Bezza,

Building large-scale solar farms in remote areas like beyond the Darling River and running transmission lines to major Australian states is a big task, but it's not impossible.

Putting solar farms in remote, non-arable land can save valuable farming areas and fits well with the idea of distributed generation. This approach enhances grid resilience and reduces transmission losses. Our vast open spaces are perfect for such projects.

You’re right that installing 22,000 solar panels is a massive task requiring a lot of labour and resources. However, large-scale solar projects have been successfully implemented worldwide, even in tough environments. For instance, the Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex in Morocco, one of the world’s largest, was built in a desert region. Modern construction techniques and automation can significantly reduce manpower requirements and streamline logistics.

Initial costs are high, but the long-term benefits of solar energy include lower operational costs and energy independence. Large-scale solar costs have dropped significantly over the past decade due to technological advancements and economies of scale. According to the IRENA, the cost of solar photovoltaics has decreased by about 90% in the last decade, making it one of the cheapest power sources.

These projects create jobs and stimulate local economies. A study by the ANU found that transitioning to renewable energy could create up to 45,000 new jobs in construction, operations, and maintenance. These projects also drive economic growth in remote areas through infrastructure development and increased demand for local services.

Government policies and incentives are crucial for making large-scale renewable projects viable. The Australian government, through agencies like the ARENA and the CEFC, provides funding and support for renewable energy projects. Public-private partnerships can also mobilise the necessary capital and expertise to overcome logistical challenges.

Building large-scale solar farms in remote areas and running transmission lines is complex and costly, it’s feasible with proper planning, investment, and support. The long-term benefits, including job creation, economic growth, and environmental sustainability, make it a worthwhile investment.

Indyvidual,

As I had touched on in my last reply to you, the industry is constantly improving the recyclability of materials used in equipment. The term "renewable" refers to the energy source itself.

For example, solar panels can last 25-30 years, and significant progress is being made in recycling them. Up to 95% of materials in solar panels, like glass and aluminium, can be recovered. As recycling infrastructure develops, this will become more economically viable.

Regarding damaged equipment, many companies actively work on ways to repair or recycle hail-damaged solar panels rather than just discarding them. For instance, First Solar's global recycling program can recover over 90% of the materials in their panels. The industry is increasingly adopting more sustainable practices.

The idea that renewable energy is unviable is simply not true. The cost of renewable energy has dropped dramatically over the past decade, making it competitive with, or even cheaper than, fossil fuels. According to IRENA, the renewable energy sector employed over 11 million people worldwide in 2018, showing significant economic potential for it.

Consultants ensure renewable energy projects are well-planned, cost-effective, and comply with regulations. Removing them would likely lead to poorly executed projects, resulting in higher costs and inefficiencies.

It's important to consider the broader benefits. Renewables significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. For instance, transitioning to renewable energy in the United States is estimated to avoid 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks annually, saving approximately $33 billion in health costs each year. The claim that they’re too polluting to renew is something you’ve made up. (http://www.nrdc.org/resources/climate-change-and-health).

Moreover, the health benefits often outweigh the environmental impact of producing and disposing of renewable energy equipment. A study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that the health benefits from reduced air pollution in the U.S. alone are worth $2.6 trillion over a decade, far surpassing the costs associated with renewable infrastructure. (http://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/05/30/research-shows-wind-and-solar-produce-tens-of-billions-in-u-s-health-benefits-per-year)

One of the main 5 types of people you should avoid are the ones who jump in to disagree with what you say or believe at every opportunity - unless you like being manipulated, that is.

This anonymous social media surfer using a name he hoiked off the real John Daysh, is one of those. He's madder than the Mad Hatter, and just copies out rubbish that suits him from the internet.

You two blokes will give in before he does. Do yourselves a favour. Ignore the crank.

John,

"The LOEC is not dishonest. We have already been through this."

