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 > 85% renewable electricity system cheaper than renewing the current coal and gas > Comments

85% renewable electricity system cheaper than renewing the current coal and gas : Comments

By Ben Rose, published 30/6/2016

The modelling I present here focuses on electricity generation. It disproves two myths –that renewable electricity is not workable without baseload fossil fuelled power and that in any case it is too expensive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Actually Roses1 I think baseload generation is the key to both low carbon and price stability. If 100% of generation came from intermittent or short buffer sources which then dropped out peaking plant (most likely gas fired) has to take up the slack. With baseload only 50% or so has to be made up.

After we've built several large Gen 3 reactors I'd expect the LCOE to get down to ~$90 per Mwh. Batteries large or small need to add up to Twh capacity or at the very least tens of Gwh. There's no sign of that yet.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:06:52 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
In answer to the comment about SEN's assumed discount rates being too high.
Yes, good point. Both private and government rates are going down and are currently below our conservative estimates of 10% and 5%. Lower discount rates means that the capital intensive options (such as renewables) will be relatively cheaper, so now is a great time to be installing them.

Higher gas prices such as we are currently experiencing are and will make fossil generation more expensive, adding risk and uncertainty. Wind and solar of course use no fuel and are not exposed to that risk.

We deliberately made conservative assumptions so we couldn't be accused of costing bias in favor of renewable options.

Ben Rose
Posted by Roses1, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:19:25 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
Time to consider nuclear power for nonstop 24/7 reliable supply of electricity and why not? Australia is already one of the world's richest sources of Uranium, so we are already of to a good start. We don't have to exclusively use it to the detriment of other electricity generation techniques BUT it should be considered a major player in our countries future energy portfolio.

Other reasons:

1. Unmatched reliability
Summer and winter have one thing in common: Electricity demand rises dramatically, as the power grid shoulders the added load from air conditioners or heating systems running at full blast. Reliable nuclear power plants generate vast amounts of electricity, and extreme weather brings their value to the electricity grid into sharp focus. Learn how nuclear energy helps to keep our homes comfortable and businesses humming.

2. Electricity supply
It’s a secure source that we can depend on 24 hours a day because it isn’t subject to changing weather conditions, unpredictable fuel cost fluctuations or over-dependence on foreign suppliers.

3. Energy diversity
Energy diversity helps balance the benefits, risks and costs associated with producing electricity. Nuclear energy plays a vital role in America’s diverse electricity portfolio because it is a clean-air source that produces large amounts of affordable electricity around the clock. Maintaining a diverse supply of fuels for electricity production protects consumers from potential price volatility from any one fuel.

4. Life cycle emissions
All energy sources produce greenhouse gases in the life cycle of a facility—from construction to operation. However, several independent studies show that nuclear energy’s “life-cycle” emissions of carbon dioxide are comparable to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro power. Those independent studies are easily located using your favorite search engine.

Also, lets not forget that current designs of nuclear reactors are significantly more efficient and safer than anything made in the last century. So we have the added benefit, if implemented this decade, of cashing in on the latest and greatest designs.

Nuclear power was one of 10 recommendations to come out of the recent South Australia Royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle.
Posted by Rojama, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:39:48 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
A Fairy Story:

Well folks

We all know China and India will have 100 millions Additional vehicles = cars and dirty diesel trucks and trains over the next decade.

But we Australians don't have to worry about that because, you know, Australia has a big impermeable Plastic Bubble over it.

So with a bit of simple modelling we can save Australia, all by ourselves. Or we can use Australia's heavy moral weight in the world (we actually have Zilch) to shame China and India into staying poor and not building vehicles to improve the lives of their teaming growing 100s of millions.

Or they can can build 100s millions of disposable Lithium-ion batteries to power all those vehicles with miraculous mains electricity :)

Thank you Ben Rose for yet more Greenie money-making Rubbish.

The End
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 30 June 2016 5:24:45 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
What utter garbage you activists talk. That is putting it nicely too. There are other words for the telling of untruths too.

The only way you can make any sort of case for renewables is to saddle coal, by far the most efficient, with an emissions charge, equal to or exceeding, the cost of the actual generation. This is a total contrived bit of bulldust, & you know it.

Even places like Germany, the poster boy for renewables are now running as hard as they can away from the total catastrophe. Their offshore wind doesn't work, onshore wind installation is stopped, & they are already loosing industry almost as fast as us.

It is now totally obvious from hundreds of peer reviewed research papers, that CO2 has a very very minor effect on anything but vegetation. Global warming promoters can produce absolutely no evidence of harm, but the satellites show the greening of deserts all round the globe.

I am so sick of those with vested interests in alternate energy getting away with huge untruths whenever they open their mouths.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 30 June 2016 5:36:26 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 real idiots commenting here are those so gormless as not to understand, we need base load power! And yes, as proved by recently built working examples; that's available as solar thermal and heat retaining towers utilising liquid lithium thorium salt. And the available working example proves it can be rolled out for around the same money as comparable coal!

However, this technology is best suited to desert regions with maximum sunshine, and have the failing of still needing to be connected to a national grid! Which basically doubles the end user price!

Why would anybody think that uranium is the way to go, when we have so much more thorium! And where uranium consumes around 5% of its fissile material, leaving around 95% as highly toxic waste, thorium consumes around 95% leaving around 5% as vastly less toxic waste that can be safely used in long life space batteries.

As a knowledgeable Geoff remarks, this is old technology that has no weapons spin off! And is far safer than the oxide reactors! Meaning they can be built almost anywhere you have good bedrock.

The Indians are working on a 300 MW prototype, which in operation as soon as this year? Would power many an industrial estate or smelter with carbon free energy not even hydro could compete with? Unless the industrial estate was virtually next door, as opposed to being connected to a great white elephant of a very vulnerable and costly national grid!

Thorium reactors can be built almost anywhere? A good businessman knows when to cut his losses and get out and we need to get out of coal! But particularly privatised power, with its gold plated price gouged delivery system and total lack of any self evident vestige of price moderating competition!

I've read many of Adian's comments over time and note, when he's out of his very shallow intellectual depth resorts to customary abuse!

Y'all have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 30 June 2016 5:42:13 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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