidious position!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 19 February 2017 11:22:05 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
Taswegian

Renewables are only part of the answer. Coal mining needs to be phased out very quickly; huge forests need to be planted with appropriate plants selected for particular areas. Where possible we need to grow our own food; or buy locally grown food. Vehicles and airlines using fossil fuels need to be phased out. Walk where possible, or use public transport. etc

Had we started in the 80s to take action when warned we would be in better circumstances now.
Those denying anphropogenic climate change have done much damage over the last couple of decades.

With current trends that have been happening over decades the Arctic will be ice free around 2030, a very scary prospect. The cryosphere has a strong influence on moderating climate.

Also in relation to Oceans:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/16/scientists-study-ocean-absorption-of-human-carbon-pollution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.d70488d5aeb3&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Posted by ant, Sunday, 19 February 2017 1:48:18 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
Alan B.,
ITYF the most energy dense material in the world is hydrogen.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian,
If you merely look at a snapshot of the statistics rather than how rapidly they're changing, you're likely to be unduly pessimistic about renewables. Likewise If you assume a lack of technological improvement, of course the cost of renewables is likely to be sky high. But technology is advancing rapidly and there's no reason to believe it would stop. And even just changing the financing arrangements can make renewables a lot cheaper than they are now.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 19 February 2017 2:08:36 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
The best and clearest OLO article yet on Australia's electricity problems.
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 19 February 2017 3:48:31 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
Adian, I'll back my 8 grams of thorium against your 8 grams of hydrogen, to still be providing erg for erg of energy, now today, until your 8 grams of hydrogen has exhausted its available to us, now today, energy.

And even with an 80% energy coefficient, with just 8 grams of thorium, powering my vehicle. I'll go cruising on by long after your stalled hydrogen powered variant burns 8 tons of hydrogen!

It might have escaped your attention, but hydrogen is at the start of the periodic table, while thorium is down near the bottom. And so typical of quite deliberate errant green misinformation.

Now you might be right, but only if you are talking about fusion and endless reclaiming the nuclear fusion byproducts. But we haven't got billions of years for your, par for the course, mischievous vexatious claim to be validated.

Even so, fertile thorium is at least four times more abundant than fissile uranium. And needs no enrichment to be useful.

A light water reactor is arguably the least efficient reactor, producing as much as 95% waste and traditional enriched uranium rods, not very much better. Whereas, thorium consumes as much as 95% of its mass and the vastly less toxic waste, suitable for long life space batteries.

Suggest you stick to something you actually know something about, as opposed to just opening your mouth to change socks! And to be expected when the diabolically dense, school dunce relies almost exclusively on russian supplied BS links!

I've worked in the power industry, and handled radioactive material daily. There are just three kinds of people in the world, those that can count and those that can't. Suggest you belong to the latter group and for you 1+1 comes out 11? 2+2 22. 3+3 33 etc/etc.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 19 February 2017 9:39:46 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., your proposition is interesting.
You say that you have experience in the power and nuclear industries, so could you please outline, in simple layman terms, how a thorium power generator works and what are its components.
Also it would be interesting to gain some simple explanation of your costings of $100 to procure 8 grams of thorium.
I guess what I'm asking is how a thorium propulsion system would power your car and home.
Thanks.
Posted by Ponder, Sunday, 19 February 2017 9:52:28 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.,
Of course I was referring to fusion. Every engineer knows that nuclear processes are more energy dense than non nuclear processes. And IIRC even without reclaiming the byproducts, hydrogen is more energy dense than thorium.

Of course we're much further away from commercialising fusion reactors than thorium reactors. But for ages you've been droning on about your preferred technology as if it's ready to go. But it'll be a few years yet before it is, and during that time the economics of electricity generation could change markedly.

And WTF are these "russian supplied BS links"?
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 20 February 2017 10:17:59 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
Energy security is a very thin argument as blackouts have occurred in States where there is no huge reliance on solar or wind generation. Tasmania utilises hydro power, while NSW and Queensland rely on coal; where were the comments about energy security when blackouts happened in these States?

