The Forum > General Discussion > Surprise ! Coal Fired Electricity Cheaper Than Renewables
Surprise ! Coal Fired Electricity Cheaper Than Renewables
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Whether a study finds coal fired or renewable electricity cheaper depends on what assumptions it uses. The real problem is that governments have lost sight of the objective of cheap electricity. The combination of Federal governments ideologically obsessed with privatisation and state governments short of money means that the agenda switched from providing good value for customers to maximising asset values and making as much money as they could get away with.
Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 5 July 2017 5:36:04 PM
| |
Foxy that article you linked to brushed aside any costs of batteries.
Finkel asserts that batteries should be included in any solar/wind installation. As I said somewhere, backup by battery I suspect will be extremely expensive and may well exceed all other costs in a solar or wind farm. When I raise the subject of the next day also being overcast & still it just gets ignored. The question of when will you recharge the battery and where will you get the power to recharge it ? Finkel did not offer a solution, in fact he did not even raise the question ! Did you notice that wind output in SA was less than 50% of normal earlier this week ? One suggestion that is made that a widespread network can even it out. Unfortunately that means that the grid has to be rebuilt to be able to transmit a lot more power but the backup area's generation has to be a lot larger than needed so it can step up its output. There is a lot more to this that many wish to see. Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 6 July 2017 9:36:12 AM
| |
Dear Bazz,
You're right. That's why if we're going to have a competitive evaluation process for our energy sources we should ask the relevant questions and look into what are our viable options. The same needs to be done with the question of nuclear submarines. Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 6 July 2017 9:42:39 AM
| |
Electricity high, 1 reason gas price ripoff.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/gas-cartel-is-pushing-gas-prices-up-in-australia/news-story/61acc1864d54fb6eb4801c332e683fbd ‘Gas cartel’ is pushing gas prices up in Australia A CARTEL has gained control of Australia’s gas and is killing the economy, pushing prices up and sending businesses broke, one expert says. Australians are grappling with huge increases in electricity and gas bills, with one recycling business saying his electricity bill had increased from about $80,000 to $180,000 a month. Plastic Granulating Services was forced to close its doors last month, leaving 35 employees out of work, and there are fears more could follow as further increases are expected. Part of the reason why power prices are shooting up is due to the closure of cheap coal-fired power stations but also because of rising gas prices. Power companies have already warned of increases of up to 8 per cent for residential customers this year and the Turnbull Government has announced measures to try and get more gas into the Australian market. But energy analyst Bruce Robertson of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, says a gas cartel on the east coast of Australia is also making things worse. “The Australian gas cartel is restricting supply to the domestic market in order to force up the price,” he said. “It’s surprising how relaxed the Australian public is about this price gouge. In many other countries, they’d be rioting on the streets.” Companies were being helped by the secrecy around prices, gas reserves and production costs, which has allowed producers and the owners of pipelines transporting the gas to control the price. “Prices are too high in Australia because we have given away the ability to control the price Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 6 July 2017 11:51:16 AM
| |
Not quite right Philip, the pipeline company just charges for the
transport, it does not have an interest in the gas itself. Like coal we do have to look ahead to gas leaving us. I predict, judging by what I read of the oil companies finances, that there will be a lot of pressure for anything but nuclear but those demanding energy will be forced into the nuclear corner. That will happen I believe by 2030. When you see oil companies changing their emphases away from oil and making large cuts in their search budgets it has only one conclusion for the next 10 years. They do not generally acknowledge it but at least Shell has owned up and stated that they are planning to leave the oil industry. Now why do you think that is ? BHP admits that its excursion into US shale gas was a money losing experiment and that US shale gas has peaked. World coal has peaked. All these things point one way; Either you hurry up and prove that solar & wind can be made to work and if not you start a nuclear energy program. There is no other choice. Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 6 July 2017 1:27:30 PM
| |
Dear Bazz,
Where to start mate. Okay, you do at least acknowledge that this report was “commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia and the COAL21 Fund” and that COAL21 has “invested $300 million in low-emission coal technologies”? Now I have had a bit to do with GHD and they are a reasonably professional mob. I have yet to find them fudging figures but they do write in a manner that reflects the wishes of those paying them. What you will find instead are caveats that give a truer picture than those that make the new releases of their clients. “GHD does not have access to the PEACE database and cannot comment on the accuracy of the cost estimates.” “GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than SDS arising in connection with this report.” “GHD has not been involved in the preparation of Solstice Development Service’s Report (SDS Report) and has had no contribution to, or review of the SDS Report other than in this report. GHD shall not be liable to any person for any error in, omission from, or false or misleading statement in, any other part of the SDS Report.” And one I personally have never seen before in any of the reports I have read; “The Cost Estimate has been prepared for the purpose of informing debate and must not be used for any other purpose.” Plus we have a Murdoch rag adding their slant. The Australian says; “In its analysis, GHD and Solstice Development Services provides details of how construction costs for a new HELE plant could be driven down by building it at “an existing power plant location”. The report says; “there is likely to be only a small savings”...”if a HELE plant was to be constructed near an existing power station” A very big grain of salt required here me thinks. Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 6 July 2017 8:30:06 PM
|