Well Erika, you're well on your way to being a great lobby group opinion writer. you have already completely divorced yourself from the need to base your opinions on facts. The use of emotive language in the absence of convincing argument is coming alone as well.

An absolution train wreak of an article its hard to know where to start. but lets she the internal some research work.

1). What government funding did coal fire power stations receive?
(hint: government built and owned).
2). What actually caused the power outage in SA? ( hint: don't read the Australian for research have a read of report of the actual AEMO preliminary report).
3). investigate the protocols of the AEMO and their effectiveness in managing the national Grid. ( Hint you might have to ask an actual expert for help rather the go to the right wing libertarians play book of quotes).
4). try to provide proper reference to your asertion it helps with your credibility, BHP closing down? can you point to reference from the company? ( Hint: Perhaps your thinking of Arrium who was already in receivership.)
5). Do a little bit of research into the subject, What mine closed down, who ran it and why did it close. ( Hint: it wasn't owned by the SA government).
6). What is the base load power requirement for SA and what capacity exist in SA from none renewals? ( Hint: one of these numbers is bigger then the other but not the one you think).

Now if you do the homework set you could be on the path to a valuable contributor to the national debate. Or you could ignore copy paste a few standard replies and keep of the fast track to mindless partisan hackness.

Oh by the way for those playing at home check out this website it puts Australians spending and cost of living into perspective I think, https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/managing-your-money/budgeting/spending/australian-spending-habits

South Australian power has got into trouble due to private interests and incompetence.

Of course alternative energy is doomed to fail. The failure is evident in SA. Just imagine what it will be like when the whole country is blacked out, thanks to RE and climate nutters. And the nutty are getting nuttier. One of the nutters bawled out a few days ago, "Queensland CAN have 50% renewables by 2030!". The nutters think 'deniers' should be dealt with under some law that doesn't exist. The nutters should be certified and confined to keep them out of mischief. Very expensive, virtually sabotaging mischief.

I was going to respond to this, but in all honesty it's such a hodge podge there's nothing solid to comment on.

Never mind, it seems to have found its intended audience, if the hysterical reaction of one miserable old bugger is anything to go by, so I suppose that's some consolation for the author.

I have no disagreements with the article but bear in mind, as far as I know none of the state governments have specific subsidies for wind farms. So why are there so many in SA? I've tried working this out but all I can think of is that there is more empty land in SA and the planning restrictions in other states can be onerous. Can anyone else take that further?

Cobber the Hound's attempt to muddy the waters should be dismissed. The electricity business was state owned for many years in Australia - its now partially privatised - but it was always expected to pay its own way, to the point of returning substantial dividends to the state governments. Renewable energy assets are never expected to do anything but chew up subsidies

Mark, the wind in SA is especially reliable, being at the edge of the Southern Ocean and the great streams of air that swirl around the pole.

The problem is that they are gusty and squally at the best of times, a situation that also obtains across the continent in the Southwest. I did an investigation project at Albany Airport in the late spring some years back.It's an exposed location and my abiding memory is of having to constantly don and doff a thick jacket as the wind rose and fell.

The challenge is to engineer a solution that can average the output over time, so that it doesn't fluctuate excessively. The same can be said of solar PV, although I think some solutions to that are closer than might be widely known.

The green dream of renewable energy is the nightmare we can't wake up from! SIMPLE! Make more expensive and we'll use less of it! Replete with a preferred agrarian subsistence lifestyle! Borrowed from a book and romanticized until no contact with the actual reality!

Which is a dawn to dark gut bust without end! Pigs that get fever and need to be put down! Chickens that go off the lay, come down with something nasty or spread salmonella through remaining eggs!

Then fish won't bite and another enduring drought wipes out the grain harvest! The bank manager arrives with the foreclosure notice and you are forced to endure watching everything you've busted a gut to get, sold under the hammer for a fraction of its worth!

These dream castle dwellers need to wake up and smell the Co2 and understand the only way out is via carbon free power that even the most impoverished nations on earth can afford!

As opposed to just allowing them to starve, and as they do, destroy the natural environment!

As we would if forced down by dint of some of the most obtuse policy paradigms ever invented by the most moribund minds on the planet!

And it's take it or take it!

Dam busters that would allow two thirds of the world poor just starve! Preferred population control measure as they enact/evocate asinine policies that screw economic growth!

Their only answer to enduring Alternatives is just not looking! Or mountains of misinformation!

I've extolled the virtues of SAFE, CLEAN, CHEAP thorium that's less radioactive than a banana, has no weapons spin off or any significant waste, till I'm blue in the face!