Coal creates a number of hidden costs; some being in health, and through environmental damage. The awesomeness of the Great Barrier Reef provides employment for some 70,000 people it is often reported. Currently, the GBR is once again in danger of coal bleaching through warming waters picked up via NOAA satellite thermal maps, and by observations of local divers.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/20/images-of-new-bleaching-on-great-barrier-reef-heighten-fears-of-coral-death

the first paragraphs state:

"The embattled Great Barrier Reef could face yet more severe coral bleaching in the coming month, with areas badly hit by last year’s event at risk of death.

Images taken by local divers last week and shared exclusively with the Guardian by the Australian Marine Conservation Society show newly bleached corals discovered near Palm Island.

Most of the Great Barrier Reef has been placed on red alert for coral bleaching for the coming month by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its satellite thermal maps have projected unusually warm waters off eastern Australia after an extreme heatwave just over a week ago saw land temperatures reach above 47C in parts of the country."
Posted by ant, Monday, 20 February 2017 11:27:49 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
A reference provided by the Washington Post earlier obtains a high score from scientists in relation to Oceans (Page 2 @ 19.2, 1.48pm).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.d70488d5aeb3&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-just-detected-major-change-earths-oceans-linked-warming-climate-chris-mooney-the-washington-post/

Take away messages:

1. There has been a detectable decrease in oxygen concentrations in the ocean. This trend is projected to continue as the oceans warm.

2. Areas of the ocean that are extremely low in oxygen significantly impact local ecosystems. The trend of decreasing oxygen concentrations is associated with increasing consequences for marine life.

3. The warming of the world’s oceans also has many other impacts, including sea level rise and “positive feedbacks” that can further enhance global warming.

The economics of coal do not add up when the consequences are taken into account.
Professor Anderson has termed economists as astrologers on the basis that salient costs are not taken into account.
Posted by ant, Monday, 20 February 2017 2:04:20 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 refer to taswegen on page one. Your pricing of $85 / mwh is minuscule.
That is 85 cents / 1000 kWh which is 8.5 cents / kWh.
What you need to know where the rest of the electricity charge comes from.
Retailers are the problem.
To be a retailer which is open to anyone, if you read the rules.
The rules say company,s corporations, or sole prioritore.
A global company that does billing for 60 percent of the world charges $1 / customer / month. AMEO reporting etc is all included in the charge.
Are you starting to see where the charges are coming from.
As of yet no sole propiators have been granted a lisense.
Only gigantic multi nationals hold our power costs close to the chest.
85 cents /1000 kWh would be an expensive day, it,s usually around 5..6 cents / kWh.
Posted by doog, Monday, 20 February 2017 9:54:42 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 market is showing opposite assessments than what is being put out by politicians.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-climate-bombshell-the-politicians-didnt-touch-20170219-gugn0r.html

What costs would be incurred should 200,000 people from an Australian region need to be evacuated? That is what happened in Northern California when rain bombs caused the risk of the Oroville Dam breaking down.
Mass evacuations have happened a number of times in the last few years.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/20/expect-to-see-more-emergencies-like-oroville-dam-in-a-hotter-world

Quote from Australian Prudential Regulation Authority:

"Australia's powerful financial regulator has revealed it views climate change as a "material" risk that it will be watching much more closely in its monitoring of banks, insurers and wealth managers.

Geoff Summerhayes, an executive board member of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, on Friday made the first detailed comments from a domestic regulator on how they are responding to financial risks created by global warming."

From:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/climate-change-a-material-risk-for-the-financial-system-apra-20170217-guffhm.html
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 21 February 2017 7:03:31 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
Commit yourself to renewable power for your house. Those in wind areas use a 5kw turbine
. Those with sunshine and no wind use solar and of course power storage.
Convert your lighting to 12 v led.
Refrigerator x 12 volt
There is a whole host of self help available, instead of whining about things you cannot change.
Turnbull is now talking about clean coal. The only clean coal is still in the ground once it is above ground it is very dirty.
Posted by doog, Tuesday, 21 February 2017 3:10:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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