What I always find striking in these anti-renewable articles is the utter failure to talk about what none renewable power has been bought on line and the cost.

One would think reading these that coal or gas fired power stations are popping up all over the place with cheap energy and no government support. Why does the author not want to talk about the massive funding that all power gets rather then just the renewable sector.

Cobber

Provide proof of how much you have invested in renewables.

Thousands of bodies lost jobs all because of Abbott’s idiocy. That will now come back +.
Who would feel comfortable investing in anything while you had an against everything govt; Wind turbines did not appeal to Abbott’s eye balls, for reasons only known to him.
That era has passed, thankfully . We are now in a progressive cycle and a much more stable climate for investment. Coal is on the outer, it has had its run even oil use is in decline.

Mark Lawson here

Cobber the hound - what new power plants, what govt support? Demand has been almost flat in Aus for some years so there's been no need for new conventional plants. There has been some retirement of old plants. There is no government subsidies or support for power plants that I'm aware of. Perhaps you can enlighten us? the article was not anti-renewables as such. It merely pointed out that no-one was building more capacity and why.

This excellent new analysis of the UK electricity system shows that the cheapest way to reduce emissions is with nuclear power and little of no weather-dependent renewables (such as wind and solar) http://erpuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ERP-Flex-Man-Full-Report.pdf .

It's an excellent analysis. Well worth reading carefully. Study the charts because that's where the real information is. The text has been carefully worded to attempt to keep the wide range of stakeholders inside the tent. There are many important lessons in this analysis.

I have been reading the AGW driven solar & wind articles and I am
certain they are all away with the fairies and I wonder what they are smoking !
The whole renewable energy field has run riot with RETs, RECs etc etc,
wind farm sunsidies, solar farm subsidies etc etc etc.
It has become an unfathomable alphabet soup.

None of it seems to have addressed the problem of four overcast days
in a row with little or no wind.
Don't tell me it does not happen everywhere at the same time.
Even if it does not happen everywhere will there be enough generating
capacity in say Sth Australia to supply all of NSW & Victoria ?
Even if there was enough excess capacity in Sth Aus is there the
transmission line capacity to back up NSW & Victoria ?
Another question, if there was who pays for it ?
To cover four overcast days there needs to five times as much
generation and storage capacity. Who pays for it ?

Backup real base load power is essential, and it needs to be everywhere.
And on tap immeadiatly.

If we do not comply with those conditions, sell your 5th floor home
unit & get a job on the ground floor.
Oh & do not go into hospital for an operation.

I had an argument on here recently with someone about how a large
office building could not use solar, even just for the lifts. I have
obtained the figures via a relative who has access to that sort of info.
The power needed for a large office building, say 15 floors with six
lifts requires 500 to 600 kwhrs per lift per day.
This is not something that can be supplied by solar cells & wind reliably.

If these demands are not met all buildings over three floors will
have to be abandoned.

If the RET were replaced by a tough national CO2 target then we'd know wind power and commercial solar got there on their merits not favouritism. As it is there some doubt whether we can get from about 19 Twh of RET eligible power in 2015 to 33 Twh by 2020
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2015/11/failure-to-satisfy-the-lret-prospects-and-implications/
That's despite the very generous recurring LGC subsidy now over $70 per Mwh and 50+% capital grants for large solar from ARENA and other agencies.

All of this makes bugger all difference to coal which should be the first CO2 front to attack. However opinion polls tell us the RET gets a 75% approval rating. The public may get disillusioned when they find out.

You'd think listening to some folk, we were limited to coal or renewables, the later being limited to wind or solar, and vastly more expensive power bills? And as such a recipe for economic contraction/disaster?

We have other choices (plural) Which are either carbon free or carbon neutral!

Choices like large scale solar thermal, which not only compete with similar scale coal fired projects on roll out costs, but use only free fuel all while providing peak power options!

But only if some idiots/morons believe it is a good idea to keep the great white elephant of a very vulnerable national grid and price gouging foreign control is the way to go.

