Janus swaps batteries in 4 minutes.
600km range.
100 ton truck.
1/3 the price per km.
What's not to love?

SBS World News
https://youtu.be/4rAKqch3oMQ

https://thedriven.io/2022/02/10/janus-unveils-first-electric-truck-for-australian-east-coast-battery-swap-route/

Seriously, I guess Denier's gotta deny?

What's not to love?
Max Green,
The production of these batteries is way more polluting the emission from diesel engines !
So, what's to love there ?

Hey Max Green,

It seems like a positive development.
We've got a big country and the only way to make ourselves more competitive in global markets is to lower the cost of transport, energy or wages.

Greenies aren't exactly helping with shutting down coal plants etc.
The cost of energy isn't going to come down in a hurry, and cutting wages wouldn't be popular.

Lowering transport costs could help to lower the cost of living as all food and domestic goods we buy are transported on trucks;
- So even the person who can't afford a 60k Tesla stands to potentially benefit from this.

I just hope they're not too quiet that you can't hear them coming.
I don't want to see young people on mobile phones listening to music with earphones in and not paying attention (as they do) getting cleaned up.

Also hope none of the lithium batteries catch fire;
Trucks aren't cheap and the increased expense would defeat the purpose.
- Reducing diesel emissions on our roads wouldn't be a bad thing I suppose.

Is OLO doing advertorials now?

The trouble with these type of advertisements masquerading as straight news stories is that some people fall for them.

BTW in a totally unrelated saga, did you know that Chesterfield really is the perfect Christmas gift....
http://ivypanda.com/essays/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/95325_1.jpg

Of course ANYTHING that reduces pollution is more than welcome however, when you cause an increase in pollution in order to produce commodities that achieve far less a reduction in pollution during usage, then there really is no point !
What we could do is to curb the usage of highly polluting commodities such as cosmetics, packaging, frivolous travel etc. Cutting back on such industries would reduce pollution far more effectively than polluting the environment & minds by the smoke-screen tactics used presently.
Does anyone have access to figures on research pollution ? My bet is no ! What about the destruction of the marine environment via "Sport" fishing ?
There's no way around it, the number of humans needs to come down by way of pregnancy prevention. Refugee intake is also not helping because it is their goal to out-breed the host Nation as ordered by religion !
Building batteries that require 80 or more tonnes of ground dug up & power & chemicals etc is not the right kind of progress to save the environment. Getting rid or rather reducing the cause is what's required to bring back some balance ! In other words, sustainability !

Sounds good, but will only be put to the test "within months" starting next year. It might help the editor of the website feel better about his purchase of a Tesla, too.

At the moment it is pretty much 'so what'? We've heard it all before. Having to change a bloody great battery en route sounds bizarre. What they save against diesel (which will not be passed on to customers) will be offset against extral labour costs and equipment, and the possibility of something extra going wrong.

Not a lot to get excited about.

Not a lot to get excited about.
ttbn,
The financials aside, the environmental impact is worse from the proposed solution than from the present practise.
There are only two reasons for Green technology;
1; The insanely excessive funding shovelled to the rorters who only promise solutions !
2; The environmental issues which although far more important, are merely second to money but money nevertheless !!

Build better railways and get the trucks off the highways and into supporting roles with local freight from rail depots.
Would mean mostly smaller trucks as well, leave the big rigs to the outback.

I agree that as many trucks as possible should be off the roads, and railways used. Huge trucks are dangerous things.

INDY,
Any mining operation for any mineral resource must be watched carefully and regulated with WHS and EPA standards. But your claim is a trite myth. The CO2 from fossil fuels is vastly more harmful to climate change than the energy involved in mining. https://climate360news.lmu.edu/lithium-not-as-clean-as-we-thought/

The particulates from burning fossil fuels poison us and cost Australia's health departments $6 billion a year. Imagine the extra hospitals we could build and doctors and nurses we could hire with that amount saved annually? Just the estimated reductions by 2030 would result in 3,600 fewer deaths, 90,000 fewer asthma attacks for kids, and 300,000 fewer missed school days for kids.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-27/climate-policies-ignoring-billions-in-health-savings-experts-say/9836894

Lithium mining technologies are also moving from 18 months in an evaporation pond to a pump filter system. This means less environmental impact and more lithium - at about half the cost. https://youtu.be/xWpLFUUDTiM

Lithium recycling is getting better. https://youtu.be/mbkhXAP1EQE
EV's are still on a cost reduction curve. They're trying new technology and chemistry, and are changing so fast that they will soon have a BETTER range than stupid petroleum vehicles.

Side note: who even said cars were much good for us, anyway? Most young people I know would rather have better more European city plans where they can ride a bike and catch a train - and just WALK to their local town square. They see cars as a necessary evil while they campaign for better Australian neighbourhood systems than old-fashioned, car-dependant, traffic causing suburban sprawl.

AC,
"Greenies aren't exactly helping with shutting down coal plants etc."
You got that exactly wrong! The climate denying Liberal government (and associated climate inaction from similar sentiments around the world) has resulted in the worst Li Nina rains ever, which flooded many coal mines and shut down the prices. Liberal inaction on moving to renewables has left us exposed to international gas prices. If we'd moved to home grown renewables, our prices would be stable and declining as the solar panel cost curve reduction continues. Liberal inaction on public transport and decent town planning means the poor must buy a car in the first place!

It's not my fault you defy the science and rational adult responses to the climate crisis - but hey? You don't even acknowledge the Haber Bosch process to be a thing - so why am I wasting my breath?

Weight of batteries?
Payload reduction?
Over all cost to move less freight?
What one expects from ratbag greens.

Hey Max Green,
There's a difference between myself and people like your who are practicing members of the climate religion.

I'm happy to support things which are better for the environment...
- But there's a 'clause' in my approach to it -
That 'clause' is this:
I WONT SUPPORT 'cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

I don't support shutting down the coal plants.
You lot want to shut down the old ways and send us back to the stone-age in order to increase the cost for consumers (and profitability of suppliers) in order to fund the new technology, which isn't here yet.

All this new technology, consumers are already paying for it.

You lot want to shoot the horses and burn all the buggy's before the motor vehicle is properly invented.
You lot with the 'green religion' are essentially Joseph Menglers, drunk on your own 'Green religion'.

When you get all excited and start parading the benefits of people eating synthetic franken-slop and being fed through a tube, that's when you expose yourself as being of unsound mind and a danger to the rest of us.

(Anybody willing to glue themselves to a road may well belong in a mental institution, and many of you think on theseterms.
Pro-climate-change-terrorists, with an 'End's justifies the means' attitude.

Whilst I'm happy to support things that are better for the environment, I absolutely oppose climate targets, mandates, foreign treaties - anything that wishes to create artificial supply shortages (for profit) or place the decisions in the hands of foreign unelected bureaucrats, like the Klaus Schwab's of this world.

If you think I support these things, or that I will be happy eating mealworms and house-crickets, then I've got a big pile of tyres and a jerry can full of diesel I'd like you to come look at.

You people only think in terms of what's best for the planet, and forget about what's best for the people in regards to the cost of living, not impacting their lives in an adverse manner and for the people to live in dignity.

You lot are drunk on the climate religion, whereas I'm more pragmatic and practical in my approach.

I support this lithium truck idea not simply because it may be better for the environment.
I support it because it has the potential to lower transport costs, lower the cost of living AS WELL AS the environmental aspects, which are merely an added bonus.

That said I agree with the others, we should be utilising rail-freight more, that's what it was built for.

AC,
I don't really care what you oppose. You're in that sad old generation that just don't trust 'the experts' or the immense body of scientific enterprise that climate science represents. Deniers trot out words like 'Green religion' to try and disguise their stubborn psychological aversion to reality. Investment in a certain view of the world or industry makes them predisposed to this - sheer stubbornness locks in blindness.

Fortunately education has improved since your tired old generation's day. Youngsters can tell you about Joseph Fourier's discoveries in the 1820's, and Eunice Foote later on. They can tell you about Fourier devices analysing CO2 and other gases trapped in a Fourier Device. They can tell you that estimating the average climate is easy with the Radiative Forcing Equation, but that analysing where all that extra heat is going to go is still throwing up nasty surprises as the ocean warms and moves extra energy around.

But you just shrug your shoulders and snort in ignorance. Who cares? You guys are dying off anyway. The world is moving on.

hey Max Green,
As I said, you lot are 'Joseph Mengler's'...
- So drunk on your chosen discipline that you've taken things way too far.
- Then you want to control the minds of anyone else that doesn't think just like you.
And like I said, I'm not against things that are better for the environment.

As for the kids I see, teenagers can't even count a handful of shrapnel, or read and write properly
If they know the things you claim it's because they're being indoctrinated to it starting in grade 1.

I know this for a fact, my girlfriends daughter is in grade 2 and being taught how to specifically 'manipulate' others to reduce, reuse, recycle.
Gotta start while they are young hey...

This is how the how green 'enterprise' works. First you get some new start-up organisation to put out a glowing report on how wonderfully green their new product is going to be. They highlight all the supposed pros of new 'break-through' and skim over or just don't even mention any potential cons.

Next you get some media outlet that is completely on board to publish an utterly uncritical 'analysis' of the new product and they again don't ask any probing questions.

Then you rely on the green cultists to fall hook line and sinker for the whole thing. Still no critical questions are asked. For example, in this case it might be worthwhile to know how much the new trucks are going to cost and how many multiples of the on-board batteries are required to allow for the swap overs at the 500km zones? Is it 3 times (12 batteries) or 4 times (16 batteries) and who pays for that? 10 times? Perhaps someone should ask how much the infrastructure to charge the batteries in regional communities would cost.

So now its all in place. The green movement is on-board and already sold, irrespective of cost. So when the project becomes a reality and the economics don't work, the demands for subsidy start because they've already decided the environment can't live without the new technology, cost be damned.

Its how we end up lumbered with the Snowy 2.0 white elephant. Sell it as a cost-effective solution to the renewables problem. Then by the time the real costs come in - in this case in the region of 10 times the original estimate - those who fancy themselves followers of The Science are already locked in by their fantasies.

Welcome to the world of net zero.

In the meantime China. India, Turkey etc are building coal plants like they're going out of style - which they're not.

Hi Max,

I like to see things operating to see how the cost predictions stack up. I am all for technical innovation and advancement, but only if it is beneficial.

The presentation of the e-truck looks impressive, but what are the assumptions for the cost estimates? For example, you might need several batteries per vehicle, and if a renewable energy powered mining operation were envisaged, you would need to consider the cost of 24/7 renewable energy generation and backup diesel generation. My guess is that if you were to consider a the cost of setting up such a system the economic benefits might not be as enticing, although I acknowledge that some mining sites could have a local geography that could make the renewable energy option attractive.

With nuclear power you have a capacity factor of over ninety percent and a potential for a long lifespan of the power stations. It is a far better generating option if you want to electrify transport.

But your claim is a trite myth.
Max green,
Is it really, considering your industry hasn't even gotten off the ground yet so to speak ?
When your Green technology is at its height of producing batteries on an industrial scale to try to cope with the next generation's demands you'll find I'm actually nowhere near exaggerating the pollution from Green technology !
Also, I have long proposed a Mono Rail network as an answer to cut transport costs & emission .Mono rail carriages can have solar roofs & there could be wind generators built into the system as could power lines, water pipes & communication antennae ! No bridges, no earth works, no affect on forrest/Bush land, car parks can be underneath a rail station, do away with a number of land-destroying roads, no flood damage to rail lines, no rail crossings needed, etc, etc, etc, just simply win, win, win all around !
Who thinks this is not a vialble option in the long run ? The key word being future transport !

I think that monorails are not an option because monorails cannot cary heavy freight, besides which. Monorails have proven inadequate except for specialized passenger carriage.
Currently there are few monorails in use.

Is Mise,
So, because it hasn't been done before we shouldn't do it ? Well, there goes future infrastructure planning down the gurgler !

"So, because it hasn't been done before we shouldn't do it ? Well, there goes future infrastructure planning down the gurgler!"

You realise that fossil fuels are finite and will peak and run out - as in all of them - within 100 years or so if we keep increasing our use of them?

You realise the irony of what you've said above given your irrational and emotional rejection of clean energy solutions and EV's?

While monorails have a demonstrable history of not going fast, not going well, and not going cheap - solar is still on a significant cost curve. It's still scaling up while the price enjoys more economies of scale and comes down.

It will soon overtake Australia's electricity system and then double or triple it as we prepare for Dunkelflaute in winter. These "Dark Lull" events just have to be overbuilt for - and then at the most we'll need 1 or 2 days storage from pumped hydro. EASY!

In the meantime Janus proves battery swaps WORK.
What will future batteries allow?

BTW - does anyone here know what charging time Tesla is aiming for in their big-rigs?

Does anyone know how long it takes to pump Diesel into a big-rig?

Depending on the pump, it can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 30!
https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-fuel-a-semi-truck

Tesla aim to have their big-rig charge 80% in 30 minutes. And if that doesn't work, I'm sure they'll come up with an awesome battery-swap - given they already did that in some of their sports models!

Where I live, we have 1,000 + trucks a day passing so if they all stop at the same service station to refuel how does it change a 1,000 battery operated trucks every day? Where is the electricity coming from to supply these 1,000 heavy laden trucks every day? That is just one Highway to the north coast which happens to be a trucking stop. Was the truck in the experiment fully loaded? Did he have the radio and air conditioning on? Did he drive through water over the road from recent flooding? This is what truckers travelling the north Coast must encounter.

Max,
If you’re wondering why your links don’t go automatically into a ready to read mode it’s because you are not removing the ‘s’ from ‘https’, try just ‘http’ and you’ll get more readers.
It’s a peculiarly OLO thing that’s been bugging people for years.

You realise that fossil fuels are finite and will peak and run out
Max Green,
The oil industry will find solutions long before the renewable crowd will find one. They'll probably make it renewable long before the other mob works out where to dispose of their Green technology left-overs !

Indy,
so now the big oil and king coal companies are immune from the laws of physics and geology? Nice one there pal - enjoy your magic mushrooms as it's obviously what's powering your car. (wink) They'll just 'figure out' how to keep burning more fossil fuels even though they've run out? Yeah, nice one. I see understanding finite vs renewable is a real strong point of yours! (Wink)

Assuming the world shares fossil fuels on a free market, this is when they run out. Remember, before they run out they also have to peak and begin a permanent decline based on Hubbert's peak of mineral extraction. This is resource extraction 101 that would be mining geologists study.

“According to research based on 2015 data, the current statement of when our reserves will be emptied is this:

- Oil: 51 years
- Coal: 114 years
- Natural gas: 53 years”
http://group.met.com/en/mind-the-fyouture/mindthefyouture/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out

“Reserves-to-production (R/P) ratios are widely-used indicators of the time to depletion of fossil fuel resources, but they are not reliable indicators of the longevity of fossil fuels. This paper examines historical data from 1985, relating to proven resources of fossil fuels and trends in consumption. Based on the increase in consumption as well as reserves, the conclusion is that current trends suggest that all fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) could be depleted within decades, possibly as early as 2060.”
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/288718135_When_will_fossil_fuels_finally_run_out_and_what_is_the_technical_potential_for_renewable_energy_resources

More:
http://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-run/
http://octopus.energy/blog/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/

Hey Max Green,
40 years is a fairly time if you think about human beings ability to innovate in the modern era.
Think about how far we've come since 1980.
I have absolute faith in human beings ability to find solutions to these problems.
I have little have any faith in the motives of the political class and elites that would use these issues to their own ends.

Even if we only had 10 years to go, we would see a huge effort rallying around the problems, and would see amazing things develop in a short time.

If such a time frame exists (40 years) then you people are making things worse, by trying to fix the issues now but of increasing the costs of everything by shutting down energy production and limiting supply, and making the nation non-competitive with foreign markets.

Think with your brain.
How are you going to make our nation more competitive internationally?
- So we can GET TO where we need to go?

Do you either:
a/ lower wages b/ lower energy costs c/ lower transport costs?
This is the only way our nation become more competitive.
If you don't pick one, the nation slowly goes broke.

With you lot making decisions the 40 years will be wasted because by then we'll be living in mud huts and riding donkeys.
There will be little hope of transitioning to anything.

Did you ever accidentally get your car sideways on a dirt or gravel road?
You can't get frightened and hesitate or you'll lose control and crash.
You need to power out of it, even when your mind initially tells you it's not the correct response.

Hi Max,

Indy believes his magic mushrooms are a renewable resource. He smokes this lot, and like magic another lot pop out of the ground. This magic is all down to Indy's good friends at Big Oil and Big Coal, who Indy believes are looking after him.

Just down in Sydney for a week, judging by the number of cars on the roads, oil is going to run out sooner rather than later. We're going to need a lot of those mushrooms.

Josephus wrote: "Where I live, we have 1,000 + trucks a day passing ...."

In total there are about 7500 trucks travelling between Sydney and Brisbane each day. Each one would need to stop somewhere along the way to recharge/change batteries. But not just at one place. Some go the inland route, some the coastal. And that's just Sydney-Brisbane.

In the US, it is estimated that each truck stop would need to have the electricity infrastructure of a small town to enable it to recharge these thousands of batteries each day. Imagine multiple stops with the attached sub-station, power lines, safety systems and all the other paraphernalia dotted along the nations highways. Who pays for that? Look at your next electricity bill to see who is already paying for these fantasies.

Its all smoke and mirrors. The simplest examination of the issues shows that it can't work the way these people assert. But that's OK by them. The process here is to generate the hype, get the gullible on board and then start the process of subsidy seeking.

In the end, the whole process is about transferring monies to the climate alarmists.

"According to research based on 2015 data, the current statement of when our reserves will be emptied is this...."

The so-called 'experts' have been predicting the imminent demise of oil/gas/coal for at least a century, even longer for coal. They always make the same mistake being that the one thing they leave out of their 'calculations' (for wont of a better word) is human ingenuity.

