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 > Way to cheaper electricity littered with false conceptions > Comments

Way to cheaper electricity littered with false conceptions : Comments

By Graham Young, published 2/10/2018

Power prices are not an issue that should ever have become hostage to politics, and they are not one that will be ignored in an election campaign.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
My, oh my, it happened but I have no idea what caused it to happen this time and not for the other times when I post a www address and it fails to give a link.

Was the Internet fairy working to help me tonight?
Posted by OzSpen, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 6:32:00 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
I learned here that if you remove the "s" from links with https, they work.

Re what ScoMo's gov't will do is still a mystery. The "G" in the NEG could be retained by requiring energy providers to guarantee reliability. So, if there is a renewables component in a provider's mix it is backed up by its own or contracted FF generation, or storage. This, together with removal of all forms of federal subsidy, is what I hope to be hearing. Green states will continue with their subsidies, no doubt, as stupid is what stupid does.

"Go nuclear or go extinct" is about the sum of it.
Posted by Luciferase, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 8:55:29 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
Ozpen, another way is to use Tinyurl.
You ask the 64 $T question.
How did we get to the present situation ?
Well we installed a lot of renewables, but nowhere near enough.
We closed 5 or 6 power stations.
Perhaps if we reopenned/built 5 or 6 coal fire power stations we just
might get back to where we were.
So lets pretend that we did that.
I think it is reasonable to say that no one would say lets repeat what we did.
We now know for certain, and other countries have confirmed it, that
wind and solar are not going to do it on their own, we just cannot
afford it due to the massive duplication needed, and the enormous high
powered grid over all the country. Everywhere able to feed everywhere.

So what are the alternatives,
nuclear a proven technique,
pumped hydro
natural gas, a limited rescource,
geothermal, has significant problems due to depth.
Batteries & other storage. Very expensive unless there is a breakthrough in technique.

That's enough to work on. Pumped hydro ala Snowy2. Could use off peak
nuclear output, but would it be cheaper to just use the nuclear
considering the cost of Snowy2 ?
Natural gas, what is the current ERoEI.
Geothermal, well the granite is very deep and the trial ran into
problems with corrosion, cheap energy if you can get it.

Once you have a nuclear station running I presume they can be adjusted
to match the load easily and the operating cost does not change much,
my assumption. I suspect that once you have nuclear running there is
not much point in fiddling with anything else.

Plenty of other countries asking themselves the same questions.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 1:38:17 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
Here's the kind of dreaming that the gullible are swallowing on 100% renewables.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/11/09/new-study-shows-urgently-needed-100-renewable-transition-more-feasible-ever

All we need is batteries. So obvious, really, but those nasty big FF companies are stopping us!
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 6:21:21 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
Luciferase,
"One need not be bright to see that FF backup infrastructure must be of the same scale and cost as if renewables did not exist."

Any dimwit can fall for anti renewables propaganda, but it should be easy for the bright to see through it.

Same scale? Almost, IF YOU IGNORE STORAGE (which of course there's no reason to do). Same cost? No, there are cost tradeoffs - it would be silly to invest as much in equipment that's run once in a blue moon as that which is run almost every day.

"The only saving from pairing renewables with the FF backup is a little fuel, and not as much as one might expect given load following involves inefficient fuel usage."

Ah, another of the anti-renewables myths! In reality load following is needed whether or not any of the energy comes from renewables!

"There's not much joy on the emissions front from pairing either, especially if the FF is gas with consequent methane leakage."

Firstly, methane leakage isn't exclusive to the gas industry - a lot of it comes from coal mines. Secondly, although there's a temporary increase in gas use every time a coal fired power station closes, in the long run renewables are replacing gas usage as well. Thirdly, gas leaks are often avoidable consequences of mismanagement of fracking. Other leaks are caused by damage to pipes, and are not proportional to use.

"I get a giggle out of SA building massive backup diesel generation with little fanfare"

I don't think "building" is the right word, as they're bought (or I think in SA's case leased) off the shelf and are fairly easy to transport.

"while hollering its piffling capacity, expensive battery from the rooftops."

'Tis the biggest battery in the world, it's very successful at stabilising the network, it's brought down our peak power prices and it's expected to pay for itself within three years. Surely that's worth hollering from the rooftops?
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 6:23:43 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
Luciferase (continued)
"Not sure the new Lib gov't there is any better, now to subsidize home batteries. What an utter waste of public money."

Not necessarily. I don't know what criteria they'll be approved by, but home batteries could avoid the need for costly network upgrades.

"Of course, we await great storage solutions, like waiting for Godot."

Not really. There's plenty of storage infrastructure due to be constructed soon, not reliant on any technological advances. But if battery technology does keep advancing at the current rate (no pun intended) it can be expected to greatly reduce or reliance on gas in future.

"Adding these based on known technology blows renewables' LCOE completely out of the water."

Dubious, and anyway LCOE is NOT the real cost of electricity.

"We are sleepwalking into economic catastrophe."

Certainly not in the way you think. Or economy has been badly damaged by politicians trying to balance the budget for its own sake. It's also been damaged by unnecessarily high interest rates. High electricity prices rank a distant third in terms of damage, though still significant. But what you fail to understand is that generation from renewables is no longer more expensive than from fossil fuels. The high prices are the result mainly of factors unrelated to renewables, and of the portion that is attributable to renewables, it relates more to how the renewables are encouraged than to the renewables themselves. As more renewables are added to the network, we can expect to see costs fall.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 7:51:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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