But those with power to implement alternate energy policy/capacity to turbocharge growth, are part of the nogo, green labor alliance or have hitched the wagon to the fossil fuel alliance!

Meaning an impassible never ending stalemate even as our once vibrant economy sinks slowly into the sunset!
Go figure?
Alan B.

Craig Minns
- thanks for that.. your suggestion may be part of the answer. I'm fully aware of the problem of wind being unreliable. The problem is, as you know, they've found that when the wind goes down it does so over the whole of South East Aus.. even Tassie so those tracking it say.. the only solution I've seen that makes any sense is to import renewables over large distances using DC lines.. which would be horrifically expensive..

I'm not anti renewables per se since I've had PV since 2005. What I don't like is their guaranteed market share and what are unambiguously generous subsidies, unlike say the diesel tax break for coal miners. I think all that should stop when the RET supposedly expires in 2020 after which the main driver should be emissions targets. Then wind and solar will stand or fall on their merits as low carbon affordable cost. The big players who have wind farms, solar farms and fossil fuel generators can work out what percentage of each, noting the CO2 cap must shrink over time.

Given the mediocre results of SA, Germany and California and the lack of cheap Gwh scale energy storage I'm fairly sure it can't be done without a lot of nuclear. That is for serious emissions cuts from 800-900 grams of CO2 per kwh down to 50-100 grams. That's for the power sector. Then there's replacing a few million fuel guzzling cars with EVs to get transport sector emissions way down. All the non-nuclear scenarios seem to be riddled with leaps of faith.

D.C. was abandoned way back when they discovered it could only be pushed around a mile from the generator, before encountering mountains of resistance! The mountain pass is A.C. which in a D.C. Plant can be generated by a D.C motor turning an A.C. alternator?

Even then incorporating significant losses, around 20% in the initial conversion, an averaged 11% in transmission line losses and as much as 64% distribution losses.

So whichever way you play it. small walk away safe thorium power plants that can be mass produced as modules, then trucked to the consumers virtually anywhere as very localised power that produces insignificant losses and no carbon save that created in manufacture!

Even wind towers/solar farms have a manufacture and transport carbon footprint!

If the average 40 MW's produced by a module that fits inside a shipping container and if 40 MW' are insufficient, then more modules can be bolted on until the very local demand is met!

Meaning most transmission and distribution losses can be eliminated?

And yes, they're walk away safe and I'd have one in my backyard!

Thorium is abundant and needs no enrichment, produces no plutonium and just a fraction of the waste produced by current uranium reactors.

There's enough thorium in the soil to power the world for a thousand years and thousands more in igneous rock!

The only reason this ultra cheap NUCLEAR technology was abandoned in the seventies, because it can't be used to build a bomb.

Nuclear technology has already proved it can be used to harvest carbon from seawater, then combine it with hydrogen harvested from that same source to produce jet fuel replacing hydrocarbons! Ditto diesels and petrol replacing methanol!

Plastics made from the methane and Co2 created in bio-digesters is done, much to the considerable distress of Lord Monckton!

See U tube and Thorium lectures/google scholar. And be reasonably well educated on carbon free energy, even if BORED BRAINLESS, the condition those welded to so called renewables, have as their starting point!?
Alan B.

Hi Mark,
Yes, HVDC linking geographically diverse sources is one solution that offers some promise. HVDC is expensive to build because of the terminal equipment required, but much more efficient over time, since the only losses are resistive. It can also be made resistant to weather and other natural disasters because it can be buried with no additional losses.

It also has the advantage that linking additional sources to a HVDC line is a straightforward matter of voltage conversion, there are no phasing issues to worry about.

It's most certainly got to be a part of any long-term solution to energy security.

As for cost, that is reducing over time, as new technology is developed to manage high DC currents with semi-conductors. There will soon come a point at which the lifetime TCO makes HVDC a logical preferred alternative to HVAC distribution.

NZ has been operating with HVDC to link the north and south islands for some time, very successfully.

An excellent article Erica, although I am not aware of government subsidies of wind and solar solving any problems.
You should be encouraged by the Hound”s comment. He has a record of being always wrong in 100% of his posts.His misapprehension of the position in South Australia typifies his ignorance.

The south north link connecting N.Z's South Island to the north was slung across as an extreme example of irrational thinking! [And, to stop the smaller island from floating away from the larger mainland? Ha, Ha LOL.]