Remember the great peak oil hype from the 1970s? The 'experts' were so certain of their calculations that they convinced governments that doom was 20 years away. The US government implemented measures to cope. Here, PM Fraser introduced new taxes to try to preserve resources and delay the end of oil, which they all KNEW was just around the corner.

But they forgot about human ingenuity. (Ever heard of fracking?). Some raised their voice to try to insert some sanity into the issue (eg Julian Simon) but they were treated as fools and charlatans. They were right but being right doesn't count with the scare-mongers.

Yes we may run out of oil and coal sometime in the future. One estimate I saw was for coal to last at least another 400 years ad oil longer still, once you factor in known and expected reserves.

Anyone who thinks we won't have found alternative forms of energy in that time-frame hasn't been paying attention to the last 300 years. Once a new disruptive energy source comes along to displace oil/coal, it will do so without the need for subsidy and governmental tinkering.

Coal replaced wood without governmental help. Oil replaced coal in many places without the need for intervention by the 'experts'.

The Stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. The oil age won't end because we ran out of oil.

Very little of this battery magic will come to fruition; but there is no point in arguing with youthful zealots who think they know it all. Like the people responsible for the Covid debacle, they will soon be denying their stupidity, or begging us to forgive their stupidity because 'it seemed right at the time', or they were just 'following the "expert" advice'.

We shouldn't believe anything we hear from "experts" or mad posters who believe anything that suits their ideology. The latest crap from social engineers comes from the most recent NAPLAN test which, it is claimed, shows that Australian parents taught their children just as well as professional teachers during the Covid lockdowns!

Something else for the battery-bashers to fall for.

Either Australian parents are geniuses, working from home, running the household and teaching a full curriculum, or our teachers are of a much, much poorer quality than we already suspect. Or, the "experts" are lying to us as usual.

Hi Armchair Critic,
you think 40 years is enough time? It sounds like you don't understand that over this period the world will be facing successive crisis in the various categories of fossil fuel peaking. That is, due to profound economic laws we always go for the easiest to pick fruit before we get a ladder and climb the tree. We use the high-pressure light sweet crude that shoots out of the ground, the high pressure gas, and the surface coal. Now we're fracking oil and gas with high pressure drilling and chemical injection, and drilling out deep into the oceans. We're digging down kilometres to get the coal. When you hit roughly the 'half way' point of a resource, you move inexorably from concentrated easy oil and gas and coal to ever harder to reach, less accessible stuff. Extraction rates peak and decline. Prices skyrocket. The resource will never again reach demand.
But here's the other irony? I have faith that human beings can solve these problems - and already have! Wind and solar and off-river pumped hydro will meet all our needs within the next 15 years. You're the one with ideological objections to our best answer.
The cost curve is still going down to the point where utilities will shrug their shoulders and race to zero carbon because it is so cheap! EV's don't burn expensive diesel matched to the world gas and oil prices, and run on domestic solar. Cheap. There's no internal combustion engine with thousands of moving parts to service. Cheap. There's no servicing other than topping up the windscreen water. Cheap. Across the business lifecycle some argue they are *already* cheaper. But in years to come businesses would be insane to buy diesel because A/ Many countries already have an end date on selling ICE vehicles and B/ the purchase price itself will be cheaper for an EV.
"The US Department of Energy today released a study showing that by 2035, electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks will cost the same as or less than diesel trucks."
http://electrek.co/2022/03/07/electric-medium-and-heavy-duty-trucks-will-be-cheaper-than-diesel-trucks-by-2035/

Hi Mhaze,
yes - especially with oil - many have cried 'wolf' before. I hear you. But that doesn't mean it is infinite hey? (wink)
Peak oil hype from the 1970's? Dude - it was the 1950's when Hubbert stood up and predicted America would peak IN 1970 and guess what? *Conventional oil* did peak in the USA that year! The sad irony? Big Oil turned around and said "Remember Hubbert - we've never pumped so much oil!" And because it was the year they peaked, they never did again!

"The crisis began to unfold as petroleum production in the United States and some other parts of the world peaked in the late 1960s and early 1970s.[3] World oil production per capita began a long-term decline after 1979.[4] The oil crises prompted the first shift towards energy-saving (particular, fossil fuel-saving) technologies.[5]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis

Conventional oil peaked in 1970 in America. That's an undeniable fact of history. Now they're getting into non-conventional fracking and tar sands, which is more expensive, more environmentally destructive, and soon unable to compete with people buying super-cheap solar for their rooftops and plugging their EV's in. It's like owning an oil refinery on your roof!
Where I agree with you is the Stone Age metaphor. Even Bloomberg can see the demand for oil peaking and us leaving much of it in the ground.

"It’s often difficult to recognize civilization-sized shifts in behavior until after they’ve occurred. Until the pandemic none of the major oil forecasters had seen an imminent demand peak. The debate won’t end now, especially with signs that the pandemic will ease in 2021. But if we look back from here and see the oil peak clearly in the past, what follows will be the evidence of how the energy future snuck up on us."
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-peak-oil-era-is-suddenly-upon-us/?leadSource=uverify%20wall

Get your super out of fossil fuels or you'll be learning to say "Stranded Assets" with a whole new bitter twist.

Hey ttbn,
- Aint that the truth.
The morons are so drunk on their religion that they can't even comprehend how bat-shite crazy the stuff they come out with makes them look.

Check this out from an article yesterday...

Wet pet food is far worse for climate than dry food, study finds
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/17/wet-pet-food-is-far-worse-for-climate-than-dry-food-study-finds

"The research, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that a 10kg dog eating about 500 calories a day of dry food would result in 828kg of CO2 emissions a year, but 6,541kg of CO2 a year when fed a wet diet."

They want us to believe a 10kg ankle biter causes 6 and a half tonnes of CO2 emissions every year.

There's no way any 10kg dog can pump out 6.5 tonnes of turd a year;
So how can they possibly cause 6.5 tonnes of emissions from that turd?
- Not to mention the meat they get isn't the prime cuts, its all the crap leftovers that we wouldn't eat anyway so counting those as emissions wouldn't even matter anyway.
- If it wasn't used as petfood it would be landfill.

These people like to think they are smart but even regular non-climate-religious can see through their bs, result being that anyone who doesn't buy into the religion can easily see they are actually all as dumb as a box of rocks.

It's a shame universities don't teach common sense.

These people are mad, lost the plot, completely batty, and it's no wonder that only gullible idiots or people who can financially benefit from it buy into it.

And they're convinced the rest of us are nutty...
It would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious issue what they're doing.
- A slow noose around everyone's neck is what those lunatics are selling -

I'll keep saying it: Menglers.
This is what happens when the frightened indoctrinated university people take their chosen discipline too damn far.

Hey Max Green,
"But here's the other irony? I have faith that human beings can solve these problems - and already have! Wind and solar and off-river pumped hydro will meet all our needs within the next 15 years."

The real irony is that if you believe your own sermons, then we don't have anything to worry about do we?

15 years is far less than the 60 years you're claiming we have left with fossil fuels.
Don't you think we may get this stuff sorted tech-wise if we have a spare 45 years up our sleeve?

You fail to understand how things REALLY work.
Once it gets too expensive to extract these diminishing resources, the price of them will increase, meaning people will CHOOSE alternatives simply from an economic standpoint without people like yourself needing to coerce others to do so.

All you have to do is this: NOTHING
The market will sort things out on its own.

Poor Armchair Critic was caught holding mutually contradictory beliefs and has nothing to rebut the technological trends he accidentally said he had faith in. So he's moved on to crapping on about pet-food. Waaaaaaaaa - got caught out and so is changing the topic.

But forum antagonism aside - dude - get your super out of fossil fuels. It's the only way you'll have anything to retire on.

Indyvidual,
A 200 bogie freight car train places enormous strain on the inside rail on curves but the thousands of sleepers (ties) to which the rails are fixed not only spread the load but resist the tendency for the train to pull the rail straight, each sleeper has a grip on the ground (via the ballast).
For a monorail to meet the same requirements it would need to be built much, much heavier than at present particularly the vertical supports and thus the cost would exceed conventional rail; besides which no monorail could support the weight.

An example of misplaced faith in monorails was rhe one that was in Sydney, but then as it was really an elevated narrow gauge railway perhaps it’s not really a good example.
Although it’s a good example of politics winning out over good sense.

I always take these claims with a shovel of salt.

Sure the electricity costs 33c/km, but this does not take in the cost of the batteries that do not have an infinite lifespan and the labour and facilities to change and charge the batteries.

" *Conventional oil* did peak in the USA that year!"

Ahhhh, yes the "conventional oil" trope. Of course, those who originally made the peak oil claim, DIDN'T make the claim about 'conventional' oil. It was only when their claims were later disproven that they suddenly decided that they were only talking about one type of oil. Interesting to notice that Max has fallen for the sleight of hand.

ttbn,

" 'it seemed right at the time', or they were just 'following the "expert" advice'"

Yes, the 'experts' who get it wrong have used all sorts of excuses to explain away to 'expert' error - eg conventional oil.

My favourite was back in the late 1990s. Jennifer Marohasy had been battling the 'experts' about claimed salinity around the Murray. These 'experts' were demanding the government pony up $60 billion to solve the problem while Marohasy said no such problem existed. When finally Marohasy was vindicated the 'experts', rather than admitted error claimed they weren't wrong, the data was wrong. The same data that Marohasy had been using all along. And of course the left wing media went along with the excuse.

Armchair - that's your best question yet. I'll try to answer with the respect it deserves.

I believe in democracy. A free market has the power of a locomotive, but democratic legislation should be the rails guiding that power otherwise it could derail and destroy the place!

I voted for action on climate change. But Albo is allowing exploration for more oil and gas when we know we shouldn’t burn the oil and gas we’ve already developed!

I voted. Fossil fuels fund people who do not like the idea of voting very much. In fact, they hate western democracy. Think of Russian gas. Think of Middle Eastern oil. If we believe in Democracy – why are we funding these regimes that don’t?

I voted for energy independence from global oil markets. EV’s + rail + wind + solar + off-river pumped hydro offer energy security and cheaper energy bills for all Australians.

I voted for clean energy. Why are we giving coal etc a blank cheque on our healthcare system and letting them ‘outsource’ $6 billion a year in health costs they inflict on us? Talk about ‘cost externalities’.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-27/climate-policies-ignoring-billions-in-health-savings-experts-say/9836894

Globally they kill more than 8 million people a year.

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

If you believe in a ‘free market’ for energy – why do we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to fossil fuel companies?

http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

Instead, why didn’t Australia tax fossil fuels in their heyday and create a constitutionally protected sovereign wealth fund for all future generations?

While I now think we’re on an inevitable energy disruption, disruptions can hurt. There are tens or hundreds of billions in stranded assets and super investments out there.

The world is weaning off coal – so how are we going replace $54 billion in coal exports when no-one is buying? Time to build solar and that 4000km HVDC line to Singapore!

" If we believe in Democracy – why are we funding these regimes that don’t?"

Seriously, what a stupid argument.

If we believe in Democracy - why are we buying solar panels from China?

Why are we buying solar panels from China?Because there’s more profit in cheaper panels.

Have you seen an array of solar panels after a severe hail storm?

We do not need coal mined or gas fracked from the ground, we can use fermented green waste to produce gas, and oil from plant seeds. My son-in-law refines vegetable cooking oil for his diesel wagon.

Issy, seen towns in NSW after climate change floods? Under water and the deniers here will claim its all normal.

Nope, never seen a town after a climate change flood but seen plenty after and during the rainy seasons.
Inverell NSW, was severely flooded in 1991 with about a metre of water through the business district and homes on the same level.
Never had one as high again, I guess that Climate Change is keeping the water down.
The Nepean R below Warragamba Dam is another good example, Lachlan Macquarrie’s surveyors consulted the local tribes about flood levels and their subsequent marking of the levels have rarely, if ever, been exceeded.

Mhaze,
It's not a stupid argument if I agree with your point about China. Why buy oil from Middle Eastern and Russian regimes that hate democracy, and why buy stuff from China when they're getting so antagonistic? I agree. Let's build our own. There is a company that produces them here in Australia. I basically think energy is a right, and if we can't get the market mechanisms right as an Ordo-Liberal I think we could even nationalise it and just build it ourselves. Like building our own subs - but that's another matter.
Energy - it's what makes the modern world happen. Yet many here have been hypnotised by the outright lie that we live in a 'free energy market' when they get $17.6 billion in subsidies every year! (11.6 in direct subsidies, 6 in indirect outsourced health costs.) So much for a free energy market - it's just obtuse to believe we have one of those in Australia!

Yes Max Green, & while we are at being sensible, lets harvest refine our own plentiful oil.

Paul do try to be a little bit honest just occasionally. 1956 my father was offered a very good job in Forbes. We were in Young at the time, & drove over one weekend to look at the place, & talk to those offering the job.

Luckily while there we met someone who showed us the recent flood level, & that even higher of a couple of years earlier. Both Forbes & Parks were regularly flooded moderately severely in the 50s & early 60s. We wisely stayed in Young regularly congratulating ourselves on our wisdom when Forbes went under again.

1951 we along with 80 others from the area had to be evacuated by a fleet of army DUCKS from our new house in Bathurst, when it was flooded. It must have happened in Bathurst many times since. The houses were still there in the late 60s, but had all gone when I visited Bathurst in 2002. Flooded too often I guess.

The lower part of my present property has been flooded twice in the last 4 years, that 4 years ago the highest in living memory. However I have been shown the height of the 1893 flood, which was a little over 2 meters higher. 1893 was the wettest year on record since records have been kept, a full 250mm higher than the next highest, 1954.

This year is on track to come in about 5TH on the rainfall record. Find any global warming garbage tn that record?

You need to make sure there aren't people with records of actual fact before making foolish claims about global warming records. Such claims just make you & the scam look silly.

" Why buy oil from Middle Eastern and Russian regimes that hate democracy, and why buy stuff from China when they're getting so antagonistic?"

Wow!

Let's not buy from any regime antagonistic to democracy? Solar panels, oil, wind turbines, electricity towers, TVs, phones, white goods, etc etc etc.

Somehow we'll build 'em all here!

I don't know what sort of fantasy-world Max exists in, but I prefer to remain in the real world.

Climate activists blame fires, floods, and droughts on human causes, as though they are a recent occurrence. In 1857 the Mains streets in Penrith and Richmond NSW had six feet of water flowing through them. The area of Berkshire Park which is above most flood levels has deposits of sand from pre settlement folds. The weather changes and is influenced by the sun, currently the sun is 4 seconds closer to the Earth according to timekeepers.

"But Albo is allowing exploration for more oil and gas when we know we shouldn’t burn the oil and gas we’ve already developed!"

You brain must be packed with baked-beans.
All I'm hearing from you is continual brain-farts like your mind is common-sense intolerant.

How do you think the food is produced.
Do they not use oil and gas in the tractors.
How does it get to the supermarket?
Do trucks not use oil and gas?
How do they build the supermarket?
Does it not contain steel made from coal?
Is your food not wrapped in plastic?
How do you respond to these discussions on your computer?
Is your computer not made from plastic and from mining?
Is it not powered by fossil fuels?

You'd be dead in a fortnight if it wasn't for fossil fuels you dimwit.

Maybe you conveniently forget these facts as a result of your climate religion
- Which prevents you from keeping your feet on the ground and seeing things realistically.

If you are so opposed to the burning of oil and gas and use of coal.
then put your money where your mouth is and stop using or benefiting from things that were borne from their use.

I could suggest you go buy a tent and a bow and arrow, but guess what?
I'd bet even they're made with the use of fossil fuels.
No candles for you, they are derived from petroleum.
Without oil and gas, you'd have to go back to harpooning whales.

I love oil, gas and coal for the improvement in quality of life they have allowed me to enjoy, but that doesn't mean that I'm not open to better ways of doing things that are better for the environment.

I support things that are better for the environment 'but I won't cut my nose off to spite my face' like you.
Now go have your Sunday breafast of mealworms and house-crickets and lab grown frankenslop that you feed yourself through a tube with.
- Don't you dare eat anything that's been produced with the help of fossil fuels.

Life without Petroleum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po4UOfb7goU

[Cont.]
"In fact, they hate western democracy. Think of Russian gas. Think of Middle Eastern oil. If we believe in Democracy – why are we funding these regimes that don’t?"

More brain farts.

Which is it you care about 'Climate Change' or 'Democracy'
FYI, I support Russia.

I'm sick and tired of this gang mentality against other nations.
India has the right attitude, staying neutral and doing what's best for its people.
I don't care if we buy oil, gas and coal from gay-hating misogynistic cannibalistic pygmies who have a fetish for burning tyres and murdering female members of their own tribe to eat.

I want the best deal for our country and it's citizens wherever it comes from, I don't care if it comes from Russia, Iran, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia.

Do you understand that in order to bring into reality all the things you support like dam upgrades and electric trucks requires a plan, and investment.
Where is that money going to come from?
The money printer or foreign investment with strings attached?

Again, what's it going to be?
Lower wages?
Lower energy costs?
Lower transport costs?
- Or increase taxes?

How do you plan on making the things you want a reality?

"If you believe in a ‘free market’ for energy – why do we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to fossil fuel companies?"

Same could be said for renewable subsidies, if we're making arguments about free markets numbnut.
- You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why are you asking me when I don't make the financial decisions?
What about the 100 million in interest our country is paying daily?

Don't be so narrow minded.
Maybe some of those subsidies actually help our exports...
Money that might be used to assist our transition to a better way of doing things..
- To help pay for the things you want.