That will likely end with solar panels and schemes everyone can afford, complemented by vastly improved long life batteries that are also affordable!(Any day now)

Then we have cheaper than coal thorium, tolled out as very local energy options and therefore able to reduce the power bill by more than half!?

After that we can and should turn our problematic waste into domestic energy and free hot water , utilizing Aussie ingenuity, and in so doing actually turbocharge the domestic economy!

Not to mention possible profitable spinoffs like very broad scale algae based oil and ethanol industries! However, need visionary leadership, given they won't kick start themselves!

We have more intelligent choices, which won't do ny harm to the economy, just the opposite!

Not something the greens want to hear, given they'd like more populous and poorer countries to wither on the vine, I believe. as their answer to almost everything?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, how do you cope with the four overcast windless days ?
The cost of doing so multiplies up by five.
Then when you get five overcast days, do you just stay in bed that day.

I know about your ideas on algae etc but so far they are not on the
horizon.
So far the only alternative that will certainly work is nuclear.
Hopefully the Indians will get thorium working.

There was graphic in one of the English newspapers last week. It listed presumably accurately the number of new coal fired plants India and China are building. It was in the thousands for both.

So poor little Australia which produces 1.3% of the Co2, should close down our coal fired plants to save the planet. How much difference will that make? My estimate, nil!

Yes John R it doesn't matter anyway. I doubt if it is 1000s of plants
but a lot anyway. Australia's coal position is different to the rest
of the world and a lot of the world is having problems with the grade of quality & cost of extraction.

Some seem to think we should refuse to supply India. I think that
would upset India no end as they try to improve the lot of their people.

It does not matter whether global warming is true or not as we have to
change to a new energy regime anyway.

Unfortunately wind turbines for generating electricity directly into the mains have proven a gigantic scam that depend on large legislated for effective subsidies for its survival. Wind energy is NOT cheap, NOT clean and NOT green. Obviously power grid managers regard it as of very low commercial value because of its low and unpredictable productivity. Needs 100% of backup ready to go when wind stops. Most often this involves the cost of keeping coal fired generators spinning but not producing power or using expensive fossil fuel in quick startup diesels. Wind turbines require a large amount of fossil fuel for their construction relative to estimated lifetime power outputs. Also are environmental obscenities in several ways. Especially creating low frequency noise/infrasound which is becoming widely recognised as causing health problems. They also kill a lot of birds, including endangered species and cause wake turbulence, which is a major hazard for low flying agricultural and firefighting aircraft. Money for renewables should be directed towards technologies with genuine long term potential that need further development. Not wasted on more wind turbines. Funds directed to wind should be to reduce problems with existing turbines. Especially trying to reduce infrasound. For further info, check www.stopthesethings.com and links from it. Is usually updated daily.

In Bridgewater near Bendigo in Victoria is a solar array. It has been there for years and has never worked. Why because basically they get a bucket on money for building it but cannot start it up as the jig would be well and truly up. Solar is just not good enough yet.
Rhosty thorium sounds marvelous but is not good enough yet.
Lets stop the greens from connecting to the grid, hey lets stop half the Public Service connecting to the grid. No power, no work and no wages! Lets see how all this monkey business works then?

Dear Curmudgeon,

You wrote;

“This marked lack of activity, despite hopeful stories about how green energy is now cheaper than conventional fuel generators, underlines the point that energy retailers won't bother with alternate projects unless they are forced to do so.”

Rubbish.

What we had under Abbott and Hockey was a government not content to get out of the way and let market forces operate but instead worked actively to stymie wind farm investment in this country.

Without that kind interference across the Tasman this is what has happened;

“Utility-scale coal-fired power generation will soon be a thing of the past in New Zealand, after local gentailer Genesis Energy said it would close the last two coal-burning units at its coal and gas Huntly power station in Waikato, on the North Island, due to falling demand and lower-cost renewables.”
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/cheaper-renewables-force-closure-of-nzs-last-coal-fired-power-units-80442

In 2014, the IEA reports, governments provided some $112 billion to underwrite renewable power generation. While this may seem like a significant amount, it is only about a quarter of the $490 billion in subsidies governments offered globally to the fossil fuel industry. If those outsized subsidies were eliminated and a price imposed on the consumption of carbon, as proposed in many of the schemes to be introduced in the wake of the Paris climate summit, renewables would become instantly competitive without subsidies.