And because some moribund bird brain kiwi idealogues thought the south's green RENEWABLE power was inexhaustible and overly abundant? And therefore could be wasted pushing power upline in spite of the considerable losses/WASTE encountered in the EXPECTED resistance! Logic would have instead, created more jobs and wealth creation closer to the (shaky island) source!

Besides, N.Z. has mineral sands from which valuable minerals have been recovered; and where there, as here treated as an almost worthless waste material that had/has to be disposed of?
And dumbly used as memory serves, on our Gold Coast as (cheap filler) sand placed under concrete slabs, (millions of tons?) to improve and stabilise the footing?
And think, just 500 tons of this stuff would power the entire world for a whole year! (Kirk Sorensen, Google tech talks) A good businessman knows when cut the losses and get out!

Even then there could be a transitional role for beleaguered coal as the basis for diesel derived from (cheap energy dependant) transformed coal!? And given our reserves of this mineral and the methane it contains, possible complete independence in traditional fuel and at far less cost than that supplied at economy crippling prices provided by putin's puppets?

And where we might replace exports paid for with our shrinking export incomes, with locally sourced transitional alternatives that comes with win/win enduring jobs/local wealth creation!
Alan B.

Alan,
losses in HVDC are purely resistive, whereas in AC circuits there are also reactive losses, especially corona effects in which the electric fields induced by the AC interact with the surrounding environment.

Resistive losses are proportional to the square of the current, so increasing the voltage for a given amount of power reduces the losses since it reduces the current. this is true for both AC and DC circuits. Inductive losses, on the other hand, are related to the electric field flux density, which increases with voltage. The reason that HVAC lines are mounted so high is to minimise corona losses due to interaction of the electric field with the ground.

There are a couple of reasons for preferring AC for local distribution, including the cost of terminal equipment and the large existing installed base of AC powered equipment. However, HVDC makes a lot of sense for distribution lines.

Especially those laid directly on the sea floor surrounded by conductive salt sea water!

Has anyone else noticed how opponents of renewable energy almost invariably treat every technical challenge as if it were an insurmountable obstacle?

________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B,

Getting energy from where it's generated (and has a low value) to where it's needed (and has a high value) is entirely rational, and the energy required to do so is an order of magnitude less than you think!

What's irrational is your droning on about thorium fission power. It certainly has lots of potential, but we know neither the build cost nor the running cost.

And have you actual evidence that the processed mineral sands from NZ actually have any thorium in them?

India, China and other countries are building an additional 2500 coal fired power plants. This suggests that our sacrificing of our economy will do little to reduce overall CO2 emissions. Further, our atmosphere and oceans contain 38,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 and this gas moves between the two depending on whether the planet is in the warming part or the cooling part of the climate cycle - we know, for instance, that 96% of CO2 emissions are natural. NASA scientist studying the sunspot cycles say that the current spotless sun means we are now entering a cooling phase of the cycle - as was the case during the Little Ice Age - although the severity of the current cooling phase is still unknown.

Perhaps government funds and efforts would be better directed at coping with the coming cold.

Hi Gerard,
I think fossil fuels (including nuclear) are going to be a vital source of electrical power for perhaps the next 20-30 years, which is of the order of the lifetime of a power plant built today. The transition to renewable sources is going to take some time and as they come on stream we'll be able to retire older and less efficient fossil plants progressively.

There may well be a need for some fossil generation in perpetuity - it's difficult to predict what new technologies will be developed over the next few decades.

On the subject of planetary cooling, I tend to the view that the climatic regime over the past several hundred years is something of an anomaly, but I don't think we know enough to be confident in saying its due to atmospheric carbon increase as a result of human activity. It may well be, but we may have it all wrong. In the meantime, surely it's prudent to keep our powder dry, as it were, by keeping our planetary stores of highly reduced carbon in that form? If it turns out that the climate does enter a cooling phase as seems likely, then all of that would be available to help ameliorate the worst effects. We know that we are past due for a new major cooling cycle that has lead to extended ice age conditions in the past.

It's nice to see some interesting questions being asked, thanks.

I should have also mentioned that I don't see any "sacrificing" of the economy to transition to renewables. Quite the contrary in fact, since there will be new industries developed, which will require new skill sets and new workforce needs.

Our present economy is failing to meet the needs of a large part of the populace. The ABC reported on the weekend that some 13+% of the population is living in precarious economic circumstances. We can't keep pretending that all is golden.

I must admit that I find it staggering that an adult can believe that a few extra taxpayer funded jobs can compensate for the vast loss of jobs that will occur when bulk electricity prices skyrocket. Perhaps a comparison to the oil price shock of the 70s should give one an idea.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1919/oil/effect-of-higher-oil-prices/

When the carbon tax came in a plethora of energy dependent companies closed up shop incl the Aluminium smelters, a blast furnace at Blue scope etc etc, and 75% of car manufacturing jobs were lost.

