Shadow Minister,

Lets keep politics out of it.

It lowers the bar in discussions.

Lets stick to facts as presented by experts.

I read Eloise Fowler's article in The Financial Review,
Dec. 16, 2019 which was based on a report by consulting
firm PwC and US multinational engineering company - Jacobs.

We're told that investing in renewable energy projects and
upgrading the national power grid to better cope with wind,
solar, and hydro electricity transmission
would add $13 billion
over two decades to Australia's gross domestic product.

However, propping up Australia's
coal-fired electricity plants would add
less than half to GDP.

"The Future of Energy: Australia's Energy Choice" report
modelled 4 energy options for Australia over 20 years to 2040.

It found the renewables case was marginally more expensive,
less than 1%, than the status quo case of Australia's
thermal coal-fired power plants retiring as planned by the
energy companies by 2040.

The accelerated renewable case, while the most costly,
replaced a higher amount of coal-fired power before 2040,
while the other cases still needed to be replaced between
2040 - 2050, the report found.

Either of the modelled renewable energy options would
give Australia the best chance of "setting the energy
trilemma - affordability, reliability and sustainability.

PwC chief economist Jeremy Thorpe said earlier modelling
showed investment in renewables led to lower economic
benefits.

However, -

"But our analysis shows this has CHANGED with the cost
of renewables continuing to come down as technologies
have matured and scale has been achieved and with renewables
continuing to replace coal-filled generators as they come
to the end of their economic lives", he said.

Nuclear? Safety, waste management, maintenance, are still
concerns that need to be dealt with. But again - it is
an option worth debating.

Hi Foxy,

On nuclear energy and its safety concerns: how are the French and Finns going with their nuclear energy production ? Have we heard of any accidents lately with nuclear-powered submarines, which must surely involve fairly small nuclear power units ?

IF nuclear energy could be shown to be safe, as safe everywhere as it is now in France and Finland, would you support it ?

I'm writing as an adopted South Australian, of course :)

Joe

Joe,

I believe the French are winding down on their nuclear
plants. As for accidents - I think Wikipedia gives a list
of those in France.

Foxy,

Oh, I don't think so .....

Every time I see one of these modelings for renewables they do not
specify the size of the grid coverage. Also they do not specify how
many sequential overcast still days it will support.
Very few of them include areas such as the Roaring Forties.
It looks like they work on average windspeeds and sun days.
Averages are only achieved intermittently, and batteries are very
costly and need extra wind & solar generation to enable them to be
charged over the next day or two.
Right now at 1609 Coal is 84%, Hydro 6%,Nat Gas 1.148%,Solar 1.696%, Wind 6.498 %.
So at present to remove coal would require 49 times more solar or
13 times more wind farms than we have at present in NSW.
If you look at the present installed cost of those alternatives
do you still reckon we can afford it ?
You can do the same for the other states.

Cont, It is approaching sunset and a cold light wind is blowing.
That means people are turning on their air conditioning and starting
to use the stove and ovens.
So the load is coming on just as the generation is decreasing.
The wind usually decreases around sunset, ask any sailor.
See the problem, you just cannot use averages.