Mhaze, it's not a trope but understanding history. I'm not bothered by your response enough to go and read his original paper - as far as I can remember he was talking about conventional oil because at the time that was the only oil in consideration. "Unconventional oil" is a term he may or may not have used at the time - I don't care. That category of resource wasn't even in consideration then - just as today's deep ocean oil we're getting at wasn't in consideration then because the technology wasn't around then. Before you quibble with definitions be aware the American National Academy of Science accepted his paper!
In the meantime the peak oil movement has had another rise and fall in the work on predicting the much harder *global* peak oil. ASPO's Campbell and Laherre predicted in Scientific American in 1998 that global peak oil would happen in 2005, with decline beginning in 2010. These are not frenzied greenies but lifetime oil men. What happened?
"An important problem, here, is what’s to be intended exactly as “oil”. In the oil industry, it is customary to class liquid hydrocarbons into two categories, “conventional” and “non-conventional.” This classification has historical origins: in the early times of the industry all oil was referred to as “crude oil.” Still today, crude and conventional oil are considered synonyms and are defined as “relatively light, flowable oil found in fields” [7]. “Non-conventional” oil, instead, includes a wide range of substances, such as high density “heavy” oil, “deepwater oil”, “polar oil,” and everything that can be turned into a liquid fuel, from shale oil to the oil obtained from coal processing."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618303207

But ultimately I just don't care about who claimed what, when and where. Peak oil is taught as a geology 101 subject. What will really blow you away is the Export Land Model – how fast a rich oil producing nation can switch from exporter to needy importer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

We need to electrify everything we can and move to renewables, fast, for our own energy security. Enough with supporting tyrants

Armchair critic - if you want me to take you seriously try to calm down and get control of your emotions and language. I answered you with respect last time, honestly attempting to back every one of my claims with credible links. I suggest a reciprocal approach or you will sound like just another Dogma-Driven-Denier - congratulating each other on your latest insults for peer-reviewed science when you should all be ashamed of the petty little echo-chamber you’ve created here.
"You'd be dead in a fortnight if it wasn't for fossil fuels you dimwit."

Don't tell your grandpa how to suck eggs. I've published in magazines on the fundamental importance of fossil fuels in our food system, and indeed tried to explain the Haber Bosch process to *you*. You were the one just *denying* it – or does your memory not stretch back that far? Inconsistent much?

It's precisely *because* I get the importance of oil to food security and our way of life that I want us to wean off it slowly over the next few decades - before the stuff peaks and becomes economically impossible to obtain! This can happen *fast* - way before peak oil is the real problem. The "Export Land Model" shows how fast producers can become importers. It’s not that the oil runs out, but that the international supply of it dries up.

To sum up I’ll leave you with a few points from the 2007 Australian Senate Committee into peak oil:-
“Exactly when it occurs (which is very uncertain) is not the important point. In view of the enormous changes that will be needed to move to a less oil dependent future, Australia should be planning for it now…
…Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.”

You support Russia? Why am I bothering with you then?

Just down in Sydney for a week, judging by the number of cars on the roads,
Paul1405,
And, I suppose you walked all the way because you didn't want to support those oil merchants ?

[Cont.]
"There are tens or hundreds of billions in stranded assets and super investments out there."

You're so much at war against fossil fuels you don't like the idea that 1 cent might be benefiting an industry you oppose.

- Your opinion is biased.

"Instead, why didn’t Australia tax fossil fuels in their heyday and create a constitutionally protected sovereign wealth fund for all future generations?"

Your talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You don't want the fossil fuel industry supported, but you do want to take the money from it to pay for the things you want.

Maybe you should support banning superannuation.
The job of superannuation funds is to create returns for their clients, and with gas 4 to 10 times the price it was before Europe shot itself in both feet, I'd say people who are invested in those sectors are probably doing quite well.

And as for your hatred of non-democratic 'regimes'
- Just the loss of coal and other exports to China could've probably paid for all the things on your climate-change wish list.

Go clean out the baked beans from between your ears and get back to me when you start thinking sensibly.
As a result of your climate religion you're demonstrating some really poor leaps of logic.

Speaking of which, you complain about the term climate-religion...
- But your kind of people really are no different to many religious people.
All you've done by way of your beliefs is lose all sense of yourself and tied your brain into knots.
(Sorry Josephus, any insult to you or the other religious people here is unintended)

I never denied the Haber Bosch process, if you believe I did, then show me.
I said I don't understand how you conflate that as meaning it takes 10 units of input to produce 1 unit of output.
Tell me how does a 10kg dog shite 6.5 tonnes a year?

And yes I could tone down my emotions a little, but what attitude do you really expect from me when you are advocating through your climate religion that we all eat lab-grown crap?

You may not realise you're doing it, but you are insulting me just as much as you believe I'm insulting you.

Forced to choose, I'd rather cop all the abuse under the sun, than be forced to eat any of that crap, and don't forget that people of your ilk are just as responsible for increasing the cost of my fuel and electricity bills,

i.e helping yourselves to the money in my wallet.

Tell me Max, who is insulting who?

"You support Russia? Why am I bothering with you then?"

Yes, that's right.
I don't support sanctions as it's collective punishment on entire nations, and I don't support liberal interventions - US overthrows.

And that's what caused this mess.
I blame the West, and I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend my reasoning.

I don't try to cancel you because you want me to eat frankenslop do I?
Your 'cancel' idealogy is childish and you should grow up.

'Deniers'; 'Spreaders of Russian propaganda';
It's all the same BS.

Also, I understand you're probably running low on daily replies
- So I won't in any way be offended if you don't respond,
You will need to also respond to others, so use them wisely.

Thanks for raising the issue of electric trucks and for the discussion.

"as far as I can remember he was talking about conventional oil because at the time that was the only oil in consideration."

Ahhh, that's rather the point. When the doomsayers claimed we were going to run out of oil, the more enlightened opined that as then-current oil resources became more difficult to get at, human ingenuity would find alternatives. They knew this to be true because it had happened so often in the past. The optimistic view was ridiculed by the doomsayers who asserted that no such additional resources existed or would ever exist.

Then when the fracking revolution occurred the doomsayers, rather than admit error, invented the 'conventional oil' claims. The optimists said new resources would be found. The doomsayers said they weren't wrong because no one could have known that new resources would be found.

T'was always thus. From Malthus all the way through the Club of Rome, Hubbert, Ehrlich and a host of other doomsaying futurists. They like AGW catastrophists have been consistently wrong , and always for the same reason.

" I'm not bothered by your response enough to go and read his original paper"

Excellent idea....ignorance is bliss.

Yes mhaze the Max Greens of this world have to be very careful what they read. The facts would destroy the whole basis of their ideology.

The only possible answer is no trucks but criss x cross electric rail connections, and large transport rail centers. Everyone living near these rail centers. Solar electric light weight cars for commuting and distributing.

Mhaze,
What are you even talking about now? It's a standard industry term - even though the industry hasn't quite defined all of its meaning.
"Unconventional oil is petroleum produced or extracted using techniques other than the conventional method (oil well). Industry and governments across the globe are investing in unconventional oil sources due to the increasing scarcity of conventional oil reserves. Unconventional oil and gas have already made a dent in international energy linkages by reducing US energy import dependency."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil
The term was in use *before* the predicted peak of 2005.
This is what the IEA wrote in 2001.
"Further reductions are expected in the cost of producing unconventional oil, such as synthetic crude from oil sands and gas-toliquids conversion. Unconventional oil may well exceed current projections and account for a much greater share of total oil resources and supply by 2020. Enormous volumes of unconventional oil lie in oil sands in Canada and in heavy and extra-heavy oil deposits in Venezuela"
https://web.archive.org/web/20120710124700/http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2001.pdf
Now there are the Malthusian types that went on about how this was the end of the world and the dirtier shale oils and tar sands and fracking were *never* going to scale. There were oil insiders that had some idea how it might work. Then there were the rest of us asking how on earth we could afford to produce it from a climate point of view when every barrel of oil now costs 2 or 3 times as much CO2 to extract as normal oil?
The thing I never heard anyone say - except for the abiogenic oil madmen - was that unconventional oil would never peak and decline!

I just listened to a debate on the human causes of Climate Change. The bottom line is "THE HUMAN RACE FACES EXTENCTION" is the fear factor, so any idea that reduces CO2 or methane is the answer. They claim to be highlighting the problem not answering the problem - others are to blame. It has become an obsessive religious cult. Reduce human population growth, do not use coal, or gas or eat meat as they emit CO2 and Methane. I wonder if they excrete waste or mow their lawns or compost as they also emit methane, and CO2.

Hi Max,

I think you are not aware of why places like this are enjoyable and beneficial.

You dismiss AC for supporting Russia, yet how does that make you different from the commentators on Russian television? People can look at the same information as you and come to different conclusions. That doesn't make them good or bad. You should be grateful that people are taking the time to share their opinions with you, and more so those who disagree with you. Vlad Putin never has anyone disagree with him, and look at where that path has taken him.

OLO can be as enjoyable as you want to make it.

Electric trucks are certainly coming, but the rollout will be gradual. It'll probably start with drayage in Sydney; long distance rural routes are likely to be last (after even the remote routes).

Meanwhile dual fuel vehicles will take over from diesels. In many cases this will involve converting the engine rather than replacing it.
______________________________________________________________________

Armchair,

>Same could be said for renewable subsidies
To a small extent, but renewable subsidies do have tangible benefits: they get us off fossil fuels faster, which results in better air quality (among other things). And they accelerate the development of the renewables industry, resulting in lower costs. But ultimately they're only a temporary measure.

>I don't support liberal interventions
So why do you support despotic interventions?

_______________________________________________________________________

mhaze,
The problem was that the predictors are generally not the doomsayers, but because of the doomsayers, people heap scorn and ridicule on those who make predictions that are 100% correct!

The original peak oil prediction was for the USA. It was right, and the USA had to make up the shortfall with imports (as unconventional oil didn't start to play a big role until decades later).

Hi Aidan,

You believe that renewable energy will deliver, but without a working model how can you know? The business world is full of companies making all manner of claims about new technologies. Very rarely are the predictions accurate. Many times the companies go to the wall and sometimes the directors are jailed for making fraudulent claims.

I don't think it prudent to throw a country headlong into any unproven venture, not least on the motivation of a long range weather forecast.

People don't always get things right Aidan. Sometimes they aren't even truthful.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63685131

FESTER - "OLO can be as enjoyable as you want to make it."
No - it really can't if this is all the Deniers like AC can come up with. It's actually really boring to have such poor arguments shoved in my face. They fact they are served with a side-serve of smugness just shows how ignorant and self-contradictory those proposing such crap really are.

I take your point that freedom of speech is a good thing. My point is that if AC is going to disagree with me, try to do so with rational and reasonable arguments, and don't resort to pathetic name calling. I answered an important question of his and tried to reference every claim I made. He answered with smug derision, name-calling, and basically dropped the bar to a primary-school screaming match. I've had vastly more interesting debates with Denial-Driven-Dogmatists in other forums. I was just testing the waters here - and the quality of 'debate' seems even worse than the last time I was back here a few years ago. Talk about boring!

Aidan,
Love your work! (Winks)

>I don't support liberal interventions
So why do you support despotic interventions?

Aidan,

"The original peak oil prediction was for the USA."

That is just factually incorrect. Herbert's theory applied to any region and/or the entire planet. The theory was that resource production followed a bell curve - increasing, reaching a peak and then declining to (eventually) little to nothing. He didn't say it applied to just so-called conventional oil. This was just a later fabrication invented to try to salvage the failed claims. Look at US oil production graphs and there's no bell curve to be seen. Ditto the world.

The doomsayers weren't limited to a few cranks. Governments, including our own, changed policy, including tax policy, based on an acceptance of the theory.

Those who opposed the theory opined that as the production of oil fell and the price rose, it would incentivise entrepreneurs to find new sources. That's exactly what happened. There was no peak oil. There never will be any peak oil. History, not just of oil but of almost any resource you care to mention, shows that as volumes fall and prices rise, new sources for the resource are found and/or usage of the resource is made more efficient. But it seems each new generation has to learn that for themselves although you expect that those who've been around for a while would have already learned it. But alas....

Maybe the quality of the debate seems poor to you Max because you're not surrounded by people who think exactly the same as you do.

Fester doesn't support Russia, and we've had our discussions over the issue and can still find a way respect each others opinions and be amicable.

Aidens alright, but he thought we could borrow and print money endlessly without consequence, and clearly there were consequences, inflation from the money printing of covid long before Russia's war.

I think what really bugs me the most, is your lack of respect towards culinary dignity, that you actually think people are going to embrace the food you advocate.

I just went up the shop and got myself some KFC, I drove out of my driveway on our 15 acre block, I looked over at the 30 prime looking cattle in the front yard, thought about the three chicken sheds up the back yard that used to produce 50,000 chickens every 6 weeks, and thought about the hundreds of thousands of meals it put on peoples tables, and then thought about the madness of what you're suggesting.

Yours is an Orwellian future with no dignity.
How do you expect to force people to eat this stuff?
Josephus is right, your thinking is cult-like.
If you are talking of a future where people eat mealworms, crickets and lab-grown frankenslop
Then why can't you just instead come up with a more practical and dignified plan and future for the earths inhabitants

Record $43.1b trade surplus as coal exports boom
http://www.afr.com/policy/economy/record-43-1b-trade-surplus-as-coal-exports-boom-20220906-p5bfrp

Coal creates jobs and puts food on peoples tables and keeps the lights on in our homes.
It's also used to make steel which is essential to a modern society.
We haven't built the new stuff to replace fossil fuels yet.
Do you not realise the lost exports to China could've paid for all the stuff on your climate wish-list?
What export do we get from renewables?

As for Russia.
'So why do I support despotic interventions'

Firstly I respect the right of self determination of the people of Donbass.
After years of bombing the people in Donbass since 2014 it was clear to me that realistically Ukraine had lost the right to ever rule over Russians.
When the war initially started I thought Russian forces should only occupy the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, but in reality it was impractical, as only taking these area meant they were still open to attack, and would need to take further land for a buffer zone so that the citizens who have been bombed since 2014 were out of artillery range.
As the West sent ever more weapons that would cover the distance, it became necessary for Russia to keep taking more land.

I don't like the way the west rules the world with coercion bullying and threats, to match its sanctions and overthrows.
I don't think it's the right path forward for the world.
I'd rather a multipolar world, one build on international law and mutual respect between nations not one nation who's main export is war ruling over all of us.
The US has the Monroe doctrine, but they won't give the same respect to other nuclear powers.

Here's a rather long (45mins) but interesting video.
The woman being interviewed is Russian, but speaks english and was able to access western news and propaganda.
She was absolutely opposed and ashamed of Russia for the war in Ukraine, until she went to the Donbass herself.

I she who was absolutely opposed to the war and ashamed of her country, but after going to Donbass herself was able to see things differently, then maybe there's something in it for all of you, that think I'm wrong for taking the side I do.

You should ask yourselves; why did she change her opinion.
Well done Maria.

I took a LIBERAL, ANTI WAR Protester to see the truth in Donbass, and THIS Happened!
http://youtu.be/0OysQ7yQl_o

This is the real stuff, not the narratives you get from biased half-truth-at-best reporting.

Hi AC,

I think we are both opposed to authoritarianism but perceive the world a little differently. I do enjoy reading your reasoning, but in forming my opinion I tend to be biased toward economic and technological development as well as social protections and freedoms.

In this respect I note the failure of many feel good and save the planet renewable energy companies in contrast to the success of many fossil fuel companies. What I am observing with renewable energy seems to contradict the positive spiel being put on it. I am more interested in looking at the balance sheet than the marketing brochures.

Hi Max,

I think you might be taking the wrong approach. I find it more interesting to understand why someone might have a different opinion than to suggest why they should hold another. The latter is a good way of sending someone to sleep.

Armchair,
Please do not post lies about me! I NEVER EVER claimed nor thought that we could borrow and print money endlessly without consequence.

Hey Aiden,
Well lucky for you I'm not going to go digging back through all the posts too hard.
I'd swear that if I did though, I'd find where you at least more or less implied there was no consequences,
Saying we can borrow as much as we like and it wouldn't matter, saying Australian debt is not a problem.

AC

You are right! He was always waffling on about "sovereign debt" and borrowing in Australian dollars, and rubbishing anyone and everyone who demurred at the massive debt incurred by Australian governments.

Aidan is the one lying, not you. He is either deliberately lying, or his memory is kaput.

Good on you for pointing it out his past idiocies.

Hey Fester
"I think we are both opposed to authoritarianism but perceive the world a little differently."

Yes that's probably a fair assessment.
In regards to this my thoughts on the matter probably align closely to J S Mill's 'On Liberty'.

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

People like Max would probably argue that me eating a roast beef and gravy roll somehow causes harm to them though, and that they're right to force me to eat insects for the sake of the planet.

With regards to Putin, I know you support and uphold the ideas of democracy,
Whereas I certainly don't support socialism and communism outright for example and think a mix of capitalism and socialism is the best;
- But I also see flaws in democracy, as it's democracy that the west uses to stir up trouble, and overthrow other leaders.
Democracy means if you don't like the leader you get rid of them and put one in that you like, and that works great for the US involving itself in everyone else's business for its own interests, for the MIC and for western hegemony.
Also domestically, when a 2 party system is bipartisan on a particular issue, the people have no choice at all.

I support policies that (I think) are in the best interests of a nation and its citizens, and oppose policies that aren't.

I may support Russia in this conflict, but that doesn't mean I'm popping bottles of champagne and jumping for joy over the human cost.
I blame the West and wish the whole thing could've been avoided, honestly.
Zelensky can't negotiate, he'll swing from a bridge by his own ultra nationalists.
I think we'll need to see a change of leadership in Ukraine before there's any real chance of a negotiated settlement.

Talking of lies - the arguments about running B Doubles on candles have run out - but still on the subject of the supposed reason we should be looking for options to fossil fuels (climate change) the ABC is still lying for the cause.

The ABC has bellowed that Pakistan is one-third under water - all because of wicked Western coal.

However, the map they show to 'prove' this shows that less than 10% of the country is under water.

