The Forum > Article Comments > Wind power running out of puff > Comments
Wind power running out of puff : Comments
By Mark S. Lawson, published 31/10/2012As with almost everything else in this business of saving carbon, the details of building green energy projects are proving far more complex than anyone first imagined.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- ›
- All
Posted by 579, Saturday, 3 November 2012 11:55:26 AM
| |
579,
Renewable power supplies about 10% of electricity, most coming from long existing Hydro plants which has grown from the unusually high rains. The huge expansion of wind farms still only produce 2.2%, and solar roof top power is about 0.2%. The RET has cost energy users about as much as the new carbon tax, and on the present trajectory is highly unlikely to meet the 20% target by 2020. With average hydro generation, the renewables are unlikely to exceed 10% in 2020. Even Juliar's carbon tax estimates see emissions increase by 7%, and the coal generators are set to continue full production for decades. Soaring power prices will see consumers changing their minds with regards nuclear, as it did in France. Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 4 November 2012 3:45:58 AM
| |
The RET, federal renewable energy subsidies and carbon tax/ETS will cost electricity consumers and taxpayers a total of about $30 billion by 2020.
What will we get for that and what could we get for that amount of money? What will we get? - reduced Australian competitiveness - means real wages will grow more slowly than they otherwise would and standard of living will fall behind other countries. That means less development of Health, Education, infrastructure etc. than would otherwise be the case. - No reduction in global emissions, perhaps and increase as our energy intensive industries move to other countries where energy is cheaper - No change in climate, sea levels, rainfall in the Murray Darling Basin, no change in the ecology of Great Barrier Reef of Kakadu. What could we have for $30 billion? About half that amount, if provided as appropriate incentives would be sufficient, to allow nuclear to replace coal power stations with cost competitive electricity. The $15 billion would be applied as loan guarantees and to set up the regulatory regime; this would be a sufficient signal to tell investors that the government is serious about going nuclear. The incentive would be to get costs for Australia down from 'First of a Kind' (FOAK) to 'nth of a kind' (NOAK). We'd also need to spend money to educate the public so most of them can get over their nuclear phobia. This phobia is deeply ingrained in the public because of 50 years of anti nuclear scaremongering. Of course there will be some deniers who will never be open to challenging their beliefs. Other benefits of stopping wasting money on renewable energy would be better and more: - Health system (hospitals, doctors, nurses, paramedics, ambulances, nursing homes, etc - Education system - universities, faculties, trade colleges, schools teachers, etc - infrastructure - better cities, water, sewage, electricity, roads, etc - more funds for improving environmental practices Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 4 November 2012 9:34:43 AM
| |
Here’s an example of how loony are some of the warmists ideas
Sequestering dry ice (CO2 ice) in Antarctica has recently been proposed in a scientific paper; it is in press. And the authors are proposing the US government fund building of a prototype in Antarctica. You can read the paper here: “CO2 Snow Deposition in Antarctica to Curtail Anthropogenic Global Warming” http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/co2_snow_deposition.pdf I've done a critique and a rough costing, see here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/#comment-233330 In my summary I compared the CO2 abatement cost using this scheme with other ways to abate CO2. http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/#comment-234611 Here are the author's replies to my criticisms: http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/#comment-241228 My reply to him: http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/#comment-24142 Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 4 November 2012 9:52:26 AM
| |
Why link every thing to AGW. The vulnerable price of oil is enough to set up alt energy.
There is no conspiracy just long term economics. You want the status quo, but will the world let you have that. The loony warmists as u say may just have something. It's to easy to deny everything. Posted by 579, Sunday, 4 November 2012 10:37:38 AM
| |
How on earth anyone can even think to believe we can reduce emissions by 20% is simply kidding the selves, unless of cause we are prepared to stop our growth, along with the global growth, for which our resources will be required.
It's utterly pointless reducing emissions here, then allowing them to be created elsewhere, with our coal. Carbon capture must be at the forefront of research, as capturing/storing carbon would be a far better option, unless of cause we intend to go backwards, depriving future generations of the lifestyle we enjoy ourselves. Of cause we can't do the research here, as our costs are too high, but surely we can help fund it elsewhere. I still maintain that it's the answer. As for nuclear, it will come, must come, as one thing we have that most other countries don't have, is plenty of open space where plants could be established hundreds of kilometers from civilizations. We are also going to have no shortage of water at our disposal from the LNG expansion. Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 4 November 2012 11:12:47 AM
|
I say coal will go by the wayside.
Some states are going gross power for solar, which gives more of the benefit to the owners of solar.
Power costing will shift to quantity costing. You will bye your power in kwh lots. Your choice who you get your power from.
Victoria is miles in front with this.
With hydro generation that is in place now, and the rate solar and wind is being taken up, coal will not be needed.