John,

You keep repeating the same lies. You are reading from a script. LCOE is a dishonest comparison, as you are fully aware. You need to consider the system cost. The analysis done for the OECD shows that relying on wind and solar is at least twice the cost of nuclear, and probably unachievable.

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-03/nea_system_costs_executive_review.pdf

The hydrogen economy is so stupid that even Twiggy can see the writing on the wall and is abandoning the idea. Your repeated claim that wind and solar is beneficial for the environment whereas nuclear is harmful is just stupid beyond belief.

I hope team Albo runs with these idiotic renewable energy ideas as it will get him a bigger kick up the backside from voters than the Voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ3Y-JoyyTI

Intermittent power doesn't work anywhere.

Now Twiggy's $200 billion 'green' hydrogen has hit the rocks.

It's all a waste of money and an economy wrecker.

Albanese wants to manufacture plastics here, but our last plastics manufacturer is leaving, or has gone, because electricity is too expensive in Australia.

When Australia hits rock bottom, the mess will be evident, but none of the rogues will be punished for wrecking the country. There will be mass resignations and quiet retirements on the massive benefits we have given them.

There's still time for us: an election is coming.

Fester,

The LOEC is not dishonest. We have already been through this. LCOE provides a standardised measure to compare the direct costs of generating electricity from different sources. It’s a widely accepted metric used by energy experts and policymakers globally. The fact that it doesn't account for system costs doesn't invalidate its utility. It simply highlights the necessity of integrating it with other metrics for a comprehensive view, which is what I've been doing.

Your interpretation of the OECD document is misleading. The OECD report does acknowledge higher system costs for integrating high shares of renewables compared to nuclear. However, these costs are context-dependent and can be mitigated with proper grid management, advancements in storage technology, and diversified energy sources. The document does not suggest that renewables are unfeasible or prohibitively expensive; rather, it outlines the challenges and solutions for integrating them effectively (http://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-03/nea_system_costs_executive_review.pdf).

Additionally, the report and other studies highlight significant cost reductions and technological advancements in renewable energy and storage solutions. The LCOE for renewables has dropped dramatically, making them competitive with, and in some cases cheaper than, conventional energy sources. Further cost reductions are expected as technology continues to improve (http://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020).

While nuclear power provides low-carbon energy, it comes with high upfront costs, long development timelines, and issues related to waste disposal and potential accidents. Renewables, although requiring investment in storage and grid infrastructure, offer substantial environmental and public health benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution (http://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_30001/technology-roadmap-for-small-modular-reactors).

The NEA and IEA reports emphasise that policy frameworks and market conditions play a crucial role in determining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different energy sources. Countries successfully integrating high shares of renewables have demonstrated the importance of supportive policies and investment in grid infrastructure (http://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020).

The video you linked to uses exaggerated figures, emotionally-charged language, and misleading comparisons to paint a negative and false picture of the Moah Creek Wind Farm.

(Cont’d)

(Cont’d)

1. "Soon to have ridgelines blasted out like other wind farms along Queensland's coastal ranges."

This statement is designed to evoke a strong emotional reaction by suggesting extensive and destructive land modification. In reality, wind farm construction, including Moah Creek, involves careful planning and environmental assessments to minimise impact. The focus is on using existing clearings and infrastructure whenever possible to reduce environmental disruption.

2. "105,000 hectare study area with a 654 hectare industrial footprint."

These numbers are exaggerated to make the project seem disproportionately large and intrusive. The Moah Creek Wind Farm is situated within a 10,500 hectare area, and only 6% of this is used for the infrastructure, translating to about 630 hectares. This demonstrates a commitment to limiting the environmental footprint and preserving as much land as possible for other uses, like agriculture.

3. "58 turbines proposed in this site, 76 km of internal roads."

While the project includes 60 turbines and associated infrastructure, the mention of 76 km of roads is likely intended to exaggerate the scale of disruption. Wind farm developers aim to optimise the layout to minimise the need for extensive road networks, and many of these roads are temporary or built on existing tracks.

4. "The cumulative impact of this project combined with 27 other wind farms planned in the district is an unacceptable risk."

The claim about cumulative impact is a common tactic to create fear of widespread destruction. Each wind farm undergoes a rigorous EIA to ensure that combined effects are considered and mitigated. The regulatory framework requires comprehensive evaluations and community consultations to balance development and environmental protection.

5. "Destroying biodiversity to save the climate is ecocidal"

This hyperbolic statement misrepresents the trade-offs involved in renewable energy development. Wind farms like Moah Creek are part of broader efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which have far more severe and long-term impacts on biodiversity and the environment.

http://www.moahcreek.com
http://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/98634
http://www.moahcreekneighboursharedbenefit.com/the-project

John,
I intended to reply but just got distracted by the above posts.
Australia is a wide brown land, then why not build the solar farms out
beyond the Darling river and and run Transmission lines in all
directions to SA, WA, VIC, NSW & even QLD
It will save all that farming country that there is so much hassle
about and comply with your suggestion of distributed generation.
Actually why I think that would be a good idea my minor experience of
doing similar electrical and electronic work in country areas makes
me realise that the manpower requirements are too extreme.
To install 22,000 solar panels in 8 years would be an absolute
nightmare in such locations & would be impossible.
I am sorry but while your ideas are good they are in fact VERY costly
to actually implement.
The catering costs alone would wipe out the project.

Just in the areas where they are trying to do that explains why they are running so late.

There's absolutely nothing "renewable" about equipment & infrastructure materials that can't be re-used & need to be buried on huge areas of land just to be out of sight ! Why don't we get to hear or see how hail damaged solar panels are dealt with ? Something tells me they don't get "renewed" because whatever could possibly be renewed is too expensive & polluting to renew !
Imagine the funds that could be saved by doing away with all the consultants in that unviable industry !