Actually, the UN disaster agency, OCHA, reports that only 8.5% - 9.5% of Pakistan is under water.

Only a couple of days ago, I watched a message going across my TV screen telling me how TRUSTWORTHY the ABC is, and that's why people follow it!

Finally! I mean, imagine the total uproar here if any greenie product was costing our health department so much money and making people sick! Here we have health department figures evaluating the health impacts of bad fuel on our population. But because it sounds like 'environmentalism' Deniers here lose their minds and start screaming about communism! This is only a partial fix though - as when we phase out all fossil fuels we'll really see the health benefits (and taxpayer savings on our health departments.)

"In a Draft Regulation Impact Statement opened for consultation on Friday, federal Labor proposes changes to fuel quality standards as a first step towards opening Australia up to the latest vehicle technology, and shedding its status as the global dumping ground for inefficient and polluting cars...

...Federal energy minister Chris Bowen says the implementation of these standards will deliver a raft of benefits, not least of all an estimated $4.9 billion in avoided health costs from 2025 to 2050."
http://thedriven.io/2022/11/18/australian-cars-may-finally-get-clean-fuel-in-first-step-to-emission-controls-and-switch-to-evs/

As I see it....

We need energy for heating and cooking and transport and so on.
When we convert material to release energy in to a usable form, we create by-products.
Some of these are harmful and remain so for the long term.
This is the source of pollution.

The trick is to make conversion as 'clean' as possible.
To find a way that generates the least 'pollution'.
Pollution cannot be eliminated entirely.
Unless we could use the sun as a direct source, and conversion was achieved by something which exists naturally on the planet.
Doing it that way seems to be impracticable?
So, for the moment, there has to be a compromise.

One way involves using batteries for storage.
Do batteries create less pollution?
The material needed must be mined?
And what happens to the battery when it is beyond use?
Can it always be recycled?
Does that process generate more pollution?

Whichever way we go, unless we can develop a near perfect system, we are slowly poisoning the planet.

Bugs Bowen gets a guernsey from MG; it's no wonder that MG is as naive and childishly accepting of the unreliable energy scam as he is. Bowen is an idiot: a nervous collapse waiting to happen; banging on about how cheap unreliables are, and wanting more of them, even as the price of electricity soars.

Bowen also signed up to giving money we don’t have to "deloping" countries - massive emitter China being one of them.

Bowen has never had a proper job, where his income was dependent on his own ability and work. He is Albanese's Court Jester, something else Australia cannot afford. The only thing he is good for is taking the heat off Albanese while that twerp travels merrily around the world.

Hi Ipso Fatso,
batteries are incredibly important for some households and especially for transport. I would favour a rise in *other* electric transport like trolley-buses that can be put up a lot faster and cheaper than trams - and charge 'on-line' but then go off-line on local EV trips because they'll have a battery. Or go around a downed tree or section where the powerlines were blown over in some future climate storm. They're just more flexible than on-line only, but don't have to have super-battery tech either.

But in terms of the grid? The CSIRO report I like explains that we'll overbuild the grid with wind and solar to minimise the storage we need. Then there's literally 300 TIMES more potential storage sites than we need in off-river pumped hydro. Pick your best third of a percent and you're done!

Per capita, this uses a tenth the water of a coal fired thermal plant! We'll SAVE 90% of today's energy-water by switching to renewables.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1083/abeb5b#prgeabeb5bs6

Hows about tidal generation, both direct and tidal storage.
No one has mentioned ‘heat sinks’ which store the heat from the sun and can be utilised for warming.

Hi Is Mise - if we built all our homes according to the best in passive solar design, we'd be a whole lot more comfortable. The Hobbit's had it right - build almost underground to use the average temperature of the earth to warm in winter and cool in summer. Thermal mass in building design - it can store warmth for cool seasons, and cool the house for hotter seasons. And save us money - in the long term.

But here's another thought on cars. China is about to flood the world market with cheap EV's. Now - I'd rather we made our own or bought off friendlier nations - but this is what is about to happen. EV's coming out at parity - or even *cheaper* than gas guzzlers. When people realise how much money can be saved by:-
1. Borrowing a little more on their mortgage.
2. Putting solar on their roof or buying into a Solar Garden (if they're in Strata Title or renting).
3. Buying an electric car and charging from their roof / garden offset contract,

then what do you think will happen to the value of petroleum cars? That's right! Plummet! Even the value of cars in a showroom will plummet.

It's time to get your super out of these investments. Now!

Hi AC,

Agree, the carnage in Ukraine is horrible. Also agree with you re the need to have welfare for those in need. The US health system is a mess.

Hi Max,

Five billion dollars saved over twenty-five years to offset how many trillions of dollars in economic activity generated by the fossil fuel industry? I guess such pearls of logic have dampened my enthusiasm for erratic energy.

I am not a glossy brochure enthusiast. I grew up with a psychopathic sibling who was ever trying one con or another on my family, so sales pitches don't tend to persuade me.

What I would like to see is more development of biogas generation from green waste. A huge amount of potential energy in this form is wasted, but I guess it comes down to the economics of the solutions.

Not so fast festy!

It's not just fossil fuels that generate economic activity - but *energy* itself that does that. Instead, fossil fuel particulates poison us and cost Australia $6 billion a year in extra health costs that our struggling health departments could really do without!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-06-27/climate-policies-ignoring-billions-in-health-savings-experts-say/9836894

Why do we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to big coal and oil?
http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

So with health & subsidies, that’s like $18 BILLION in extra costs per year. So you can take that off the $54 billion coal we sell overseas - that’s down to $35 billion. We made $36.6 billion selling education to overseas students.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/11/australias-37-6b-international-student-export-con/

We should retrain coal workers to work on solar and wind and pumped hydro stations, and massively increase our overseas education. Because the end of coal is coming - and soon we’ll have no one to sell to! Especially as fossil fuels also kill more than 8 million people a year!
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought

And all that extra CO2 in the atmosphere - identified as fossil fuel by the isotopes - really does cause climate change! The science says so. I don’t care what you ‘believe’ - the science said so decades ago and keeps getting clearer.

These lefties consult only left wing sources and think tanks. Only the ones that suit their bigotry and ideology. They leave the thinking to others. So much easier.

Unfortunately these far right climate deniers like ttbn brand all the true science as left wing lies, whilst prattling on with their own extremist clap trap! All they have to hope for is that Dangerous Doctor Donald returns to the White House in 2024.

"Why do we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to big coal and oil?"
http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

We don't, perhaps you should read your own articles a little more carefully.

"The largest subsidy is the federal Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, at $8.07 billion, which exceeds the $7.5 billion spent on the Australian Army.
Tax credits aside, Federal Government fossil fuel subsidies increased four-fold to $1.16 billion, from $266 million in 2020-21."

http://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Fuel-schemes/Fuel-tax-credits---business/

Fuel tax credits provide businesses with a credit for the fuel tax (excise or customs duty) that's included in the price of fuel used in: machinery, plant, equipment, heavy vehicles, light vehicles, travelling off public roads or on private roads.

It's not a gift to big coal and oil, it's an incentive to Aussie businesses across the board, you lot are always guilty of twisting the truth, and that's why normal people don't listen to you.

"So with health & subsidies",
The claimed 'cost' to Australians heath, isn't a cost in the sense of being a loss that someone had to pay out.
What we actually spend is 200 billion a year on health goods and services, services that wouldn't even exist if not for fossil fuels, and clearly fossil fuels are an export that bring money into our country.
Do you think you can build or run a hospital without coal, oil and gas?
Those health costs, are the cost of doing business or of having cars and vehicles, these are the benefits of our modern society.

"We made $36.6 billion selling education to overseas students."
What's that got to do with anything? Please explain.
Do you think those students aren't adding to fossil fuels use too?
How do you think they get here? By rowboat?

"We should retrain coal workers to work on solar and wind and pumped hydro stations"

Yeah ok, but who's going to dig up the coal?
Or are you offering to donate 50 billion to the Aussie economy yourself?
Maybe we can export the wind instead?
- Start with all your hot-air.

"Especially as fossil fuels also kill more than 8 million people a year!"
- Not in this country they don't.
Let me guess, are these calculations brought to us by the same people claiming a 10kg dog eating 500 daily calories of chum produces 6.5 tonnes of CO2 per year?
Should we even pay any attention to these numbers, or is that buying into the madness?

You haven't been eating bacteria already have you?

Max writes: "Why do we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to big coal and oil?"

and then provides a link that doesn't show any subsidies to coal and oil interests. It does show government infrastructure spending which normally people like Max (and the Australia Institute) would applaud and encourage. But on this occasion they are trying to give their claims a thin veneer of scholarship, which fails.

Still the point of the article was to confuse and beguile people like Max and in that regard it was spectacularly successful.

But evidence of subsidies .....nope.

Then he claims that 'pollution' is causing think-of-a-number-and-double-it dollars damage to the health system. Again he provides an article that makes the claim but provides zero evidence for the claim. But again, the point was to convince the anxiously gullible and, in Max's case, it was extremely successful.

FYI, wet pet food is a by-product of the meat industry, we don't farm cattle and other livestock for the single purpose of producing chum.

You punch out all these grand plans and statistics like you have claimed worldly knowledge that the rest of us are incapable of understanding, but I'm seeing little in the way of honesty, practicality, human dignity or just basic common sense.

Subsidies for renewables are predicted to be $22 billion by 2030. At least fossil fuel subsidies go towards money making exports. There is no money in renewables/unreliables.

If the fantasists and crackpots hadn't started fiddling with our energy - to the point where they can now not back off without looking as stupid as we know they are - none of this nonsense would be happening, and there would no pointless arguments with nutjobs on OLO.

Throughout the Western world, political decisions to undermine the cheapest and most reliable energy sources are bringing about economic stagnation and, possibly, the collapse of the Western world.

In Australia, always tail end Charlie, our moronic politicians have had the opportunity to see what has happened overseas because fossil fuels have been rejected. Are they taking any notice? No. They are rushing over the cliff behind Europe.

It is not climate change that is a threat to our way of life, but energy shortages exacerbated by net-zero emissions policies, and the relentless push towards unreliable wind and solar.

Wind turbines are the single-use plastic bags of the renewables industry. The only reason we don’t talk about how awful they are more often is because their reputation is protected by an axis of social media, political egos, and billionaire investors.

Two million of the things will be ripped out and put into landfill every year.

Solar panels will also be a nuisance, not worth recycling for the $8.15s worth of reusable material in them.

You know Max Green,
I do think you are somewhat courageous for coming here.
It would be so much easier for you to hang around your own kind;
That is, with other members of the climate religion where everyone just thinks the same among themselves.
- But still, you came.
You may not stay long, I guess we'll see.

I wonder what motivated you to deliberately go someplace where you knew the nuts were going to be hard to crack.
Did you think you could convince the 'deniers' to move closer to your position?
Or are you looking to test your arguments on merit with those who might think differently to you?

Thinking about myself and Fester on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, we support different sides, but we can find points of agreement.
I wonder if people like you in the climate religion will ever find points of agreement with people like us?

I'm not opposed to doing things that are better for the environment.
If you think that all your arguments hold merit, then why not also recognise that arguments on the other side also hold merit too.

Why doesn't your side work on more practical plans that everyone will support?
Both sides need to find points of agreement.
It shouldn't be about climate changers v's deniers.
Nobody wants to go out of their way to deliberately wreck the environment
99% of people would agree on that.
- Though obviously some care about it more than others.

If you don't like being labeled a climate-religion, then stop being one.
Bring back the honesty, practicality, human dignity and basic common sense.

How are you going to pay for all these things on your climate wish list;
If the changes your already making send us broke and back to the stone-age first?
FYI, I like your dam ideas, effectively making them giant batteries.
- Something I've previously suggested myself.

On subsidies. How about the ones that the idiot Bowen has a agreed too? Indebted Australia, along with other "rich" Western countries, are going to hand over money to 'developing' countries - including China!

This "loss and damage" funds will amount to many billions of dollars ever year.

The West does not have to wait to be wiped out by Third World hordes, it is doing itself in - even bringing the hordes inside the tent with mass immigration, including 1.4 million Chinese already here.

There are 50-60 million Chinese spread throughout the world. These migrants (Xinqiao) and PRC nationals living abroad (Huaqiao) are considered by the CCP to be part of the 'United Work Front' (Qiaowu), which has the purpose of mobilising community groups sympathetic to the interests of the CCP abroad. Suppression of any Chinese deemed hostile to the CCP is also expected.

The CCP believes that the unity of Chinese people at home requires the unity of those Chinese abroad.

Since the 1990s, virtually all Chinese language media in Australia has pushed loyalty to China.

Let me ask you something Max, purely from a financial point of view.
Lets say the hydro upgrades, solar generation, offshore wind and rebuilding the power grid cost a trillion dollars.

Lets also say that you could click you fingers and magically 1 trillion dollars worth of coal gas and oil from across our nation was instantly loaded at our ports waiting for export to foreign buyers.

Which means that 'if you click your fingers' all those resources will be extracted, but you will almost instantly have the financial ability to do all the things on your climate wish list.

What do you do Max, do you click your fingers and extract those resources, so that we can make changes that are better for the environment?

Or do we leave them in the ground, and leave ourselves unable to move to these improved ways of doing things?

The bigger issue, the 'elephant in the room' is whether or not people like yourself, who want to leave those resources in the ground are not yourselves the ones who are preventing us from moving forward?

How are you going to pay for it?
You lot want to reduce supply, increase the cost to consumers, reduce exports, cost people jobs, take their dignity and send the country broke.

Hey ttbn,
"On subsidies. How about the ones that the idiot Bowen has a agreed too? Indebted Australia, along with other "rich" Western countries, are going to hand over money to 'developing' countries - including China!

This 'loss and damage' fund will amount to many billions of dollars ever year."

I heard that Africa's going to get a 2.8 tln bill it has to pay by 2030.
- Way to keep the poor people down.

Did you see what Meloni had to say about France?
‘Magnificent’: Meloni blasts France’s ‘exploitation’ of African countries on live TV
http://youtu.be/q-C8ogD6E8c

Meanwhile...
France's Macron accuses Russia of 'predatory' influence in Africa
http://www.reuters.com/world/frances-macron-accuses-russia-predatory-influence-africa-2022-11-20/

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

Keep in mind this money were giving away isn't money we have, it'll add to the national debt, money loaned with interest.

How much are we giving this fund, and developing countries?
What is it they want 3 billion?

Meanwhile we sell Victoria's second biggest port to foreign funds management.
http://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/geelongport-sold-to-consortium-in-1-1-billion-deal-20221121-p5bzxu.html

Give away 3 billion borrowed money to developing countries whilst we sell a port to foreign bankers for 1 billion.
We help the poor countries, whilst rich bankers help themselves to our essential infrastructure.
- This country really is filled with idiots. -

With thinking like this we deserve whatever we get.
- And you lot try to defend the west?

NOW HEAR THIS :

ELECTRIC CARS & TRUCKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING !

They are coming in because the oil companies gave notice that they are planning on leaving the oil industry. Fracking is a stopgap.
I have not read all the posts of this thread but any that mention cars & trucks assume they are produced to reduce co2.
The plain fact of the matter is that peak crude oil occurred in 2005.
The cost of finding new oil fields and then developing them has become
just too expensive.
That is all there is to it !

Just to stir the pot !
When can we expect to see any climate change greater than seasons ?

MHAZE,

Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $11.6 billion in 2021-22, an increase of $1.3 billion in the last year, according to new Australia Institute research.

The total value of future fossil fuel subsidies already committed in Federal, state and territory budgets is $55.3 billion – more than 10 times the balance of Australia’s Emergency Response Fund ($4.8 billion in Dec 2021), while $11.6 billion is 56 times the budget of the National Recovery and Resilience Agency.

Key Findings
Fossil fuel subsidies cost $11.6 billion in 2021-22 across all federal, state and territory governments, equivalent to $22,139 per minute.
This marks a $1.3 billion (12%) increase on the 2020-21 total of $10.3 billion. States and territories actually reduced subsidies by $214 million but this was outweighed by a $1.4 billion increase from the Federal Government.
The total value already committed in federal, state and territory budgets is $55.3 billion, which is 11 times the balance of Australia’s Emergency Response Fund ($4.8 billion in Dec 2021), while $11.6 billion in 2021-22 is 56 times the budget of the National Recovery and Resilience Agency.
Fossil fuel subsidies cost the Federal Government $10.5 billion in 2021-22, $1.4 billion more than 2020-21.
These subsidies cost the Federal Government more than it spent on public schools in the same year ($9.7 billion).
http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

Donations of coal would be more useful to Africa than money. There is no way in the world that they will spend money responsibly, and renewables will never work for them. Should anyone think that I am being unkind to Africa, I'll add that I don't think that any Third World countries will spend responsibly. That's why they are Third World.

I note that MG is still using the very references he gets his garbage from as 'proof' of his wacky opinions.

Hi TTBN -
just saying 'proof' and whacky like that does not erase the facts. Not to reasonable people anyway. But here? Maybe just snarling does qualify as a logical rebuttal in this echo chamber?
________________
The Australian Government spends billions on programs that encourage more coal, gas and oil to be extracted and burned. Market Forces estimates that tax-based fossil fuel subsidies cost Australian taxpayers $12 billion every year.

The Government itself states $7.7 billion was invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector in 2020. Imagine if the fossil fuel industry’s annual subsidies of $12 billion were redirected to renewable energy.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that, on a global basis, removing global fossil fuel subsidies and taxing fossil fuels appropriately could lead to a decline in fossil-fuel related carbon emissions by over 20%.

Australia’s subsidies to the fossil fuel industry come in three forms:

tax-based subsidies, involving tax breaks to the producers and users of coal, oil and gas
direct handouts, where state and federal governments give out large sums of cash to help fossil fuel companies expand their operations
public financing, where our governments loan public money to big companies that can’t get sufficient funding from the private sector

http://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/ffs/

I note ttbn is sprooking his Hansonite racists nonsense, this time about Africans. "Only the superior whiteman can handle those stroppy blacks". Right ttbn!