Not only the large industries will have a huge cost increase, but every single one of the 400 000 odd small businesses.

Secondly a few technical errors:
Nuclear fuel is not a fossil fuel.
Coal fired plants normally last 40-60yrs and nuclear plant longer still, not 20-30yrs.
Coal and Nuclear plants can be phased out when there is a cost effective method of storing energy, or voters are willing to give up their free time and disposable income.
Increasing energy costs will push more people into poverty not less.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"...

Shadow,

You're making the mistake of assuming that bulk electricity prices will skyrocket. But there's no reason why they should. Renewables, if financed efficiently, have the potential to produce cheaper electricity most of the time.

"When the carbon tax came in a plethora of energy dependent companies closed up shop incl the Aluminium smelters, a blast furnace at Blue scope etc etc, and 75% of car manufacturing jobs were lost."
Considering our dollar and what was happening overseas, that's hardly surprising.

Iceland opened a new hydroelectric power station. Coal fired electricity couldn't compete with that for aluminium smelting. And good riddance! We shouldn't be so environmentally irresponsible as to use coal to power aluminium smelters. Even gas is something we should aim to avoid for that purpose.

Our steelworks were having trouble competing with subsidised ones in China. And cars were no longer the high value product they had once been. The carbon tax pushed up prices a bit, but our high dollar did far more damage.

What nuclear plant's lasted over 60 years?

Craig,

Actually the sky is not falling, and there is no need to panic at the dire predictions of the chicken littles in the greens and wreck the economy to meet ideologically driven emission targets.

Aidan,

As the present policy is that the users of the electricity pay for its costs, then huge spending on renewables can only lead to huge electricity prices. And while you still have a fantasy about endless free money, the rest of the world doesn't.

Secondly the smelting moved from high efficiency plants in Aus to low efficiency plants mostly in China driven by coal.

SM,
I have never said anything about ideology, my argument is based on economics.

You really are desperate.

Craig,

You have no clue about economics. Please quote one economist that thinks borrowing $1trillion to increase business and living costs is a good idea.

If you've got a grand plan that costs that much I'd like a job please.

Craig,

Funny you should mention it, but the laughable 100% renewable scheme that you posted a link to, at their own costings came to $800bn, and at costings based in the USA came to double that.

Awesome, you actually read something!

It's interesting that you're now trying to discredit that particular plan's economics, when only a couple of days ago you were trying to pretend that there was some imaginary technical barrier.

Here's an interesting idea for you, SM: try thinking beyond the next paypacket.

Yet another back down Craig? You seem to be doing a lot of those.

I said that there is a technical limit to the % of renewables that you can add to a network without having to add backup. Presently that appears to be around the 30% figure. If this is not true, perhaps you could explain why Germany is building new coal fired power stations? I guess that you will cower away from that too.

I never said 100% renewable power was impossible as anything is possible with enough money. The problem is that it can't be done without creating massive economic hardship. A $1tn debt to replace existing and functioning infrastructure, or raising the wholesale price of power in the order of 4-10x is lunacy

What do you think I'm "backing down" from SM?

I'm glad to see you've now accepted that renewables are feasible though. What took you so long?

Shadow,

I don't have a fantasy about endless free money. Of course there's a cost, but I don't make unjustified assumptions about what that cost is, nor do I care your fantasies about limits to the amount of money available to sovereign governments.

Under the current arrangements, the cost of financing renewables far exceeds the cost of the renewables themselves. So the obvious step in making renewable energy cheaper is to stop trying to make a profit financing it, and instead just aim to break even and pass the savings on the the electricity users.

Craig,

"If you've got a grand plan that costs that much I'd like a job please." - Is what you backed down from, amongst several technical claims.

Either you are confused or lying again, I no point conceded that 100% renewables is feasible.

Pretty much anything is possible with enough money, however, 100% renewables is a long, long, long way from being feasible, and I suggest that you consult a dictionary before making such a blunder.

Unless you can find a lazy $1000 000 000 000 lying around, 100% renewables is as feasible than establishing a colony on Mars.

Aidan,

My fantasies on money supply seem to be shared by all respected economists, so I will stick with them.

SM,
At no time have I advocated a shift to 100% renewable energy. The reference was merely to counter your usual dodgy claims that it isn't possible. You see, the fact that I refer to a scientific study simply means that I found it interesting, I don't go looking for advertorials to support my proselytising of predetermined positions based on perceived self-interest. That's your schtick.