Additionally, evidence that an accelerating shift to renewables is already underway can also be found in recent studies of the global energy industry, most notably in the IEA’s just-released annual assessment of industry trends, World Energy Outlook 2015. “There are unmistakable signs that the much needed global energy transition is under way,” the report noted, with “60 cents of every dollar invested in new power plants to 2040 [to be] spent on renewable energy technologies.”

I would be surprised to find that solar arrays were more expensive
than coal fired power when looked at as a per KWHr charge rate.
After all they just sit there soaking up the sun and putting out
electricity.

However that is only about 40% of the story. It is the other 60% of the
day where their economy is shot.
They get up late in the morning and go to bed long before I do.
It is the cost of coping with the period from say 3pm to 9am in the
winter that is so costly. I know that Tesla and a new company in the
Hunter Valley, whose name I have forgotten, that are doing a good job,
in providing back up batteries.

At a seminar about such systems they were embarrassed when I asked the
cost of coping with three overcast days.

For the grid this is an enormous problem if you rule out coal fired
power supply.

BTW, Rhosty, I gather that thorium reactors need uranium to get them started.
Is that true ? If so that negates a big part of the advantage I thought they had.

Hi Bazz,

You're partly right about solar panels (and by extension, wind towers):

"I would be surprised to find that solar arrays were more expensive than coal fired power when looked at as a per KWHr charge rate. After all they just sit there soaking up the sun and putting out electricity."

Yes - after they have been constructed, using relatively cheap electricity, for all that concrete and steel, rare minerals and fiddly bits. And currently, that relatively cheaper energy generation is using coal, oil and gas. And then there's maintenance throughout their working lives.

I'm puzzled why there isn't much more investment in improving the efficiency, i.e. lowering the total unsubsidised end-to-end costs, of renewable energies - after all, as soon as they are (in total) cheaper than fossil-fuel-based power stations, the world will switch.

And to completely avoid the production of evil CO2 - except in their initial construction - there is still the option of - fifth or sixth generation - nuclear power stations. If it's cheaper than coal, etc., one could even make nuclear power stations using nuclear power.

Speaking as a completely unbiased South Australian, of course.

Joe

Ha Ha i always love the comments on this site...

@Jardine K. Jardine What has that got to do with my comment? Never the less, I have solar panels on my roof for over 15 years, I also own a farm that is off grid, and we run the Generator once or twice a year, as we have a large wind generator and solar panels and a massive 48 volt battery bank.

@Curmudgeon event he minerals council will admit to coal being subsidized. It's much higher then they say as they don't report the government support for actual build of the large coal power stations.
They also ignore the fact that most coal power stations are in government hands, and most renewable's are in private hands.

Now I know you guys avoid facts like plague but never the less these things are easy to confirm, you just need to get off your right wing web sites.

Mark Lawson here.

SteeleRedux
Your post assumes that renewables can be made cheaper than conventional plants. Sorry. You would have seen comparisons on a per-cost basis that may be interpreted as wind being cheaper than coal power but wind in a grid has completely different costs. Renewable and dispatchable (can be switched on and off) are in different categories and cannot be compared that way. As the article makes clear the retailers simply aren't interested in renewables unless they are forced.. look at the figures in the article.
Wind power is basically twice the price of conventional power but, as noted, they can't really be compared.

Cobber, I am interested in your off grid system.
A couple of questions,
Presuming your battery is near practical discharge.
Can your solar cells fully charge your battery in one sunny day while
supplying your normal usage ?
How many days can your fully charged battery run your normal demand ?