Bazz,
if you follow the science we are breaking records and weirding out the seasons all the time. This year's rainfall beat the triple La Nina rains of the 1950's by October. Again, by October! And we've had record breaking floods in November!

Also, yes conventional oil peaked some ways back. The Fracking will give them some time, and if they got into the Coal-To-Liquids revolution the way the Nazi's did in WW2, then the 'oil' industry can even burn coal. That would create peak all fossil fuels within a short period - and then if there wasn't enough alternative energy infrastructure deployed in time - it would take severe rationing to have the energy to create the next energy system.

But burn ALL the fossil fuels and you'll be exposed to wet-bulb killer heatwaves with many parts of the equator simply becoming hostile to human life for months of the year at a time - in some places all year round. Agriculture would collapse across most continents. War, mayhem, floods, famines... but don't let any of this sciencey stuff alarm you.

Oh and the sea level would rise 65 meters. So there's that as well.
http://www.popsci.com/burning-all-fossil-fuels-could-raise-sea-levels-by-200-feet/

MG

You might think you are dealing in 'facts', but facts need proving. Until you prove your facts to be true, they are just opinions generated on your own "echo chamber". You could think about broadening your reading to see what some other respected commentators and scholars think about your heroes, and how easily they are shredded.

Of course, you might be caught up in the popular movement that has it that there are different 'truths', in which case, you will have much in common with a brick wall, and all is lost - for you.

Max wrote: "Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $11.6 billion in 2021-22"

Yes Max I read the article the last time you linked it. Just saying it over and over doesn't make it more believable. The article lists a series of alleged subsidies. But none of them are indeed subsidies - they are just infrastructure spending which tangentially helps some coal/gas producers.

Its like claiming that building a road leading to an airport is a subsidy to Qantas.

Only the anxiously gullible would be swayed.

In 1990 the world had 1.0275 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
In 1998 the world had 1.1412 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
By 2008 it had GROWN to 1.4938 trillion barrels.
By 2017 it had GROWN to 1.7275 trillion barrels.
A year later it had GROWN to 1.7297 trillion barrels.
By 2020 it had GROWN to 1.7324 trillion barrels.

All these rises in reserves despite the increasing demand.

The reason?
1. new discoveries
2. Better technology meaning unrecoverable oil becomes recoverable.

We aren't running out of oil. We've got at least a century before it even starts to become an issue.

I know this is counter-intuitive but it occurs in all sorts of fields in all sorts of periods. We don't run out of a resource. We never run out of resources. Technically they are not infinite but practically they are because their availability is dependent on human ingenuity and that is infinite.

Come on Max Green, just like Paul, you should try a little honesty.

Yes this year could equal the 1950s, but it has a very long way to go,[about 250mm], to equal the 1893 level. Incidentally that was the year that Brisbane experienced the biggest flood since settlement, & some aboriginals pointed out flotsam in trees showing previous floods were even higher. Could it have been those 1800 coal mines causing that flooding?

Next time you want to bleat about a drought just remember that Barrier reef drillings have shown that in the early 1700s there was a period of 24 years where our major rivers deposited no silt at all on the reef. The longest period post then was 3 years. When we get the next 24 year drought, you will be sure to blame coal mining & SUVs if you act in your usual green twisting of statistics. Of course you could use this information to avoid such lies, but will you?

Hasbeen,
That reminds me of the no doubt climate induced major flooding on the Hunter River in 1955, I was involved as3RAR deployed to the Maitland area on flood relief; Operation Fodder, Commanding Officer, Colonel Hay and Officer Commanding HQ Coy, Major Bales ( i jest not) Highest flood the town had ever experienced, water was so high that a wireless operator was killed when his aerial contacted a high voltage power line.
Of course the floods were caused by climate change, 1954 was much different.

Incidentally, on a visit to St Mary’s CofE church in Maitland, to check family records, I was shewn half a dozen anchor pins that were driven into the ground at the back of the church.
The Army had driven them in to tie up the DUKWS and had left them behind, the Church kept them as a reminder of when the water was only 6 inches below the level of their grounds.

"So you can take that off the $54 billion coal we sell overseas"

Queensland has sold more than $80 billion in coal this year. I think the national figure for fossil fuels this year will exceed $200 billion. Figures can support any argument if you make them up. Cheap energy is a driver of economic prosperity. Renewable energy, where implemented, does not appear to be cheap.

MHAZE,
I'm not against government intervention in the market in any way whatsoever. It's just this echo-chamber has this shrill hysteria about the government doing anything 'green' in intervening, but is apparently just fine when the government chucks literally BILLIONS in completely the wrong direction!
Your argument about roads to Qantas was fun but misleading - because that would be a road to a major piece of transport infrastructure (an airport) that has multiple companies working at it.
But what if the road was never going to be built except for the fact that *one* company was going to work there? Like these fracking roads which are built for them and then probably never used again once the fracked area dries up.
___
"Federal
Building the Kurri Kurri Gas-fired power station ($200 million).
Concessional finance for Olive Downs coal mine ($175 million).
Road construction for fracking in the Northern Territory ($173 million).
Capital investment in Hunter Valley coal railway network ($161 million)."
___

But Mhaze - interesting that you overlooked the single biggest subsidy! Ooops! (winks)

___
"The largest subsidy is the federal Fuel Tax Credits Scheme, at $8.07 billion, which exceeds the $7.5 billion spent on the Australian Army."
http://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-surge-to-11-6-billion-in-2021-22/

This is where I can't help but agree with Mr Campbell.
____
“It is long past time for these irresponsible budget measures to be reversed and these resources directed to combating climate change and preparing Australians for its consequences,” Mr Campbell said."

"In 1990 the world had 1.0275 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
In 1998 the world had 1.1412 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves.
By 2008 it had GROWN to 1.4938 trillion barrels.
By 2017 it had GROWN to 1.7275 trillion barrels.
A year later it had GROWN to 1.7297 trillion barrels.
By 2020 it had GROWN to 1.7324 trillion barrels."

I note you haven't sourced this? Please always source - it makes you more credible. But anyway, I agree with the trend. There have been remarkable new technologies invented over the last few years. But your conclusion is ridiculous. We've lost resources because we've hunted them to extinction. There are plenty of empty mine shafts and pits all over the planet.

Also, we haven't run out of oil *globally*, but there are plenty of regions that cannot produce it *locally*. That has had profound effects on their economies and geopolitics as they now have to import it.

This geopolitical leverage can be vastly more dangerous and sudden than any global geological peak. Rich oil nations get rich, consume more, and suddenly go from oil exporters to oil importers.

"It models the decline in oil exports that result when an exporting nation experiences both a peak in oil production and an increase in domestic oil consumption. In such cases, exports decline at a far faster rate than the decline in oil production alone.

The Export Land Model is important to petroleum importing nations because when the rate of global petroleum production peaks and begins to decline, the petroleum available on the world market will decline much more steeply than the decline in total production."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

Oh, and all this in a world that World-O-Meter shows to have 1.6 trillion barrels, burning 35.7 billion barrels a year = 46 years left. Let alone when we peak, or have any Export Land Model shocks. The international market for oil dries up WAY sooner than the oil does!

http://www.worldometers.info/oil/#:~:text=World%20Oil%20Reserves&text=The%20world%20has%20proven%20reserves,levels%20and%20excluding%20unproven%20reserves).

Hey Max,
"It's just this echo-chamber has this shrill hysteria about the government doing anything 'green' in intervening, but is apparently just fine when the government chucks literally BILLIONS in completely the wrong direction!"

The right direction Max, is the one that allows us to pay for the things on your wish-list.
Not one that sends us broke and makes these things unattainable.
You never answered my question.

I told you already, I'm not opposed to things that are better for the environment, but I won't cut my nose off to spite my face.

Would you sell the trillion dollars worth of resources if it allowed you to have you the items on your climate wish list immediately?

- Because if the answer is no, then it's you that is part of the problem and you that is preventing us from taking steps forward into a better future.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984&page=0#340751

Your ideas (firstly regarding food, and secondly how to pay for new energy infrastructure) lack human dignity and are impractical.

You've gone AWOL, stop misconstruing the truth, we will check the statistics and look at things from a common sense viewpoint.
Get back on track and more people will likely support your ideas.
In the case of food, just get rid of that plan entirely.

You don't win friends with salad.
http://youtu.be/wx59zLqBRuI

Of course the crude oil production looked like it was increasing.
However the subsidies were the money the oil companies could not spend
to produce oil at a marketable price.
The subsidies look like running out as government borrowing continue
to climb into trillions.
So now we have peak fracking and subsidised oil which looks why
Royal Dutch Shell, as it was, announced it was studying how to exit
the oil industry.
If Shell, BP & Esso are thinking like that it becomes either electric
or hydrogen cars and trucks.
You cannot park hydrogen cars in underground car parks and presumably
cannot run them through tunnels.

There is one hell of a lot of nonsense talked about co2.
If any of it was half true we would already be cooked.
Instead the earth is greening, which I would have thought was a good thing !
It still snows in winter in some places and is very hot in others at
the appropriate time of year.
The pacific Islands are getting bigger on the whole, so much for sea rise.

Max snarks: "I note you haven't sourced this?"

You need a source for this? You claim to be very conversant with the issue yet are unaware of this most fundamental data? Its like a priest asking for a source to the crucifixion.

Still for you further education...
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=oil&graph=reserves
http://bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-oil-is-left-in-the-world-when-will-we-run-out/

Even though you then acknowledge the trend you then go on to claim that we'll run out of oil in 46 years based on the most simplistic of maths. (Its the carbon budget debacle all over again!).

What the data shows is that for at least the last 50 years we have been finding more recoverable oil each year (on average) than we use. There is no reason to expect this trend to stop any time soon, yet you have decided that it stopped this year! Why? Because that's what you want to believe not because it has any basis in fact.

We have more recoverable oil today than we had 40 years ago despite using ever growing quantities of the stuff. Based on that we can expect to have more next year and more the year after.

We'll stop using oil at some point. But it won't be because we run out of it or because of the utterly discredited notion of peak oil. Instead we'll stop using it because something better will come along.

(I note that the US is beginning experiments about using microwaves to beam power from space based solar farms to earth based receiving stations....who knows?)

"But Mhaze - interesting that you overlooked the single biggest subsidy! Ooops! (winks)"

The Fuel Tax Rebate isn't a subsidy. You really need to break yourself of this habit of reading something that suits your proclivities and then strenuously believing it to be true.

Only anti-oil zealots like the Australia Institute and their flying monkeys like yourself claim it to be a subsidy.

It is in fact a return of taxes inappropriately paid. Basically the Diesel Fuel Tax is levied on fuel to compensate for the damage larger diesel vehicles do to public roads and infrastructure. But some of that fuel is used by vehicles and equipment that never sees a public road - farm equipment, mining equipment. The rebate is for the fuel used in those instances.

This has been discussed a decade ago. Both the Productive Commission and the ATO looked at it and determined that it couldn't in any way be called a subsidy. Yet the zealots aren't swayed by mere fact.

It seems that Max doesn't have opinions - he just has sources, AKA other people's opinions in the main - that he passes on free of charge.

Max, I don't know if you read books at all, but you really should try 'Intellectual Morons : How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall For Stupid Ideas', by Daniel J Flynn.

You seem to to be smart. You could be smarter without the ideology.

Hi MHaze,
I happen to be a fan of anything that works. Nuclear, renewables with lots of pumped hydro for storage, or even "PowerSats" (space-based solar power microwaved back to rectennae).

But your assertions about always finding more and more oil are fantasy. Discovery peaked a long time ago - recent gains have been not in the RESOURCE but in the economically recoverable RESERVES because of the technological gains. It's not finding more, but being able to get at more. Look up Resource and Reserves on an energy or resources website - you seem confused about the difference.

Struth Max,

This just gets worse and worse for you.

1. In a post from just yesterday, I mentioned that there were two ways to achieve greater reserves. So the confusion is all yours.

2. "recent gains have been not in the RESOURCE". You really don't understand much about this at all.... http://energycapitalpower.com/top-global-oil-discoveries-in-2021/

Power from Space ?
Something tells me this is another phurphy like global warming.
One very major parameter in radio communications is PATH LOSS.
The amount of signal power that leaves an antenna requires very high
gain receivers at hundreds of miles distance.
The amount of pass loss could be like putting in 1000 watts and getting
ten microwatts in the receiver !

Would not turn on a led.

Well Bazz some people much more knowledgeable than I on such matters think it might work...

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/wireless-power-transmission-of-solar-energy-from-space/

Mhaze - I admit I didn't bother looking at your links. If the links are any good - I already know this stuff. If the links aren't - you're just linking to another ideological alt-crap site so why bother either way?
But it's not my fault you CLAIM to know the lingo but don't use it correctly.
You wrote: "is that for at least the last 50 years we have been finding more recoverable oil each year"
"We have more recoverable oil today than we had 40 years ago despite using ever growing quantities of the stuff."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340790
"finding more oil" "ever growing quantities"
I'm sorry but no matter how many times I read it there's no indication of you having ANY understanding of the difference between Resource and Reserves.
FACT - they're not finding that much new oil as your retarded summary above would indicate.
FACT - they're learning how to extract the oil they've known about for decades but has always been too expensive to extract using today's methods. (Which indicates we're near the end of the cheap accessible stuff doesn't it.)
more...

Mhaze...

FACT - that you believe the higher estimates of how much oil we can access shows you to be quite gullible? If you don't really care about independent audits - I can sell you shares in the Harbour Bridge. Basically, the Saudi books are as cooked as Al Capone's. But because they send the right message - you believe them. Gullible much? As that great Green-Left magazine Forbes says: (winks)

"But doubts about the amount of Saudi Arabia's reserves have persisted for years. In 1982, Saudi Arabia stopped allowing their oil and gas data to be scrutinized. Prior to that, outsiders had some access to information on their reserves. When that accessibility was shut down, Saudi proved oil reserves were estimated to be 166 billion barrels.
However, around 1988 Saudi raised their estimate of proved reserves by 90 billion barrels. Many pundits have suggested that this upward revision was based on internal OPEC politics. Since the reserves were no longer subject to outside audit, there was a great deal of skepticism around the official numbers the Saudis released.

The skepticism deepened when one considered that Saudi's reserves in 1990 were 260 billion barrels, and today -- nearly 30 years later -- they are reportedly 266 billion barrels. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia produced over 100 billion barrels between 1990 and 2017. How then could their reserves be essentially unchanged?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/02/14/how-much-oil-does-saudi-arabia-have/?sh=4d01c2a7b337

Yes Max, very sensible.... reject all the data because it doesn't concur with what you want to be true.

I give a link showing new discoveries in just one year and you assert " they're not finding that much new oil" without providing the slightest evidence for your claim.

You claim " I already know this stuff " yet when I provided a quick summary of the most foundational data you wanted sources for it. Far from knowing all this stuff, it looked like you didn't know any of this stuff.

Mhaze, He seems to understand what it is all about.
Note: Transmit power is 1.6 Gigawatt and received power is 180 milliwatt.
That power is obtained in 1 cm squared.
He claims 96% efficiency, so 96% of 1.6Gw well doesn't matter.
16000000000/.0180 tells you how many receive antenna are needed.
1.6Gw 180mwatt
Presuming they can all be phased correctly.

Hmmm

Waste of time talking to these climate nuts.
I reckon they should start sending me cheques for all the money they cost me.
They put my food, fuel and electricity up and then they tell me I'll be eating bacteria.
Max Green should go glue himself to the road like the other climate warriors.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2022/11/22/eu-esa-solaris-space-solarpower/1371669133186/

"Europe's space agency reviewing space-based solar power"

Perhaps we should send them a link to OLO so they can find out why it can't be done.

AC

It certainly is a waste of time talking to people obsessed with climate, doom and gloom, and stuff that hasn't even been invented yet - and probably never will be invented.

A government bozo advised a Senate committee hearing that 40% of the non-solutions to non-problems haven't been invented. If it hasn't been invented, it doesn't exist, and it cannot even be envisioned. Still, the fantasists believe humans are smarter than they really are and, just because they have come up with things in the past, they will continue to do so in the future.

Unfortunately, people who believe that carbon dioxide causes climate change will believe anything.

A question about pumped hydro. What is the environmental impact of such schemes? Environmentalists went to great lengths to prevent the Franklin River being damned, so why would no one care about hundreds of pumped hydro schemes?

Fester,
Stopping the damning of the Franklin averted a probable disaster as the damn wall site was unstable and it was intended to inject cement into the underlying rock fissures to strengthen things, for about 7 miles as I remember.

Hi Max,

Arguing with logic and facts is a waste of time with the 'Usual Suspects' on the Forum. Are you in the vicinity of Taronga Zoo in Sydney, or an other large zoo with a baboon enclosure? If so you would be better off throwing peanuts to the monkeys than arguing sense with this mob, at least those monkeys will appreciate the feed.

Mhaze,
your first link shows US EIA data which analyses RESERVES growth - NOT new oil!

Has the difference between discoverable RESOURCE and usable RESERVES penetrated your thick skull yet?

RESOURCE is what's there. It's what we discover. It's the oil in the ground.

RESERVES analyses resource in context. Tricky questions like what technology are you using at what price for what market, and who will buy it at that price? It's where the oil meets the market.

All you have linked to are graphs that show what happens when the world price of oil goes up. Guess what? THE RESERVES INCREASE! Yeah, who'd a thunk it!? When you can throw extra chemicals and extra energy pressure to extract the harder to get stuff, the amount you can extract goes UP! Wow - magic! (Derp! Facepalm!)

Has this affected the amount of oil we've DISCOVERED? The amount in the GROUND? NO! (Again - Derp! Facepalm!)

