The Forum > Article Comments > Wind storm of green energy is a flat calm > Comments
Wind storm of green energy is a flat calm : Comments
By Mark S. Lawson, published 14/12/2015Renewable energy was a major topic at the Paris climate conference but in Australia investment in green energy projects has tailed off to almost nothing.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 14 December 2015 9:43:45 PM
| |
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 Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 14 December 2015 10:21:29 PM
| |
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.” Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 1:55:15 AM
| |
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. Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 7:47:58 AM
| |
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 Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 8:16:09 AM
| |
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. Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 8:18:18 AM
|
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?