Thanks

Peter Lang,

Despite that report's inappropriately high interest rate, I agree that more nuclear power is the best solution for Britain. Australia, with far more sunshine and a much lower population density, is more suited to solar power. As our population increases, the case for nuclear power may or may not improve, depending on the rates of technological progress in the nuclear and renewable power industries.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

It would be rare to have four overcast days in a row with little or no wind. But IMO the best solution for those times (apart from demand management) is to use ceramic fuel cells (colocated with solar thermal power plants) to generate electricity from gas.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Jon R,

China's investing very heavily in nuclear and renewables. Its coal consumption will peak soon; it was reported to have peaked already, but that report turned out to be based on dodgy official figures.

Australia's CO2 emissions are very important because other countries use our inaction to justify doing nothing themselves.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

mox,

The need to keep coal fired generators spinning but not producing power is a myth that some people (and the Murdoch Press) used to discredit wind power before it was widely used. But experience has shown it isn't needed at all. Nor is it that dangerous to birds (that was only true for early wind designed that used a truss instead of a tubular tower). And it's rare for wind power to produce enough infrasound to cause problems. And fossil fuel power also produces infrasound.

So let me get this right! Solar and wind is cheaper than fossil fuel as the Government pays millions of dollars of subsidy to the power industry? I have had 6 solar panels on my roof for many years and I get back less than $300 per year so what's all that about?
If solar is so cheap why is the Bridgewater solar array not working? Come to that the Mildura one has not got off the ground? I thought they were both scams by Greeny thieves working on dopey politicians but what do I know? I know Bridgewater has sat for some years without any power being given out.
My challenge is "What's happening to all that money taken off us and given to solar arrays?"

Cobber

So according to you, government subsidisation of energy was the worst mistake in the history of the world, and the solution is, more government subsidisation of energy? Just turn your brain on for a change, and actually *think* about what you're saying.

Doing things so as to make a loss means using *more* resources, not less, you fool.

What you are failing to understand is, if the government subsidises renewable energy, the effect is no different than shining lights generated by coal power onto solar panels so as to claim the subsidies. It's mere empty-headed foolery, which you would understand if you paid more attention to fact and less to squarking groupthink fallacies.

If you are right that renewable energy is more efficient than coal, then it won't need any subsidies; and the existence of subsidies for coal, makes an argument *against* those subsidies, not *for* subsidising renewables, so do grow a brain.

Aiden, I was in Bleak City earlier this year and counted five overcast days.
Admittedly late in the fifth day there was a little broken sunshine.
There was no noticeable wind but there could perhaps have been enough to light a few LEDs.

Excessive renewable energy chatter.

Firstly, the wholesale switch to renewables is not economics driven - essential for our planet. Economics will impact switchover efficiency, but must not hinder progress.

Renewables transition cannot wait for business profitability decisions.

Our planet's state reflects wholesale free market failure. For some large fossil fuel companies, the CO2 problems were fully understood decades ago, but the health of our planet was secondary to making profit.

The urge for profit has forever been sacrificing labor. However, harming our planet also harms profit makers. There is no escape. Healthy profit does not shield denizens of Beijing from pollution.

Secondly, many societal changes will be required. For example, the majority of domestic and business use of gas must shift to renewable electricity. Profligate energy uses in the West must dramatically reduce their energy use. We will need a much upgraded electricity grid. It will accommodate tens of thousands of small electricity storage units such as batteries in houses, electric cars, large business sized units, all able to be marshaled into delivering power to the grid as required. Large renewable installations distributed around the nation interconnected with high voltage DC power will ensure a calm Adelaide if offset by strong winds in Queensland.

Projects of such magnitude and complexity cannot be delivered in "must have vision of future profit before work begins" paradigm. They must be government projects with highly skilled and committed project teams. Modeled on Snowy Mountains Hydro? The projects must consider very large energy storage facilities, such as Snowy Hydro currently uses. Any spare electricity capacity, during a summer day, for example, should pump water to higher level storages. This water can drive large electricity generators as required. Calm weather - no problem.

Current issues with REC management cant be allowed to frustrate movement to renewables. The types of cut-through actions that are required are not feasible in a political environment. Decisions, designs, compromises must be made external to the political structures. We need an autonomous Renewables Infrastructure organization, responsible to, but not driven by, Government.

Other societal changes are numerous and ........