As anyone who is honestly following the various discussions on this topic can verify, I've consistently advocated a model in which thermal power backs up renewables until it can be phased out as new technologies mature.

Of course, those honest readers don't include yourself, so you can continue on sad and sorry mission of fighting the imaginary demons attacking your wallet and I'll bid you farewell once again.

"At no time have I advocated a shift to 100% renewable energy", followed by ... "I've consistently advocated a model in which thermal power backs up renewables until it can be phased out as new technologies mature."

These statements are conflicting Aren't you talking about renewables with storage, and isn't that 100% renewables? Either you have massive faith in an astonishing future storage technology breakthrough or in the ultimate affordability of preposterously massive, fail-safe infrastructure around current technology.

There's an almighty gulf between possibility and feasibility. Nuclear is possible, and demonstrably feasible. 100% renewables is possible, but far, far from feasible. Then you have Aidan's money creation that is a mechanism for turning resources away from everything else citizens demand. Someone has to pay.

Thinking big is limitless. Doing big has constraints.

Craig,

Yet another porkie. Perhaps you have a pathological inability to tell the difference between the truth and fiction.

I never claimed that 100% renewables is impossible. I have just shown that it is vastly expensive and unreliable with the technology that we have for the foreseeable future.

All that you have shown is that you have a flimsy grasp of technical issues, no concept of economics, and fast and loose attitude with the truth.

Hi Luciferase,
yes, you're right, I phrased that comment poorly.

I am strongly of the view that the way forward is to work toward a renewables-based economy in a managed way, using the best technology available over time.

Here's one that's probably going to be a serious step on the way.

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/10/20/perovskite-solar-cell-design-shows-promise/

Perovskites were only shown to be potentially useful for photovoltaics a few years ago and the development curve has been very steep. The same thing applies to some other forms of thin film and there are others still waiting in the wings, including dye-sensitised titanate and stannate, which Australia has a strong presence in.

Silicon has been a useful technology and will continue to be for some time, but it will inevitably be replaced by the next generation of technology.

A renewables based economy, apart from being more efficient economically, will also provide a more good jobs than thermal ever can. Solar panels at present have a life of about 20 years at their rated output. They're still putting out power, but not as much.
Typically a module is warranteed for 80% of its rated output at either 20 or 25 years, depending on the manufacturer and the technology. That means that if users are consuming the same amount of power they will need to consider either adding or replacing modules over time, creating ongoing work for installation crews.

Similarly for wind. The distributed nature of the generation resource in both cases means that unlike a thermal plant which might provide a thousand or 2 jobs for a couple of years during construction and then a couple of hundred directly and indirectly for the next 20-30 years, there will be thousands of jobs in communities indefinitely.

The energy generation and distribution firms are already on board, it's only a few whose opposition borders on religious zealotry who are resisting the tide of history. Never mind, they'll go the way of all dodos soon enough.

Shallow Preacher, tell us who you are and who you work for. I dare you.

Craig,

In spite of your weasel words, it is clear that you have entirely missed all the points.

Firstly, that renewables promises to employ a small army to permanently maintain them indicates that the power they produce will forever be hugely expensive, and in an economy that is already close to full employment where the shortage is in skilled labour, there is very little benefit to the economy from these jobs.

Secondly, the potential technology advances that you point to will be able to produce slightly cheaper power when it is not needed. The Achilles heel of the renewable industry is the inability to produce power on demand. A couple of years ago all I heard from greenies is how hot rocks geothermal was going to produce huge quantities of cheap base load energy. Today hot rocks is dead and solar thermal is the next saviour, that it cost 5x what present generation costs is ignored. As far as religious zealotry, you can't a better example of the renewables activists.

P.S. You "dare me" to reveal my identity and place of work. FFS grow up. Your candor wrt yours has added zero to your credibility.

Hi Shady Moocher,
I guess we can take it as read that you're just trolling and have no genuine courage in your convictions then.

Which was pretty obvious a long time ago to anybody paying attention.

I hope you have plenty of Super: IFM is pretty good. they've just invested $billions in buying ausgrid and plan to upgrade it in expectation of the boom in renewables over the next couple of decades. Of course, they're long term investors, you might be more comfortable with a shorter term solution. How about Shonky Super, who have an extensive portfolio of shares in some promising technology firms: Roughrider Sulkies, Fester and Stench Nightsoil Services, Holden Manufacturing, that sort of thing...