Why is the price up? It's complicated, and involves everything from the war in Ukraine, droughts in Brazil leading to less hydro power leading to more demand for gas, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_global_energy_crisis

Of course during the pandemic the market for oil shut down so bad that they had to pay people to take it away!

But let me point out the obvious. These are questions of economics, NOT RESOURCE!

For resource, you have to google scary stuff like "Historical Oil discovery rates".

Then you get news like this from Bloomberg-

“Oil Discoveries at 70-Year Low Signal Supply Shortfall Ahead
New finds at lowest since 1947 and headed even lower: WoodMac
Explorers replacing just 6% of resources they drill: Rystad”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-29/oil-discoveries-at-a-70-year-low-signal-a-supply-shortfall-ahead?leadSource=uverify%20wall

We're finding less oil. Got it?
Got to find it before you can burn it. Got it?

Now ultimately I agree with you that the market means higher oil prices will mean investment in new ideas. But as the Senate enquiry said, it’s a 20 year job.

And you’ll see one answer ramping up right in front of your eyes.
EV’s.

"We're finding less oil. Got it?"

Well I didn't say otherwise....got it!

But whether that's true or not, the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.

I'd also note that your link to support your case is from 2016 (!!) which was the worst year in the past decade for discoveries. If I thought you were cluey enough to do it, I'd accuse you of cherry-picking.

"when the world price of oil goes up. Guess what? THE RESERVES INCREASE! "

Well, yes, this is what I've been saying above and indeed for years in these pages. I'm please to see you finally caught up, or caught on.

Quite why you think I don't know the difference between reserves and resources is unclear since I've never addressed the (minor) issue. But I guess you're grasping at any straw by now, eh?

So let's review.... You started off asserting (a claim without evidence) that peak oil happened in the 1970s and by now have come to realise that it might happen some time in the near to medium future. Well done...glad to have been of service.

Finding less oil? Is that because we are not looking for it? It could be said that we also not finding as much coal, even though there is at least 1,200 years worth of the stuff available. It's hard to take seriously the 'end of' stories. Cranks like Paul Ehrlich, who never got a thing right, queered the pitch for modern seers, who might be right, or they might be wrong. What will be will be be; but there is currently nothing to replace oil, coal and gas capable of maintaining life and prosperity as we know it now; despite what cranks like the excited, sweaty Bugs Bowen is currently ranting about.

Mhaze,
"as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using."
I never said anything of the sort. Please quote me saying this? I must have misspoke. I'll say it again - discovery peaked way back in the 1950's and 60's. It's been declining ever since. Occasionally there's an upwards blip but it's never very much.

I actually understand your reluctance to believe we're starting to reach the limits. I've been there. It's how I became a bit of an environmentalist. When I found out how much oil it takes to grow food and run the world and that we were nearing this civilisation's half-way mark, it kind of freaked me out. I ended up researching so much about this stuff that I published in magazines about it a few times! I'm no geologist - but these were academic magazines asking for my perspective on it.

In the 18 years since I've forgotten more oil data and info than you'll ever know.

But back to the reluctance to believe this stuff. It's HARD to because of reporting like this!
"Oil And Gas Discoveries Reach Four-Year High In 2019, As Exploration Spending Set To Grow...
...According to Rystad Energy, oil and gas firms discovered a four-year high 12.2 billion barrels of oil or the equivalent last year,"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/01/11/oil-and-gas-discoveries-hit-four-year-high-in-2019-as-capital-spending-set-to-pick-up/?sh=62af55738749

Except... we use 35.5 billion barrels a year. http://www.worldometers.info/oil/

So the best year of oil discovery in 4 years finds a THIRD OF A YEAR's worth! Note the declining oil reserves ticker at the link above.
No matter how much we "Drill baby Drill!" that number is going DOWN BABY - DOWN!

Bad: Even the Forbes link says we've only got 50 years left.

Worse: That doesn't include the inevitable geology of peak oil which is earlier. (Oh and I never meant WORLD oil peaked in the 1970's - just Hubbert predicted *American* conventional peak oil - and was of course correct.)

Worst: The Export Land Model tells us that the international MARKET for oil dries up *well before* the geology of peak oil lowers production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

OMG here's another country wasting money on space based solar when we here know it can't work....

http://spacenews.com/china-to-use-space-station-to-test-space-based-solar-power/

Max,

I showed you the data earlier which showed that our reserves are increasing not decreasing. QED.

"In the 18 years since I've forgotten more oil data and info than you'll ever know."

Let's meet half way. I agree with the first part (up to the word 'than') of your statement.

TTBN,
you're funny. I have not studied peak coal as much as I have peak oil, but your assumption about 1,200 years is just FUNNY!

In 2015 the World Coal Association reported that two different estimates of coal reserves remaining were 968 Gt - a larger estimate of the two, but we'll go with that. (There are others a THIRD less, but we'll go with this.)
http://www.worldcoal.org/file_validate.php?file=Coal%20Facts%202015.pdf

How much do we use? 820 Million tons a year which is 8.2 Gt / year.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-coal-consumption-by-region-2000-2021

Divide 968 Gt by 8.2 = 118 years.

Now, we can't burn it because from a climate point of view we can't even afford to burn the remaining OIL! The remaining coal would take us over our carbon budget 5 times over.

Nor can we rely on that 118 years figure because:-
1. World energy demand is increasing because electricity is such useful stuff.
2. The poor deserve their turn at living a comfortable modern life.

I'm convinced that 100% renewables can do the job - but if anyone here doubts that they can support nuclear as well. Breeder reactors get 90 times the energy out of each bit of uranium. Dr James Hansen - the world's most famous climatologist - has said that he supports nuclear power. At one point he said believing in renewables was like believing in the Tooth Fairy - but that was quite a while ago and renewables have dropped 90% in cost since then.

We can now afford to overbuild renewables to cater for the worst energy drought in winter - and just curtail the rest of the year.

Mhaze,
so you're not going to substantively address a single point I've said?

"I showed you the data earlier which showed that our reserves are increasing not decreasing. QED."

Derp! Gee, when the oil price shoots up is amazing how uneconomical expensive oil can suddenly be produced.

Derp - why is this oil so expensive?

Derp - why are we only finding it out in the oceans and not nice formations we can drill a simple hole in?

Derp - why does it cost so much to drill out in the deep oceans?

Derp - what's a resource? What's a reserve?

Derp Derp - we're FINDING SO MUCH OIL!

(Dorothy you Derp, just remember to click your ruby slippers together 3 times as wish that.)

Come off it Max. We have well over 100 years of known oil in Oz, & probably much more if the extent was investigated.

That with over 300 years of gas, particularly if that protester shooter down there would let them start harvesting theirs, rather than demanding cheap gas from other states.

For crying out loud Max. Its been said many times over by many people over the past 50 years that as the price of oil rises then uneconomic wells become economic. Its at least part of the reason why the realists knew the peak oil rubbish was, ahem, rubbish.

I've said it here in threads going back a decade.

Yet here you are proclaiming it like you've made some major logic break-through. It suggests you really haven't been all that immersed in the issue.

Of coarse this doesn't just go for oil. As the supply vis a vis demand of any resource or product rises, so does the price. And as the price rises the incentive to create or find more of that resource or a viable substitute also rises. Its why we've never run out of any resource.

“For crying out loud Max. Its been said many times over by many people over the past 50 years that as the price of oil rises then uneconomic wells become economic.”

Which kind of falls under the umbrella of the economic behaviour of RESERVES - doesn’t it? A principle I’ve never disagreed with. What I DID disagree with was this:-
“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340823

DERP!

As to the rest of your post - are you saying there’s a price incentive? Who’da thunk it?

“Its why we've never run out of any resource” Absolute crap!

When a species is over hunted and goes extinct, we’ve lost a resource.

When a beautiful isolated beach becomes a tourist hotspot and gets overcrowded and awful, we’ve lost a resource. Not because it’s GONE - but because it’s over used and no longer as enjoyable. In the same way as oil will peak in individual oil nations, their domestic consumption will quickly overtake their ability to export. The INTERNATIONAL oil market dries up long before global peak oil even arrives. Oil becomes too expensive to buy - or is just not sold to your country. “They” need it.

I don’t want to be a slave to anything - communist overlords or neolib ‘free market’ ideology. We’re homo-sapiens. Let’s *think* and plan ahead - and get off the oil before it’s too late. We currently rely on oil for food and transport of goods and services. Our military relies on it as well. There are renewable alternatives. It’s time to live up to our name, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and not become Homo Marketus Ideologicus Dumbarses.

"are you saying there’s a price incentive? Who’da thunk it?"

Well, it seems, not you, until I raised it.

But the price incentive isn't the point. The point is that the price incentive is the reason more resources become available and why, therefore we don't run out of said resources.

"When a species is over hunted and goes extinct, we’ve lost a resource."

Well I was think about the resources we dig up or pump up since that's what the thread's been about. That you had to go with game to try to refute it, rather makes my point.

But the point also works for game. Why was it being hunted?

Fur? Well have we run out of fur?
Food? Well have we run out of food?

The loss of a sub-section of a resource isn't the loss of that resource.

Mhaze,
I grant the economic principle of supply and demand on prices, and this incentivising further exploration, extraction, and even R&D into cheaper more abundant alternatives. While "Resource" refers to oil in the ground and "Reserves" refers to the probability of certainty of the oil being there - it also refers to the price-point in the market bell curve. All good. You've repeated that time and again, and I've written about it time and again. I've read papers by experts on this price-point stuff, as it's not just geology, not just market, but that energy-economist who specialises in the middle.

But you know what I hear every time you mention it? Diversion. You're trying to pull the wool over this forum's eyes that you EVER said the following - and just move on to claim you were talking about economics!

“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340823

Diversion isn't going to work. So here's the deal. You can man up and admit you didn't know our highest decade of discovery was actually 60 years ago back in the 1960's! You can be honest and admit what you wrote about discovery is wrong by SIX DECADES. Do that, and I'll respect that you made a mistake and we'll move on to other things. I'll even respect you enough to stop saying Derp! How's that? (wink - like you care.)

Or just lie and repeat your lies that you were ONLY talking about demand incentives. It's up to you.

U.S. Oil Companies Have Increased Drilling By 60% In One Year
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/03/27/oil-companies-have-increased-drilling-by-60-in-one-year/?sh=53db61331556

Rig Count Overview & Summary Count
http://rigcount.bakerhughes.com/

Heaps of new oil is being discovered.
http://www.ogj.com/exploration-development/discoveries/article/14284772/exxonmobil-makes-two-new-oil-discoveries-offshore-guyana

http://www.offshore-energy.biz/a-new-dawn-for-namibia-as-shell-finds-oil-in-deepwater-well/

http://www.rigzone.com/news/adnoc_breaks_world_record_for_longest_well-21-oct-2022-170795-article/
"Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) has broken a world record for the longest oil and gas well at its Upper Zakum Concession.

Stretching 50,000 feet, the well is around 800 feet longer than the previous world record set in 2017 and supports ADNOC’s efforts to expand the production capacity of its lower-carbon oil and gas resources to help meet the world’s growing demand for energy."

Armchair - you've put up some interesting links. But what do you think you've shown? Next time it would be great if you could copy and paste the most relevant paragraph or data summarising how your links prove your point. (Or at least why you *think* they do - your opinion on these matters has proved to be less than compelling!) Otherwise it just looks like a "Gish Gallop" - an American Creationist routine!

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The internet forum version of a Gish Gallop is just submitting a load of crappy links proving nothing.

And guess what? If you bothered to actually read and UNDERSTAND your own links, you've proved my point for me, not the point you think you've made. Which is why I've stopped bothering to discuss stuff with you.

If you couldn't grasp the data I submitted about the immense energy in the Haber-Bosch chemistry, and just came up with the most dumbass metaphors about animals pooping bigger things than themselves, then why on earth would I discuss oil reserves with you?

I'm no scientist - but at least I'm humble enough to admit when I need help and go ask the experts how these things work. You think you're smarter than the experts. You shout your opinion down the internet, slap your Armchair Arms in self-congratulatory praise - and don't realise how much other people who know a BIT about anything else are actually *cringing* with embarrassment for you.

Sadly, you seem to have this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Somebody please give Maxie a Tonka truck to play with.

Max, been following your posts on this, thanks for some decent info, you really know your stuff, unlike ttbn the "nasty little grub" as he likes to refer to others.

Hi Paul,
thanks - but don't hold anything I say without verification too high. I'm really NOT a scientist - and come at all this from a sociology background. It's just I respect the scientists enough to ask questions and try to comprehend what they're ACTUALLY saying.

I make mistakes. EG: Until this year I just didn't believe the peer-reviewed science showing we could do 100% renewables. I knew the concepts and never thought it was technically impossible. I just thought it was too expensive to overbuild wind and solar to reduce storage required during winter. To be fair, even Dr James Hansen said that only nuclear could do the job.

“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf

What all this has taught me is that the average person is REALLY bad at estimating cost curves. This year a few things provoked my thinking on all this and solar is now 4 times cheaper per unit of electricity delivered to the grid than nuclear. Now nuclear is totally different because it is reliable during the darkest, quietest winter month. But 4 times cheaper? That lets you build out THREE TIMES the entire Australian grid just to cope with winter - and then you have 2 times the grid sitting spare say 10 months of the year. What could we do with all that extra power?

Things have changed. This stuff is hard. I'm not a scientist - but the potential economic disruptions coming to energy, transport and food in just the next decade are truly awesome.

People into this climate/renewables/electric vehicle nonsense like to glean statistics and 'facts' that they like. Here's one they won't like, and will probably deny:

In world terms, the expenditure of $55 trillion on renewables over the last 2 decades has reduced dependence on fossil fuels from 86 per cent to 84 per cent. Whacko! What a result!

Max,

"You're trying to pull the wool over this forum's eyes that you EVER said the following....“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.”

But...but...you did admit it. I listed some numbers covering the last 30 years showing that we are consistently INcreasing the amount of oil reserves eg from 1.0275 trillion barrels in 1990 to 1.7324 trillion in 2020. AND you followed up with " I agree with the trend."

It seems you want to resile from that now. So be it.

I haven't said anything about the level of discovery in the 1960s so I don't know how you think you know that I didn't know, ya know? The level of discovery in the 1960s is irrelevant to this discussion. The only pertinent point if that our level of known accessible reserves is growing not declining. That is, we are adding more to the reserves than we are taking from it. And while-ever that happens we won't run out of the stuff.

So moronic stuff like dividing the level of reserves by the yearly usage to work out when we run out is just dumb since it fails to include the volume being added back in.

"I'll even respect you enough to stop saying Derp! How's that? "

No I want you to keep using it. It reminds us of the level of intellect we're dealing with.

Hi Mhaze,
I stand by both my comments.
The RESERVES have increased.
The RESOURCE hasn't.
NO - I'm NOT believing two logically inconsistent ideas at once.

In case you are confused, here is the DISCOVERY of NEW OIL peaked in the 1960's and again in the late 70's.
http://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Oil-Discovery-Trend_fig1_267194751

Basically, it's as I feared.

This whole thing is about you not understanding the difference between Reserves and Resources, even though I've explained it to you many times. You are just another Denier with Dunning Kruger's.

This next paragraph of yours illustrates it perfectly.

"The only pertinent point if that our level of known accessible reserves is growing not declining. That is, we are adding more to the reserves than we are taking from it. And while-ever that happens we won't run out of the stuff."

If you're not going to bother learning the geologist's definitions of oil reserves vs oil resource, it's like you're determined to be stubborn little piss-ant! Just go away.

Max says he didn't agree that oil reserves were increasing.

I show where he did indeed agree with that.

Max says he doesn't want to talk about it any more.

So far no-one has commented on the very successful use of hybrid technology in ships, been a success story for 122 years.
Also of interest is the World’s first solar powered train, in NSW at Byron Bay.

Mhaze’s greatest hits:-
“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340823

Seriously dude - the way you sneer at new information reminds me of a kid sneering at any green vegetables on their plate. I’ve tried to explain to you the difference between oil resources and oil reserves. You SHOULD understand the difference by now - but are just repeating your own stupid ignorance at me like a mantra.

Historical oil RESOURCE discovery rates should alarm us even though we temporarily see RESERVE increases. The oil RESOURCES are finite and the most was discovered in the 1960’s.

http://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Oil-Discovery-Trend_fig1_267194751

It's not MY fault you cannot understand the difference and keep blurring the boundaries of the two in your attempt to confuse this conversation.

The RESERVES are debatable, probable, and different countries report them in different ways even though the scientific community have their definitions. Conservative old geologists agree that Saudi Arabia’s books are probably cooked - but that’s a whole other discussion.

But keeping this basic, I’ll try a metaphor to help.

RESOURCE (finite, non-renewable) is like someone slaughtered most of the cows on the island and put them in deep freeze for eating later. Occasionally a little calf wanders in (someone finds a tiny new field). But the big fields are gone. Look at the global discovery trends in the graph above will you!?

“RESERVES growth” is that the price of food has gone up on this hypothetical island of dead cows, and so someone figures out how to cook up the bone marrow and make a new meal. Sure - it’s a meal. Sure it will make the stock of cows in the deep freeze last a bit longer. But no-one is kidding themselves that the finite cow problem has been solved. They’ve done the math on both eating steaks AND bone marrow, and concluded how long we’ve got. It ain’t long - and no one is DISCOVERING NEW COWS (which is what you originally hinted at!) at any significant rate.

Mhaze - did my metaphor get through to you? Are you prepared to go read the geology definitions and have another look at your statement below?

“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340823

The problem you have is everyone knows about sideways mining and chemical injection, fracking, etc. (All the reserves growth tech.) It's already counted in BP's statistical review.

The Forbes article I quoted was from 2020 and so includes all that when it says the following. (CAPS MINE for emphasis.)