Well Tony 153, I think you are driven by fear of global warming.
It does not matter whether global warming is true or not.
There is not enough economically available fossil fuels to drive the
atmosphere like the IPCC & others believe.

We have to leave oil & coal before oil & coal leave us !
Your idea of an interconnector that support other states is fine as
far as it goes, but do you understand that it means every state must
be able to generate & store enough electricity to support say two other
states as well as itself ?
As far as building damns to store water that is fine but there are two
big catch 22s involved.
No one has been able to designated where it is possible to build those damns.
The Energy Return on Energy Invested on the earth moving needed to
build those damns has been calculated to be very poor, even if you
could find suitable places.
Oh yes the greenies won't let you build them anyway.
That is the third catch22.

Batteries for storage, are you kidding ? The resources needed to
build and maintain them as big enough to run a state is gigantic.
Also the charge/discharge cycle losses would rule most batteries.

Another thing you have overlooked i the multiplication of costs.
Once you start backing up other states and charging storage of
whatever sort you have to cater for x times a days capacity + 1
where x = number of overcast windless days.
That just multiplies up the cost by those figures.
Catch 22 number four.
To be practical where the blazers do you expect to get that much money
in a time of zero growth ?

Bazz
I do agree with your first statement - yes, I am very fearful of the AGW impacts today, and the worsening ones tomorrow.

Approximately 190 nations think similarly and have agreed on the need for urgent action.
If you disregard what our scientists are saying about tomorrow, and what our meteorologists and dozens of other branches of science are saying about today, your views and arguments have absolutely no value.

The world is now moving down the "lets find and implement needed solutions" path.

A few minor corrections on your contribution.

The eastern seaboard and SA have fully interconnected electricity networks and power flows freely between states. Vic and Tas are connected by undersea cable.

The Snowy Hydro system has been pumping water uphill for decades, using cheap power, then using that water to generate electricity when prices go up. There is potential for many dams to do the same.

You need to read more on battery storage and current trials in Australia and elsewhere. No need for giant batteries. Many thousands of small ones will do the same - with appropriate computer control.

Prior to second world war, the US spent less than 5% GDP annually on military. By 1945, about 45%. We need to do something similar to do what is needed

Tony you missed the point.
The amount of AFFORDABLE fossil fuel will decline FASTER than any
AGW CO2 program could implement.
That is why it DOES NOT MATTER about global warming.
Demand on energy sources is falling and with it CO2 emmissions.
That is why energy is so cheap now, oil $ 35 & coal at all time lows.

The interstate interconnectors as they are at the moment could not
support the whole of NSW for argument sake.
They would require a very large expenditure to raise their capacity.
Also the generation and storage capacity in each state would have to
be of a size to support the other states.
Do you understand that this cost is unsupportable.
You can tell this by the lack of finance to undertake the miniscule
projects that are at present on the drawing board.
The damn argument is over also, there just is not anywhere to put them
in the numbers needed.

Tony, it is all over now. We have almost certainly missed the
opportunity to put in a real alternative system.
Maybe we could build some nuclear power in time, I just do not know.

Bazz,
Not so.

Of all the known reserves owned by fossil fuel compsnies, only a quarter to one third can consumed to have any chance of constraining remperature rise to 2C. That is the worlds target. About three quarters must remain in the ground.

This means that the remaing third to one quarter will get very cheap, as many suppliers will want their product to be purchased within that quota.

Building necessary infrastructure will not be constrained by economics. What needs to be done will be done. No one will allow our world to be trashed because profit or productivity or efficiency metrics indicate non action.

Of course there will be many stupid people, but they will be vastly outnumbered by the sensible.

I am sure you can review your various statements on AGW and decide which camp you are in.

No stop & think;
The coal that you think will be burnt, will not be burnt.
Demand has fallen for all energy sources and the price with it.
If you can not afford to dig it out or drill for it you cannot do it.
The reason you cannot afford it is because it means you have to expend
more energy to get it than you get using it !

It is known as diminishing returns.
That is what has collapsed many empires etc including Rome.
You said;
Building necessary infrastructure will not be constrained by economics.