Craig,

The 27% emission reduction target by 2030 will not necessarily threaten the network stability, and it does not take an Einstein to work out that there will be a major build of renewable energy generation between now and 2030, which is why IFM paid top dollar to buy Ausgrid who builds and essentially rents out its networks and who is set to get its snout deeply into the pockets of business and consumers. The question is whether the 16bn it paid will deliver the yields it expects.

If your definition of a troll is someone debates the issues based on facts, technology and economics, then that describes me.

My definition of a troll is someone that states their opinions as facts, lies, and when challenged resorts to ad hominems and abuse. This definition of a troll fits you like a glove.

From you online presence what appears to me is that you have no qualifications (probably didn't even finish school), ran a small business (and went bankrupt), and given your fierce defense of men convicted of domestic violence, were married and divorced with a fair chance of DV involved. You are trying to start a new life by getting a degree (and struggling) whilst living out of a rented room, and spending your spare time trolling.

Hi Slurry Muddler,
it's nice that you've taken an interest, but I'm afraid your detective work isn't as good as your imagination, so no bonus shares for you!

Never mind, nobody is holding a gun to your head to make you agree with anything. You're entirely free to do as you please, even if it does involve skulking around in the shadows with your hackles up like a dog that's expecting to be kicked.

You see, nothing you say or do is of any import in the reality of the economic necessity to move away from thermal power toward renewables. Adapt or die, it's your choice.

Ouch, I must have really been on the mark. You really are a sad little man.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on "the economic necessity to move away from thermal power toward renewables" as there seems to be nothing written on it. Or perhaps you are just making it up again?

Well, of course, if it hasn't been invented somewhere else it can't be any good, can it?

Soooooo, you just made it up. Do you just post whatever BS pops into your head?

Perhaps you have a one liner that fill a gap in Einstein's quantum theory work?

Shadow,

I share your concern, but not your conclusions, about the costs of renewables. Their maintenance does not require a small army, and is cheap compared to fossil fuel costs.

When the Repower Port Augusta people gave a presentation to EA, I questioned their counting local employment as a benefit. But they did make the good point that Port Augusta had a high unemployment rate, particularly for unskilled jobs (as mirror washers would be).

Regarding respected economists, there's nothing like universal agreement. And while the proportion of respected professionals with a particular viewpoint is usually quite a good indicator in most fields, there are good reasons why it doesn't hold in economics. Propositions that were true under the gold standard and fixed exchange rates are often false under the current conditions, but many economists failed to grasp the implications of that. I'm not asking you to take my word for it, of course - I'm recommending you evaluate the "respected" economists' claims and predictions. You'll find they don't match the facts, which is hardly surprising as they're working from a theoretical basis that includes demonstrably false assumptions. Unfortunately they don't seem to lose any respect for getting it wrong - it's not called the dismal science for nothing.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,

You misunderstand. I'm not advocating turning resources away from everything else citizens demand; I'm advocating exploiting resources that would otherwise be idle.

Hi Aidan,
There is very little disagreement among economists these days, actually. The case for an orderly transition away from fossil fuels is pretty much watertight. Where there is quibbling is about the way to manage it, having regard to the need to avoid catastrophic short-term disruption to existing industry while encouraging take up of new technologies.

The water is muddied by the sort of calamitising and opinion shopping that people like SM engage in, but this too shall pass. There are very few industries that can't be accommodated within a renewable dominated power generation model even today, although many may need to examine their models for best practise.

It's not just generation that is changing, so is demand-side technology. My small factory consumed 12kW just in highbay lighting (mercury discharge lamps), whereas the same job can be done better with LEDs using around 3kW. That's a power saving of around 40MWh for one small business in a year. When you add in all the advances in display, lighting and control and start thinking clearly about operations the amount of saving that can be had is really large. As I mentioned previously, the UK has already started mothballing generation plants due to reduced demand from lighting

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24805-electricity-use-drops-as-uk-passes-peak-light-bulb/

As can be seen, peak demand has dropped by nearly 7% in the UK between 2007 and 2012 and undoubtedly that trend has continued and will accelerate as LEDs supplant CFLs.

Allowing a few businesses with lazy or dim management to hold the rest of the world to ransom is criminally stupid.

Aidan,

Whatever our opinions, the way renewable power is funded in Aus and in most countries is by guaranteed energy subsidies per kWhr which are paid by the energy retailers and passed on directly to the consumers. The larger the % renewables that get this subsidy, the larger the hit to the consumers.