“According to BP's annual statistical review, in 2018 the world had proven oil reserves of 1.73 trillion barrels, enough to fill up 263,000 Empire State Buildings. If society keeps drawing from those reserves at the CURRENT PRODUCTION RATE of around 100 million barrels per day, it would be enough to last about 50 years, the better part of most people's lifetimes.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/01/11/oil-and-gas-discoveries-hit-four-year-high-in-2019-as-capital-spending-set-to-pick-up/?sh=62af55738749

Oh no - the 3 most deceptive words in resource reporting. “CURRENT PRODUCTION RATES!” Since the industrial revolution started, energy consumption has always increased. (Apart from geopolitical crisis or pandemics.) How much can we expect demand to increase?

The world wants their turn at living the American dream. America uses 900 gallons per capita per year on average. That’s ridiculous - let’s live like European countries which use half that oil as they’re all about public transport and old urban designs. They’re around 400 to 500 gallons per year. So we're good, right?

http://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-consumption-by-country/

WRONG! China only uses 138 gallons, India is at 51 gallons, and many African nations are under 10! What happens when they want their fair share? They’re industrialising - fast!

Do the math on the number of new consumers and oil demand is about to double and double again. America’s got 5% of the world population but uses 25% of the oil. What happens when you halve 50 years, and then halve it again?

Click your ruby slippers together 3 times as you chant "Reserves Growth will save me”. There's a good little Dorothy.

Wow Max, for someone who didn't want to talk any more, that's quite the rant.

Basically, this whole thing started when I showed that world oil reserves have been increasing, not decreasing, for decades and that there's no reason to think that'll stop any time soon. Max initially agreed with that (well even he can't deny the nose on his face) but, when he realised the ramifications of it, immediately regretted his acknowledging the data. If we aren't running out of oil then one leg of his green fantasies disappears.

So he's spent who knows how many posts trying to deny that which he originally accepted

Google and the cranks who put up rubbish in it have a lot to answer for. The site is the only source of "knowledge" many posters have.

When 'green' technology ain't so green...

New Evidence Points to the Annual Slaughter of Millions of Bats by Onshore Wind Turbines

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989422001512

MHAZE,
"whole thing started when I showed that world oil reserves have been increasing"

Hooray! You used the right word! You said the RESERVES were increasing, and didn't even confuse that with DISCOVERING new reserves. Excellent. We're making progress. Good on you!

"for decades" Yes - there have been some remarkable technological leaps. But that's the funny thing about technology isn't it? It tends to come in leaps and then plateau. There's no reason to think there's a Moore's law of oil extraction. It's not like miniaturization will somehow magically make more oil. Tar sands, tight oil, oil shale, thermal depolymerization and even coal and gas conversion are fairly mature industries. Check the wiki or go on youtube and watch engineering youtubers about these technologies if you want to know more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil

BUT yes, there have been these remarkable advances over the last few decades in these unconventional oils. Old Hubbert would be amazed at the new tech that finally undid his 1956 prediction of peak CONVENTIONAL oil which really did peak in 1970. It's been a real industry shake up - even in the 18 years since I became aware of how fragile our energy security really was.

Your defence? Point out that I agreed with you that reserves had increased. Sure. That's a partial solution. I have said repeatedly that AS the price of oil goes up, the RESERVES increase. This has pretty much happened. The reserves growth you reference is accounted for. Everyone knows about it. Forbes accounted for it in their 50 year estimation – and you completely ignored demand increase from developing nations – let alone the extra 2 billion people expected by 2050!

<Stopping the damning of the Franklin averted a probable disaster as the damn wall site was unstable and it was intended to inject cement into the underlying rock fissures to strengthen things, for about 7 miles as I remember.>

Thanks, IsMise, but it was environmental concerns that canned the project. The engineers responsible for the planning were happy to build it, so they would not have shared those concerns.

What I don't understand is how a 180mw hydro scheme attracts international condemnation over environmental concerns, yet many gws of pumped hydro, some using seawater, are considered to have negligible environmental impact. Further, Australia could build multiple nuclear power plants up and down the country with a positive environmental impact, yet were such a move lawful it would have the greenies screaming to stop it. I guess that illogical is the norm when you are designing an ideological power generating network. I am sure it will work every bit as well as communism.

I’m against expansion of normal hydro dams. Most of the best pumped hydro sites in the world have already been used. The last sites have enormous biodiversity, ecosystems, and fisheries issues. We don't want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment from climate change!

But OFF-RIVER closed loop pumped hydro dams solve this, and open up a VAST range of choice. Anywhere with a decent hill or cliff can be used. They’ve used Satellites to map the topology and the world has ample sites to choose from. America has 100 times ,Australia has over 300 TIMES what we need! Choose your best third of a percent and we're done.

They also have FAST BUILD TIMES. There's no pesky river to divert! You work on the upper reservoir, the lower reservoir, the tunnel connecting them and even the turbine room all at once! They can be built in 3 years.

They’re CHEAP. First we reduce the storage required by over-building the wind and solar grid to cope with the worst winter week. Given solar is ¼ the cost of nuclear, this is economic. The final price for a 100% wind and solar and pumped-hydro storage is CHEAPER than we’re paying for electricity now – about $70 Mwh! For CLEAN power - without all those pollution health costs. For OUR power - without being tied to a global gas price or anything.

Then you have the ultimate battery. It will never generate its own energy - and just uses the solar and wind to pump water uphill. It’s expensive up front, but ultimately one of the cheapest large scale storage methods. And we’ve got over a century of experience with them. This means there are no new inventions required for a 100% renewable grids. They use a TENTH the water of coal fired thermal plants. We'll SAVE 90% of today's energy-water by switching to renewables. Check out more info here.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2516-1083/abeb5b#prgeabeb5bs6

Thanks Max.

It looks a lot cheaper than battery storage, but trying to power Australia selectively with low capacity, chaotic low carbon energy sources seems foolish and ideological, especially as renewable energy has not met expectations thus far.

How do you mean it has 'not met expectations'? Who's expectations? Wind is the cheapest power source by far. But solar has also gone down in price much faster than many imagined, is now 4 times cheaper per unit of electricity than comparable nukes - and this fact offsets the intermittency problem and consequent requirement for overbuilding.

Nuclear is a great energy source, and we can burn the waste in breeder reactors and get 90 times the energy out of it. The main problem? It's expensive. The next problem? Aussies hate it, and despite talking about nuclear for the last 14 years I've only convinced a handful of people that it's worth it. Renewables are now just too cheap!

While we were late starters politically on climate action, renewables are being built 10 times faster in Australia than the global average. http://theconversation.com/australia-is-the-runaway-global-leader-in-building-new-renewable-energy-123694

Also, "Wind and solar are being built three times faster than everything else combined. It follows they will dominate future energy markets as existing fossil fuel generators retire and electricity use grows rapidly...

...Sceptics point out you need more land or sea to produce the same amount of electricity as fossil fuel plants. While true, solar farms can happily coexist with livestock and cropping to create a double income for farmers. The solar electricity needed to power the world and eliminate all fossil fuels can be generated from about 1% of the land area devoted to agriculture."

Also, this fact blows my mind! We were so slow coming out of the blocks, but we're going to win this thing! "In Australia, solar and wind are booming while coal is rapidly falling. We’re already on track to reach 80-90% renewables by 2030. Remarkably, our per capita solar generation is twice as large as the second placed countries (Germany, Japan and the Netherlands) and far ahead of China and the USA."

http://theconversation.com/theres-a-huge-surge-in-solar-production-under-way-and-australia-could-show-the-world-how-to-use-it-190241

Basically by the time we convince enough Aussies that nuclear might be OK, renewables will have already done the job - cheaper and safer.

Wind is variable, solar is affected by rain, cloud and snow (and hail) but tidal is utterly reliable 24/365 and 366 in leap years.

Hi Is Mise,
I don't know as much about tidal as I do peak oil - so I'm curious why you think tidal power's capacity factor is so high? Where did you hear that? As far as I can tell even the FANS admit it has a low capacity factor.

"A drawback of tidal power is its low capacity factor, and it misses peak demand times because of 12.5 hr cycle of the tides... Tidal energy schemes are characterised by low capacity factors, usually in the range of 20-35%."
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/tidal-energy/

That's worse than most wind turbines which average about 40% but some are even higher. But solar is SO CHEAP the 20% capacity factor doesn't matter when you can build 200% or 300% times the Australian grid with it to make up for it! (Build the grid 2 or 3 times and use pumped hydro and you're still ahead of today's high gas prices).

Also, we were talking about the environmental concerns about damning the Franklin river and other pumped hydro concerns? What do you think happens when we put massive barrages across esturies and river fronts?

Maybe you were talking about tidal streams - like wind turbines out in the ocean being driven by tidal rivers like "Welcome to the EAC baby!" ("Finding Nemo" reference.) My understanding is the ocean is ROUGH on the toughest turbines. It's hard to make turbines, which spin around, strong enough, cheap enough.

"The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of TSE projects is expected to be about $74/MWh to $330/MWh higher than offshore wind projects through 2050. Only with optimistic LCOE projections, small TSE projects (20 MW) may be competitive (when including increased net social benefits) with small offshore wind projects by 2020."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0301421517306900

Hi Max,

I like your enthusiasm, but think about what you have said. You say that solar is a quarter the cost of nuclear, but the important question is "How much is 24/7 solar?". To answer that question you would need to know how the capacity factor for solar varied throughout the year in order to work out how much excess generation you would need. I have heard estimates of six to eight times average demand, which would make it 50% more expensive than nuclear power before any other costings for 24/7 renewables are considered. That might be why French nuclear is a third the cost of European renewable energy, and there is the suggestion that a well maintained nuclear plant can have a service life of over a century. How long will your solar and wind generators last?

Max,
Because the tide is utterly reliable, no other natural source of power is as reliable except geo-thermal, I didn’t say anything about efficiency but reliability.

On a lighter note.
Sometimes motivation is a deciding factor; I visit one alternative community where the battery power for the TV depends on a pedal generator, TV addicts have a roster of pedalers.
Other power comes from an alternator driven by a floating wheel in the nearby stream.
Batteries are recycled 12 and 6 volt motor vehicle ones.

Oh Dear, still arguing the toss.
Re oil, it would be useful for those talking about it to read,
Twilight in the Desert by the late Mathew Simmons.

For the life of me I cannot see how wind & solar can generate cheap electricity.
Fester suggested that five times the peak load in a year would be needed.
I am afraid he is very optimistic. In a country the size of Australia
you would need a duplication a few time larger.
However our grid is about half that size and the proportion is the
exponential inverse size of the physical grid. Reduce by half the grid
size and the duplication goes up four times.
Wind yearly output is 33% of the nameplate rating, so you need two
more turbines for each one, but they cannot be on the same site.
They MUST be on two other sites. However there might be no wind on
two of the sites.

As far as cost goes it seems that the modular nuclear made in a factory
are planning on a lifetime of eighty years. Where will the cost of wind
and solar be then ?
There is a simple way to solve the problem before huge amounts of money is spent.
To be continued.

We all know solar and wind are intermittent. We all know winter is especially tough, with “energy droughts” being feared. There are dark overcast weeks without much wind. The Germans call these Dunkelflaute, the “Dark Lulls”.

Even energy hobbyists have studied the weather data themselves and concluded that a moderate overbuild of renewables about 1.5 times the Australian grid would do the job with a little pumped hydro. But what do the experts say?

An Australian National University team have analysed decades of weather data. They’ve analysed different renewables build out plans. Renewables are now SO cheap that you can OVER-BUILD them radically - as in 2 or 3 times the grid capacity in summer months - just to reduce the storage costs for Dunkelflautes. The good news? Dunkelflautes are rare.

“PV and wind allow Australia to reach 100% renewable electricity rapidly at low cost. Wide dispersion of wind and PV over 10–100 million hectares reduces cost. Off-river pumped hydro energy storage is the cheapest form of mass storage. There are effectively unlimited sites available in Australia. **LCOE from a 100% renewable Australian electricity system is US$70/MWh (2017 prices).”** http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217309568

Here’s Tony Seba - just click below as I’ve timekeyed it to the spot. He explains the relationship of overbuild to storage and how it reduces the otherwise MASSIVE storage costs. Look at the graph! The irony? While he says you can have a 100% ALL renewable grid - technically he’s saying you can’t. He’s REALLY saying you can only have a 400% or 500% or even 600% renewable grid! Why? Overbuild for your worst weeks in winter! And it’s still the cheapest power system in HISTORY!
http://youtu.be/fsnkPLkf1ao?t=356

Now here’s the question. If you’re building 5 times your national grid’s demand just to cope with your worst month in winter, what do you do with the grid the other 11 months? With 4 or 5 times your national power? Just turn those farms off and waste it? Um, no! You could desalinate water cheap, use Plasma Burners to recycle all our landfill, or run other seasonal work.

100% Renewable
There is much talk of this objective and indeed it will in the long term be very necessary.
With a Labour government there will probably be a variety of irreversible commitments made to implement 100% renewable electricity generation.

So far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no study to determine how many wind and solar farms will be needed and where they must be located. Before even determining how many wind generators and solar panels will be needed we need to determine where they should be located.

What needs to be done to achieve this task is a major study of wind systems over all of Australia. Then it will be necessary to establish where the best locations are for solar farms taking into account the differences imposed by time of year.
The data could be established by installing weather stations in likely locations.
Their readings could be fed into a central computer which would use
real data to compare with the real load 24 hrs a day 365 days a year.
Once that data is obtained then it would be possible to test virtual wind farms in all locations taking into account yearly variations. While Bureau of Meteorology data would be a good starting point only real data from weather stations installed for one or two years would be valid.

This could be modeled in realtime and after a virtual network of wind farms and solar farms was tested that gave a 100% availability of electricity then the number of wnd generators in each farm could be established and also the number of panels in each solar farm could be determined.

to be continued

Is Mise I saw places in PNG where a, automotive alternator driven by water from a small waterfall, with water carried by a bamboo pipe gave lots of 12V power a enough 240 to drive a fridge freezer.

As for tide, that depends on there being enough range. In much of the Pacific for example, the range is only a foot. In places on the reef & inside it, the range can be 16Ft & rate of flow high enough to be useful. The bad thing is only 3.5 to 4 hours of worthwhile flow each tide. The good thing is that places only 100 nautical miles apart can have high/low tides 2 or more hours apart. Tidal power is yet to be made useful of course, just as wave power has failed.

All this is only of interest to the foolish who believe CO2 is responsible for changing the weather. Sensible folk realise more CO2 is an asset, so we should be using coal in all power generation, & to hell with the gravy train riders & their useful idiots.

Sorry for the interuption;

The realtime output of existing wind and solar could also be fed in to
the central computer & it would give a realistic input to the system.

To undertake the project this way would show that weather stations
in all the locations would be a lot cheaper than installing the
turbines in the wrong locations anyway.

I went as far as getting BOM wind data from a number of locations
around the country but as 24 hour data was not available it illustrates
that only by using wx stations installed in likely locations would do the job.
If a site was proven then a wx station would be needed anyway.
A good project for CSIRO !

Hi Max,

Okay, you said that solar was a quarter the cost of nuclear, then you give a link saying that building five or six times as much solar makes sense. How can it be viable if the solar and wind generators alone provide power at 150% the cost of nuclear? You claim that you would just build other industry to use the extra power. How might that work when the extra power would be highly erratic? Remember, all that extra generating capacity only makes a sixth to an eight of the output 24/7, and you only get that after you have spent a motza on batteries, transmission and regulatory infrastructure, pumped hydro and backup generators. Wouldn't it be easier just go nuclear if you wanted low carbon power? I think it a pity that wind and solar weren't made illegal in Australia as we would then match our World's most moronic country status re nuclear energy.

Wind and solar are very applicable to some applications, but for a national grid you acknowledge that it is at least 50% more expensive than nuclear for the cost of the turbines and panels alone. I am finding it difficult to understand how it works.

IS MISE - so you'd rather pay 2 to 6 times as much for your electricity when wind solar and off-river PHES could do the same job?
BAZZ - we don't need the life of you. We just need you to spend a few hours reading Bakers. Then read it again!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0301421517306900
"So far as I have been able to ascertain there has been no study to determine how many wind and solar farms will be needed and where they must be located."

OR just watch this. I've keyframed it to the right bit. http://youtu.be/fsnkPLkf1ao?t=356

Bazz - I've been looking for the same sort of study for years. Most of the studies I've read have great horrible glaring holes in their assumptions. They make crazy assumptions about energy efficiency, or most of us dropping cars for trams and trains. (Which I'm in favour of but don't want to be used as a way of massaging renewables energy figures.)

I was even critical of this paper above when it came out back in 2017. It wasn't that wind and solar and off-river PHES (Pumped Hydro Electricity Storage) are unimaginable technically - it was they seemed unimaginable economically. How much was all this going to flipping COST? Then the price of wind and solar kept coming down, and WILL CONTINUE to come down another 70% over the next ten years!

FESTER - great question!
The answer is that the 5 to 6 times is to replace OIL as well as electricity - and because EV's are 4 times more efficient with each unit of power than OIL - we're going to be saving heaps of money after we switch to EV.

Even with nukes you would have to replace all the fossil fuel electricity generation on maybe a 1 to 1 basis (where solar is like a 1 to 3 basis), and then build a whole bunch more nukes to generate the TRANSPORT electricity replacing oil as well. Also, there are many other grid costs.

From the link below: "In an expanded electricity system in which all energy required for land transport, buildings, manufacturing and mining comes from solar and wind electricity then the amount of electricity required is doubled and total Australian emissions decline by 80%."