That is where you got it totally wrong, forget economics, this is about energy.
You are stuck in a business as usual era. You just can't get around
it by borrowing money to build the infrastructure.
If it takes more energy to build it than you get you go backwards.
Except is Australia the world's coal companies are no longer profitable.
Australia will not be far behind in becoming unprofitable with coal.

I agree all the above is a simplification but I had to simplify it
in an attempt to make it clear that everything has changed.

All the waffle that has being going on about the Paris conference etc
is just pointless. It is just not relevant to our energy problem.

It is all happening because the highest price that we can afford is
lower than the lowest price the producers can sell at.
There is no just right price for energy.
Goldilocks is dead !

Read this, it might help.

http://tinyurl.com/zk2c5ok

Baz, Tony, worry not. I am sure I am older than you two and I remember when London suffered SMOG which killed thousands of people. It was fixed in a couple of years.
Now AGW, fear not. We survived the hole in the ozone layer and the Y2K bug. They were both going to destroy us and BILLIONS yes Billions of dollars were given to shyster public servants and other scum and what happened. Er, well, nothing! So do not worry about AGW it is all bulldust and a way of giving more money to the UN. We should all look very concerned and tell them we would love to help but not yet. They will soon move on when they are denied money.

Oh Yes Jbower, well I am not worried about AGW.
It is the wrong problem to worry about.
Everything changed in late 2005 when peak crude oil occurred.

Re the Y2K bug, well that never happened because thousands of computer
programmers worked a lot of overtime so it would not happen.
And then everyone said;
See, I told you it was a lot of rubbish, nothing to worry about !
Oh yes there was something that happened when the millenium ticked
over, but it did not get any publicity & I can't remember what is was.

As an insight, of those that predicted the date of peak oil, two got
it very correct on the date but they also predicted that after the
peak there would be very large volatility in price swings for a small
number of cycles. We are in the 2nd cycle at present and we may get
another cycle. Watch for the price to climb again and the a year approx
later to collapse again.

Bazz,
Interesting article.
But your concerns are ill placed.

The world has an infinit supply of solar and wind renewable energy. Plus other renewable types.

If you read -

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

you will find that large new wind electricity power stations are now cheaper than a new coal power station in Australia. And in a very short time, large solar stations will also be cheaper than coal.

And both of these renewable stations will be so much cheaper than coal stations to run, because their input fuels are zero cost.

And the total lack of coal dust and chimney fallout caused illnesses makes going renewables a no-brainer.

JBower,
Thanks for your comment.
I understand that Marg Thatcher decimated the coal industry, and in so-doing, substantially removed atmospheric pollution in London.

The problem with excessive CO2 in our atmosphere is very different. That CO2 is the key greenhouse blanket preventing our world from freezing has been understood by scientists since the mid 1800s.

The difference is that the degree of warming caused by the CO2 is mostly independent of the daily emmission amount. It is the cumulative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes the problem.

If the world stopped all fossil fuel burning tomorrow, our planet would keep warming for a couple of decades or so. Once CO2 is added, it hangs around for a long time.

We have heated our planet by 1C already, and the impacts are today being felt in lost lives, infrastructue damage and death causing droughts / typhoons, heatwaves and changes to normal climatic cycles - causing great damage to subsistence farmers in Africa and elsewhere.

While you can remember London of old, my concern is that todays children, and their children, could easily be faced with intractable climate problems.

Unless the world acts with urgency.

Hi Tony,

When you say 'cheaper', do you include all the construction costs - were all the twirly bits constructed using wind- or coal-power ?

People, governments, capitalists are not stupid: if wind-power was genuinely - from go to whoa - cheaper than coal etc., then they would be onto it like a shot. What idiot would keep using coal if wind was cheaper ?

Of course, this is Lomborg's point: as soon as wind is cheaper IN TOTAL, the world will leap on it and not a single gram of coal will ever be mined again.

True ?