As for the maintenance costs of solar PV and wind turbines, the low availability of turbines, or solar PV, their small size (relative to the 300-1000MW steam turbines) and their relative inaccessibility , the numbers of skilled people required to maintain renewable generation is far higher than a power station with 2GW of turbines only a short walk from a workshop.

While turbines don't have fuel costs, their cost of capital is vastly higher per kWhr generated.

As for your particular version of national debt management, regardless of the overwhelming majority of economists and texts that differ from your viewpoint, I personally also find little to no merit in it, and will simply in the future agree to disagree.

Craig,

Once again what you post is complete BS

1 If your mercury vapour factory lighting consumed 12kW industrial LED fittings would consume closer to 10kW not 3kW, as I suspect you have used the ratio between incandescent lamps /LED rather than MV/LED.

http://www.p-2.com/blog/is-led-the-most-efficient-lighting-technology/

2 Having read the NS article it is clear that the generation plants being mothballed is not due to the reduction in lighting demand, and that there is no claim that the entire reduction in peak demand is due lighting savings (probably more due to the GFC).

In fact the only claim made is that the risk to the network is lower thanks to lower peak demand assisted by energy efficient lights.

Hi Sludge Mincer,
Thanks for the praise, it's always nice to have confirmation one is on the right track.

I'm afraid you're not thinking through the whole point with LEDs which is that they can be placed closer to the point of use, meaning they can be much smaller whilst still providing good illumination. They're not as hot you see? They also don't need to be stuck with the highbay form factor, they're able to be made much more flexibly than that. They can also be demand-driven, which is to say that they don't need to be left on, unlike thermal power stations. That means they don't consume anything at all when they're not doing anything, unlike your business model.

Never mind, at least you tried.

You see, unlike yourself, who is unable to actually think through a problem, but jumps on the first thing he sees to confirm his preexisting biases, I'm able to consider alternative options. Actually, come to think of it, my dog can do that as well; only this morning he decided to leave his lamb offcuts and come looking for one of his jerky treats, without anybody telling him anything, but he is a cattle dog cross collie, so it might be unreasonable to expect you to meet the standard he sets.

Any further questions, feel free to ask.

We seem to have strayed from the point, here.
There is no science to show any measurable effect on climate by human emissions, so the assertions of the fraud promoters are baseless. They also wish to silence their opposition.

Recently 20 senior climate scientists wrote to President Obama and his attorney general to support a senator’s call that the administration mount a ‘RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change’.
Remarkably, Dr Roger Pielke Jr, professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, then discovered that the lead signatory of the letter from the 20 scientists, Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, has been paying himself and his wife $1.5 million a year, via his ‘non-profit’ Institute of Global Environment & Society Inc. of which he is President and CEO. The money came entirely from public grants and was on top of his $250,000 university salary. Two of his daughters were also on the institute’s payroll. Is it any wonder that he very much does not want anybody to conclude that climate change is not a crisis? Is it any wonder he wants sceptics silenced by prosecution? And is it possible that the huge flow of money he receives has incentivised him to (in his own words) ‘knowingly deceive the American people about the risks of climate change’ in the other direction?
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-the-climate-wars-and-the-damage-to-science/

There is no justification for "renewables"
We need reliable, proven coal fired power stations.

Craig,

I can see why your factory went bankrupt if you thought that MV lamps only went into highbays and not into low bays and general area lights. It's sad that you didn't realise that timers, motion sensor and local fluorescent lighting (as efficient as LED and cool) couldn't do the same job 20yrs ago. It is a pity to see a business run into the ground by an incompetent manager. It is clear that your collie is smarter than you.

I have heard that in Brisbane a 600ml beer can is called a wife beater, using your personal experience, perhaps you could shed some light on why.

Thanks again Shady Character,
Are there really such things as Low Bays? Well I never! Next you'll be telling me that the tooth fairy isn't real!

My dog is much smarter than me, but he puts up with my lack of brains (reluctantly) for the food. He's a pretty good role model actually, you could take some lessons. He always says please and thank you for a start. I guess expert managers like you with a dozen degrees and huge erm...factories to play with don't need to bother with such fripperies

Craig arrived at "I am strongly of the view that the way forward is to work toward a renewables-based economy in a managed way, using the best technology available over time."

I tend to agree with SM that these are weasel words to avoid addressing the fact that RE can never be despatchable/on-demand.

There is no secret money bag or yet unthought of energy storage solution that will change matters. Efficiencies and incremental improvements in RE will not free us from AGW. The laws of physics don't change to match blind faith.

Also, what exactly is the "economic" imperative driving Oz towards a renewables-based economy? Why not a nuclear based one?