That's because you keep repeating your lie filled script, part of which is to claim that you have answered questions which you have not answered. If you want to compare energy sources you can only do so honestly on the basis of total cost. LCOE only considers the cost of generation from the source, not the cost of providing dispatchable power from a generation source as does system cost. The CSIRO admitted as much but claimed that such an analysis was too expensive to do. Fortunately the OECD has had the analysis done which shows wind and solar to be the highest cost option, at least twice the cost of nuclear.

You also claim that future renewable associated costs will undergo wonderful improvements and huge cost reductions, yet your technological optimism deserts you in the case of nuclear, where your thinking about the technology can't seem to advance much beyond the 1960s. All your optimism doesn't make the technology cheaper today, so you still pay at least twice as much for your power with a wind and solar system. In ten years time it might be much cheaper, but so might nuclear.

"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."

Another completely dishonest statement from you, but no surprise given your attempts to lie about the land area affected by wind and solar and your exaggerations and lies about the dangers and costs of nuclear power.

The patron of the environment is fast becoming the king of koala killers. I don't think it will be long before the crown gets chucked and he becomes a born again nuker. And so might you.

Fester,

Unfounded accusations of lies and dishonesty get us nowhere. Let's just try sticking to the facts without getting emotional. Perhaps I should try a different approach:

//LCOE only considers the cost of generation from the source, not the cost of providing dispatchable power from a generation source as does system cost.//

This is why I said: “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.”

The LCOE measures the average cost of generating electricity from a specific source over its lifetime. It includes capital, operation, maintenance, and fuel costs but doesn't cover the additional expenses of integrating renewables into the grid, like backup generation and storage. As your well aware, these system costs help provide a fuller picture of the total cost of reliable power, which the OECD has reported on extensively. They showing that when system costs are included, renewables can be more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear in SOME cases.

//The OECD has done system cost analysis showing that relying on wind and solar is over twice the cost of nuclear.//

This is incorrect. The OECD NEA report highlights that integrating high shares of renewables into the energy grid can lead to higher system costs due to the need for additional measures to manage variability and ensure reliability. However, these costs are not fixed and can be mitigated through advancements in storage technology, improved grid management, and diversified energy sources.

The report discusses how integrating a high share of variable renewable energy into the grid can increase system costs. These costs are related to managing the variability and intermittency of renewable sources, which require additional investments in storage and grid infrastructure to maintain reliability. While the report indicates that system costs for renewables can be higher than for nuclear energy, it does not conclude that renewables are twice as expensive. The costs are context-dependent and can be significantly reduced with the right technological and policy measures.

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

//You also claim that future renewable associated costs will undergo wonderful improvements and huge cost reductions…//

Renewables have already demonstrated significant cost reductions and technological advancements.

//…yet your technological optimism deserts you in the case of nuclear...//

This is because, unlike renewables, nuclear necessarily faces hurdles relating to safety standards and waste disposal that limit what even substantial investment can improve. The historical trends and current investment in renewables suggest continued improvements, and at an exceedingly faster rate.

//Another completely dishonest statement from you, but no surprise given your attempts to lie...//

My responses to the claims in the video you linked to were correct. It comes across as a desperation and attempted character assassination when you suggest that I know differently so that you can then accuse me of lying.

If you believe I am wrong about the land use for wind and solar, and the dangers and costs of nuclear power, then why not just correct me?

ttbn,

Whether it’s driven by cognitive dissonance, projection, or a need to defend a group identity, clearly you are upset.

Given I have said nothing that could be remotely interpreted as manipulative, I take it this is your way of encouraging those you view as your comrades to stick with the cause in the face of contradicting evidence.

Since I began commenting here I have responded to less than 3% of yours and Indyvidual’s comments, and most of my discussion with Fester and Bezza was initiated by them. So, I’m hardly jumping in to disagree with others at every opportunity.

If by “copied” you mean that I get my information from other sources, then I plead guilty - especially given that my sources are the most reliable available - it’s certainly better than making it up as you go or just repeating what you’ve heard from echo chambers and blogs written by unqualified partisan hacks.

My handle is indeed my real name. Your attempt to denigrate by labelling me an “anonymous social media surfer" looks very much like textbook projection.