Joe

Tony, Margaret Thatcher had nothing to do with London in the 1950's! They just changed from smoky coal to what was called "Smokeless fuels" It was virtually an instant fix.
The Y2K bulldust was not even a problem but an opportunity for IT managers to rack up a load of overtime and they certainly milked it for all it was worth.
Hole in the ozone layer ah yes apparently it has cropped up again but as Russia and India are producing lots more CFC's they could be blamed but they won't be because they do not care!
Peak oil do not make me laugh they have still to find that unicorn. Don't worry be happy and let's tax doomsday scenarios and the Greens can pay some tax.
Here is an idea a law that makes any greenie cut off from the grid and go it alone, lets see how long they last lol.

Loudmouth
Yes, the cost to build anything new includes costs of all components and labor costs. Note that Apple is requiring that all factories involved in building their i devices use renewable power. IKEA is similarly using as much renewable power as well. This approach is rapidly spreading, particularly with large US companies.

JBowyer
Some questions for you on Y2K
How many software systems built in the 1970s were still in use in the 1990s?
How many of those systems evolved from Holorith (?) card systems
How many needed to sort data by date?
Because of limited space on Holorith cards, how many systems used two digits to specify year?
Using just two digits for year, how could you sort year 2000 data in correct date order?
So, world wide, how many data files and programs needed updating before 1/1/2000?
Given the number of problems found, how well was that massive task accomplished?

Some people know as little about IT as they know about global warming.

Oh - and did you know that it is green stuff in our world that extracts CO2 from the armosphere and releases oxygen. Do you know that greenies like green stuff, and that if profit were our only motivation in life, you could say goodbye to livability on our planet.

Hi Tony,

I'm glad to hear about Apple. But my point was, can renewable energy be produced more cheaply than fossil-fuel-based energy systems ? I'll have to repeat,

'People, governments, capitalists are not stupid: if wind-power was genuinely - from go to whoa - cheaper than coal etc., then they would be onto it like a shot. What idiot would keep using coal if wind [or solar, or hydro, or tidal] was cheaper ?

'Of course, this is Lomborg's point: as soon as wind is cheaper IN TOTAL, the world will leap on it and not a single gram of coal will ever be mined again.'

Surely we should be working, and pumping money into research, towards cheaper renewables ? Surely that's feasible ?

Merry Christmas, Tony.

Joe

Loudmouth
Joe,
The issue, in Australia, is not really the comparitive cost of new fossil fuel and renewable power stations. It is the cost of any new power station versus cost of keeping old power stations going. Hazelwood in Latrobe Valley produces cheapest electricity but is one of the worlds most polluting power station. It must be shut down, by regulation or via carbon taxing what comes out of its chimneys.

Many in the Libs/Nats want to believe developing countries must have coal based electricity to advance. While we keep evangelising coal, countries with reasonably intelligent leaders are racing to provide solar and wind power to those countries. Other countries are racing towards all electric cars, many of which are self drive, while our stupid pollies pushed to close our car industries.

Our photovoltaic researchers are the best in the world. The total lack of political foresight has caused all that knowledge to be used in China where they now have the biggest solar cell factories in the world. While our stupid government debates if global warming is real or fake, we have lost thousands and thousands of jobs to overseas. Where we were very capable of leading world solar cell development and production, we now import pre-made panels from China.

Before any election, each person standing for election should have to prove he or she can think.

Have a happy Christmas break from forums.
Cheers Tony
(In Canada, for Xmas, where outside temp of -15C)

Hi Tony,

I hope AGW helps to make it warmer for you there :) What tragedies would ensue in Canada from AGW ?

But does it matter if "the total lack of political foresight has caused all that knowledge to be used in China where they now have the biggest solar cell factories in the world" ?

Scale of production surely lowers the costs of renewables, wherever they are produced ? If Chinese solar panels mean lower costs, overall, go to whoa, that coal etc., then surely that's all to the good ?

Yes, I agree about shipping our innovations overseas, but if China can produce so much at lower costs, lower than the costs of fossil-fuelled power, then what's the issue ?

Back to the oven ! And where are those bloody Xmas hats ?! Merry Christmas, Tony.

Joe