Shadow,

I am aware of the use of feedin tariffs to cross subsidise renewable energy. The situation is more complicated than you've described because the power from the renewables does drive wholesale prices down. Nevertheless it makes sense to minimize the need for those subsidies, which means making renewable power generation cheaper.

As for the maintenance costs of solar PV and wind turbines, most of the former have no moving parts at all. And while the latter do have some significant disadvantages over thermal power, there are also some significant advantages: no great thermal stresses and no combustion system to maintain.

"While turbines don't have fuel costs, their cost of capital is vastly higher per kWhr generated."
Exactly. like the mechanisation process, there's a shift from operational costs to fixed costs. Generally that's good for efficiency. But right now the financing process is very inefficient, with interest rates the power generation companies pay being much higher than the interest rate the government pays for its money. Fix this inefficiency and the subsidies can be slashed and we can increase the use of renewables while getting cheaper electricity.

Regarding government debt, I urge you to reconsider. Agreeing to disagree on what's happening and what can be done is a copout: the only time it makes any sense is when wasting time with people who can't be swayed by evidence (like Leo Lane).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Luciferase,

There is no technical reason why RE can never be despatchable/on-demand. We will of course need more storage, but we won't have to resort to unthought of technology.

How many days, weeks, months of storage defines availability "on-demand"? Nobody knows. There is no way we could ever say electricity from renewables is despatchable in the sense thermally generated electricity is (without throwing in hydro and geothermal, where they may apply, to blur the basic matter)

Why don't we just suck all the CO2 we produce out of the atmosphere and keep burning coal? That's technically possible. Then we could make transport fuel from CO2, that's possible too. And so on ad nauseum.

Oz hasn't Germany's luxury of importing from hydro or nuclear sources outside its border, or of dumping electricity back upon them. The feasibility of 100% despatchable renewables has not been demonstrated anywhere, but that doesn't stop the dreamers from insisting our island Oz can do it.

Here's one, why don't we build nuclear reactors?

Luciferase says:” Why don't we just suck all the CO2 we produce out of the atmosphere and keep burning coal?”.
Because there is no scientific basis for the demonization of CO2, so why do we not simply burn coal.
It has not been shown that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.There is no science to support this baseless assertion.

Aidan,

When you bring a supplier of electricity who is heavily subsidized, erratic and whose power has to be purchased at the market rate, it shrinks the rest of the market for other generators. While the wholesale price may temporily dip, the closure of coal fired power stations means that the wholesale price rises again. SA is a typical example of this where power costs have shot up.

Solar PV is normally situated in dry dusty areas and the cells usually build up dust that drops their yield, and require regular cleaning, and the electronics that turn the low voltage dc to ac needs regular checks. Secondly as the radiation from the sun eventually degrades the cells, eventually these need to be replaced, so while lower in maintenance, it is far from non existant. Wind turbines by their very nature are spread out and and the travelling plus a climb equivalent to 25 stories limits the productivity of those servicing them, and being large rotary equipment with multiple bearing systems the maintenance needs to be regular, and the heavy wear and tear generally limits the life span of a wind turbine to 20 years.

As far as the financing goes, even at 0% interest, the repayment on wind generation would cost more than coal generation, direct government issuing of loans would drive up the debt and interest rate paid on bonds, as would government guarantees.

With respect to our previous debate on government financing, having enjoyed the rigour of a 3 year degree in economics, I found your arguments with respect to government debt unconvincing and still hold to the monetary theories of a string of Nobel laureates.

Hi Windscreen Bugsplatter,
Whether you want to cling to outdated models of doing business or not doesn't change the reality of their obsolescence. I urge you not to change a thing.

Luciferase,
Nuclear may be a possible adjunct to renewables, but for the medium term coal is essential, to be phased out over time in favour of renewables backed up with gas, then renewables and storage.

Craig,

Which of your modern business models led to your bankruptcy?

LF,

I am a strong supporter of the nuclear option that is the cheapest, safest and most reliable GHG free generation system presently available.

Craig says, "Nuclear may be a possible adjunct to renewables, but for the medium term coal is essential, to be phased out over time in favour of renewables backed up with gas, then renewables and storage."

I think your points have been dealt with, but rather than argue them, you restate them. So I reprise, in brief:

Once you have nuclear on the main grid, renewables are redundant. Their place is off-grid.

100% renewables will never be guaranteed despatchable, so is a road to a dead-end.

There is only one guaranteed pathway to addressing AGW. It's not renewables on the grid, so I oppose the wastage of resources towards this end.

....and I oppose carbon pricing that benefits renewables.