BAZZ - I forgot to mention this Blakers article below that I just shared with Fester has a graphic of where renewable energy zones would be and the HVDC lines to build - all costed.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/for-100-billion-australia-could-have-a-low-cost-and-reliable-zero-emissions-grid/

One area I'd love to see some work on is how we're going to fuel our military in a post-oil world? Is it going to be synfuels generated somehow? Like, battery electric vehicles are great for our personal vehicle needs - but I don't see them driving a tank! (Winks)
Supplying fuel in the battle arena is a tricky logistical exercise that costs lives in warfare! Just look at how Ukrainians are trying to target Russian trains supplying the front. This paper looks at nuclear-powered aircraft carriers out in the arena manufacturing jet-fuel on site - from seawater and carbon dioxide in the seawater!
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

Max,
“IS MISE - so you'd rather pay 2 to 6 times as much for your electricity when wind solar and off-river PHES could do the same job?”
That’s an assumption and an invalid one at that.

Is Mise,
"No it isn't. It's a valid assumption!"

See how bland assertion works as an argument technique? It's great isn't it - because you don't have to DO any work. You just assert the negative. Like, "No it isn't." Which of course reminds us of Monty Python's argument skit...

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition... Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

http://montycasinos.com/montypython/scripts/argument.php.html

So what I will do now is offer an argument towards a proposition. My proposition is that it is NOT just my assumption that wind and solar with PHES are vastly cheaper than tidal streams.

It's that my opinion is based on peer-reviewed studies by both tidal experts and "100% WWS" studies (Wind, Water, Solar - with water being PHES.) As I submitted to you in the links above.

Which you then tried to refute with bland contradiction. Winning much hey Is Mise? (winks)

After the post above I was having lunch and watching the ABC news and nearly spat my lunch out. I was JUST typing to Is Mise about PHES. And here it is - the micro-version!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-01/renewable-energy-fix-walpole-power-problems/100579700

Summary: Walpole is a little country Aussie farming and tourism town down the end of a LONG transmission line. That means fires and storms and gum trees coming down cause frequent power outages.

How to fix that? A farmer is getting some money having 2 dams built to PHES specs. It will be unobtrusive - it's his property. And dams are things farmers tend to have anyway.

It's small. They've broken ground, and it's going to be finished by the end of 2023. When finished, if a tree comes down and severs the line, the little town of Walpole will have 2 days of power to get them through until that line can be repaired.

And who knows? There's enough free country there for Walpole to one day get ideas about generating their own solar and wind and maybe building another pumped hydro dam. Will the Shire of Walpole take them off grid into their own little micro-grid? Will they go into some sort of local worker's co-op? Community owned power rather than Corporation owned power? Awesome! This youtube piece is from Western Power - who may have unwittingly set the groundwork for Walpole to leave their grid one day. But hey, kick back and enjoy the footage. Walpole looks like many coastal Aussie towns, and I feel like I need a holiday watching this!
http://youtu.be/vGqdYhVfYwM

Here are the specks. It's a tiny cute little thing! Only a 90 metre head!
http://www.westernpower.com.au/media/6094/wp_walpole_minipumpedhydro_brochure_apr22.pdf

BUT on the other end of the scale here's a report on Queenslands HUGE $62 billion pumped hydro & renewable energy hubs!
http://youtu.be/aXWroHuh_mY

If batteries are going to get cheaper Max, please explain why my battery for my remote control planes cost $5.00 in 2017 & costs $26.00 today.

The cost of Lithium is up 500% over the same period. Do try to talk some sense Max.

I've already explained a lot of this, but yes I fully grant batteries are up in price (but not 5 times! You must have got ripped off - if what you say is true.)

But the Tesla powerwall is up an extra 50% on last year. That's in one year!

It's easy. It's market driven demand. Demand is too high at the moment for lithium suppliers to keep up.

BUT:
There are new Lithium extraction technologies coming. Lithium sits in cooling ponds for 18 months - but that is about to change in the next year or so. There are pump and filter routines coming that could radically speed up the production of lithium and maybe halve the cost.
http://youtu.be/xWpLFUUDTiM

But basically there are also just too many alternative chemistries being cooked up out there for lithium ion to remain the king. It's going to be dethroned soon enough.

This is the Undecided battery playlist - there are 31 episodes. He's great - one of my favourite future-tech Youtubers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8FEyaZxqAU&list=PLnTSM-ORSgi51JjqvxlP0JTYSU0-910Ks

Just Have A Think is also FANTASTIC - I really like this guy.
This is his energy storage playlist - and some of these ideas could mean we don't have to build pumped hydro storage systems ever again! But the particular one I'm interested in could take 5 to 10 years to come to market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbkhXAP1EQE&list=PLaB0XtT-WMEODwZxpgzvNholOp43GD0t2

Until then, I'm just happy that today's OFF-RIVER PHES (Pumped Hydro Electricity Storage) can do the job. Combine this Water storage technology with Wind and Solar, and you get WWS for 100% clean electricity - and as we begin to electrify everything - including transport - it will give Australia some independence from some oil producing countries that don't like us very much!

Seriously - any patriotic Australian concerned about our national security should be DEMANDING 100% WWS.

Hi Max,

I appreciate your efforts in taking time to explain things. Very complicated, using battery storage for transportation, but interesting. You would still have some excess capacity given seasonal variation, and there is also the question of whether all the batteries could be made, how long they would last, and what cost they would be, but if it can make energy cheaper then it might have something to offer. I would still prefer to see such a system demonstrated on a small scale first.

Thanks again for your patience.

Max wrote: "Hooray! You used the right word! You said the RESERVES were increasing,"

The very first time I wrote on this I wrote..."In 1990 the world had 1.0275 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves."

The fact is I used the correct word from beginning to end.
The fact is you initially agreed with my point.
The fact is you only created this imaginary misuse of terms because you were trying to find a way of getting out of the corner you talked yourself into.

The fact is oil reserves have been growing for decades despite growing demand.

The fact is you'd prefer that wasn't true because it invalidates your renewable fantasies.

The fact is there is no reason to think that will end soon.

The fact is oil (and fossil fuels in general) remain and will continue to remain the main source of global power well into this century.

The fact is that by the time declining fossil fuel availability becomes an issue, other sources of power will have long since taken over.

This is the only bit you got right! “The fact is that by the time declining fossil fuel availability becomes an issue, other sources of power will have long since taken over.” Renewables + EV’s will take over in the next 15 to 20 years. DONE!

I’m sick of talking about the difference between RESOURCES and RESERVES. If you want to try to understand it, here’s a team from the University of Calgary. http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Reserve

But what I still really object to is this outright LIE!
“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340823

This is a fantasy, out there will “The Aliens at area 51 will save us!” We are most categorically NOT DISCOVERING more oil than we use. Oil discovery peaked in the 1960’s and again in the 80’s. In a good year discovery might replace a quarter of that year. Mostly, we’re eating into oil our grandparents discovered. This is a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:World_crude_discovery_production_U-2200Gb_LaherrereMar2015.jpg

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 already accounts for all today’s reserves growth and on page 15 STILL says we run out in 50 years. At current rates!
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

Also, your 'solution' of reserves growth is also the problem. Peak oil isn't about when oil runs out - it's when it can no longer meet market demand economically.

You're so busy chanting "Reserves growth FOREVER!" like some Marvel fan shouting "Wakanda FOREVER!" that you've forgotten what that means. You should be shouting “Inflation FOREVER!”
Everyone wants to live the American dream at 900 gallons per capita per year.

EXTRA DEMAND FROM:-

1. DEVELOPING NATIONS: China only uses 138 gallons, India at 51 gallons, and many African nations are under 10! What happens when they want their fair share? They’re industrialising - fast! http://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-consumption-by-country/

2. BILLIONS MORE! Add 2 billion people by 2050.
If the EV’s and renewables you hate DON’T take over, demand for oil will double and double again.

Depending on the speed of demand growth - BP’s 50 years will HALVE and HALVE again!

WAKANDA FOREVER!

"I’m sick of talking about the difference between RESOURCES and RESERVES."

So stop. After all you're only talking about it and you're only using it as a means of deflecting from your previous errors.

"This is the only bit you got right! "

The only thing? So when I said global reserves were increasing each decade that was wrong? If so why did you agree with the numbers at the time? Indeed why don't you agree with those numbers now? Just to be clear, do you now deny you agreed that those numbers were correct?

The data is right or wrong. It can't magically become wrong just because you realise the data upends your renewable fantasies.

"So when I said global reserves were increasing each decade that was wrong?"

Yes and no. One moment you are discussing reserves - the next moment you mentioned DISCOVERIES (which is about new resource that eventually get categorised into reserves!)

But if you can't be bothered to learn the difference between the two categories then we can't have this discussion because your Dunning-Kruger's keeps getting in the way.

I tried to help you. If you don't want to read a fairly easy piece by Calgary - that's your business but don't complain if I correct your terminology now and then.

OK - now onto your "Reserve Growth FOR-EVER!"
Oooh dear oh dear.
Look what's slowing down!
http://www.statista.com/statistics/236657/global-crude-oil-reserves-since-1990/

Even your famous Reserve Growth - which HAS been remarkable in previous decades - slowed down last decade. Why, it's barely keeping up with replacing the 35.4 BILLION barrels we burn each year. (No wonder - that's over a 1000 bathtubs of oil PER SECOND!) It's maxing out!
"If so why did you agree with the numbers at the time? Indeed why don't you agree with those numbers now? Just to be clear, do you now deny you agreed that those numbers were correct?"

RESERVES Growth is plateauing as I've shown in the graph above.

New DISCOVERY of RESOURCES peaked in the 1960's and 1980's. As I have said - apart from the Reserves Growth we've already discussed at length - we’re eating into oil our grandparents discovered. This is a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:World_crude_discovery_production_U-2200Gb_LaherrereMar2015.jpg

If you can't be be arsed to learn the difference between the two, then that's on you.

WAKANDA FOREVER!

Remember my island metaphor? It's not very good - but it's the best I can come up with right now.
All the cows on the island were sadly rounded up and shot and put in deep freeze out the back. Or maybe we should call them 'elephants' (after the actual oil industry term for a mega-field like Ghawar in Saudia Arabia - the world's largest single oil field.)

Someone found all the 'elephants'. OK? That was in the 1960's and 1980's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#/media/File:World_crude_discovery_production_U-2200Gb_LaherrereMar2015.jpg

Sometimes someone will find new babies, but they're not big enough to replace even the food we're eating that year. (That's new discoveries of tiny fields we're finding today.)

But wait! Someone learned how to cook elephant bone-marrow soup and thin out the broth with some other ingredients (that's fracking and tar sands that we ALREADY KNEW ABOUT - but have new access to because of new tech and also, quite frankly, because the cheap oil is gone and the price seems to be permanently high now. Welcome to "INFLATION FOR-EVER!")
http://www.statista.com/statistics/236657/global-crude-oil-reserves-since-1990/

You keep emphasising the fact that someone is thinning out the elephant soup - and therefore we're going to have elephant soup forever! But you really hate it when I point out no one is discovering new elephants, and there's a whole lot more people on their way to our island wanting their turn eating elephant soup!

Elephant soup for-ever!

WAKANDA FOR-EVER!

"OK - now onto your "Reserve Growth FOR-EVER!""

Well, I never said that. The exact opposite in fact.

But why let the facts get in the way of your search to hide your errors?

Done!

Hi ALL,
just for the record - this is the moment when MHaze decided he could not be bothered to learn the geological difference between RESOURCE and RESERVES - and gave up trying to defend the notion that there was no oil crisis.

This is the moment when he hopefully realised that we're not finding enough oil, and the 'reserve growth' he's been relying on is barely keeping up with replacing the oil we're using.

This reserve growth is new ways of getting at oil fields WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT.

It also describes what happens when we get oil inflation - a bad thing. A BAD thing for us economically which also happens to be a good thing for oil reserves - the amount of ECONOMICALLY extractable oil goes up. But the fact that the global economy kind of tanks in the process so that no one wants to buy it seems irrelevant to Mhaze.

So let me predict the next decade or so regarding oil. The developing world wants more oil. Demand increases and prices rise.

BUT the prices get too high, which causes recession. Therefore, businesses and tourism decrease. Oil demand decreases. The oil prices lower. The "Reserves Growth" lowers because people don't want to buy that expensive stuff - or can't because of the recession.

But time passes. The inefficient businesses were weeded out by the recession. The economy grows again. People forget what's causing this, and think "Oh look - the oil price is lower again, let's start our tourism firm again..." and back we go again.

It's not so much a neat peak of production, but a BUMPY PLATEAU. The “solution” of trusting in reserves growth to solve the problem IS the problem.

This is all a theoretical future. It won't happen. Electric vehicles are coming.

However, sadly I see a long and consistent demand for oil for airlines and some mining equipment and plastics. There are other ways of doing these things, but it's going to take considerable R&D. We shall see.

No Max,

After you criticised me for saying something I'd never said having indeed said the exact opposite, it was the moment I recalled that I was dealing with someone of questionable ethics and therefore decided it wasn't worth it.

Mhaze,

you mentioned reserves growth and were quite rational about how the technology has increased what we can get at in fields we already know about. You mentioned economic incentives as the oil price rose, and how that increased what we can AFFORD to get at in fields we already know about. All good so far!

And I kind of went along with it and sort of agreed with you. But I didn't know that you didn't understand the difference between RESOURCE (the oil fields we know more or less are there) and RESERVES (the highly probably P95% reserves with the amount we can extract at xyz price.)

I basically agreed with you on RESERVE GROWTH. But then you broke the illusion of knowing anything basic about this industry when you said:

“…the fact remains, as you've already admitted, we are discovering more than we're using.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#340823

I NEVER agreed with you on that - and the fact that to this day you still think I did shows you're just not getting this.

We HAVE NOT discovered a lot more oil - not since the 1980's elephants. But we HAVE discovered how to extract a fair bit more oil from the elephants we know about. And now even the reserves growth is tapering off.

America has 5% of the world's population yet uses 25% of it's oil.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/
What happens when the rest of the world wants their turn?
Let's do that. 20 times 25% = 5.
I've only been saying world demand for oil will go up 4 times - that it will double and double again. And they say "At CURRENT RATES" we've got 50 years of oil left! That's just hilarious!

But hey - ignore these figures! Why don't you satisfy my narcissism and cry about how badly I've beaten you up and misrepresented YOU? Just ignore the oil. Do not speaketh it's name!

WAKANDA FOREVER!

Hi Max,

I thought a little more about your idea of using the excess renewable generation to power transport. While I would like your idea to work, I think it might have the same problem as it has with other power supply, namely the need to have multiples of supply (due to the low capacity factor) to ensure that supply can always meet demand. I suspect that renewable generation would need to be less than a tenth the cost of nuclear before it might start to be competitive for 24/7 supply. Complicated visions are very difficult to achieve and usually cost far more than planned.

To reiterate Max, for any 24/7 power demand, be it transportation or more traditional uses of an electrical grid, you need a multiple of supply to account for the capacity factor. For solar, that figure can be below 20%, hence the six to eight times supply multiple. Do you see the problem Max? What I see is that the cost of 24/7 renewables is as much as twice the cost of nuclear for the solar panels and wind turbines alone. So why are you are so enthusiastic about renewables when they would supply 24/7 power at over twice the cost of nuclear power which you dismiss as being too expensive?

Fester,
well - if you've been *thinking* about it I hope your 20 page PDF can be submitted to the ANU's CSIRO team led by Blakers etc.

In the meantime, did you factor in your *thinking* about it that EV's are much more efficient? They get 2 to 3 times more transport per unit energy.
http://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/evs-are-they-really-more-efficient/

Also, in this *particular* Blakers CSIRO model focused just on a 100% electricity grid they make the following interesting comment:

"NEM demand remains stable at 205 TWh per year (including roof-mounted PV). NEM demand has changed little since 2008 [11], with energy efficiency offsetting growth in demand (driven mostly by population growth). Electrification of land transport (which could add 30–35% to electricity demand in the future [12]) is excluded in order to focus on the current electricity system."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217309568

Not much more electricity.

I'll have to check which studies recommend which amount of over-build - as I quoted the 5-6 times from my last email chat with Mathew Stocks of the Blakers team.

Did you factor in how flexible this can be? Most domestic cars sit in a driveway or at work for 95% of the day. They can be charging that whole time - or in future versions even selling some of that power back to the grid.

Did you factor in energy density in batteries is still increasing and the price decreasing - so that we'll soon have cars that can drive from Sydney to Melbourne in one charge?

That these batteries now have 8 times more power than a home Tesla Powerwall, and will soon have 9 or 10 times more?

Did you factor in that "the grid" will often not be charging these cars at all - but home users will charge them DIRECTLY from solar on their rooftops? Much more efficient than driving fuel around.

One thing we don't want to fall for is huge hydrogen exports. That may just not happen - as Japan can make all their own power from renewables.

http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/2022/04/04/australia-plans-hydrogen-exporter/

Hi Max,

I appreciate your efforts in answering my questions, but your answers don't make sense to me. The question I ask is what is the minimum capacity factor used for renewable generation? My understanding is that solar generation has an average capacity factor of about twenty-five percent. Minimum capacity is lower, so making nuclear cheaper than the cost of solar generation alone. My interest is more simple than just assuming that Blakers is a smart guy and must be correct.

What depth of water can an EV negotiate compared to an IC vehicle?

We do know that diesel electric locomotives are severely limited in this regard to steam locomotives which can go through much deeper water.

Hi Fester,
It sounds like you might be double counting?

Generally speaking Capacity Factor is a MAJOR part of establishing the LCOE - and without it it's not a true LCOE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

This next article is from 2 years ago!

"That is - even though solar only works about a quarter of the time (a third of the day - any cloudy days etc) it is STILL vastly cheaper than nukes. The down time has already been included in that calculation. Solar is 4 times cheaper than nukes - and getting cheaper!

Further cost reductions in both large scale solar PV and onshore wind projects mean that these two technologies are now the cheapest form of new build energy generation in areas that count for two thirds of the world’s population, and 85 per cent of the globe’s electricity generation.

The latest benchmark report from research company BloombergNEF show that in just the last six months the levellised cost of electricity (LCOE) for onshore wind has fallen a further nine per cent, its most significant drop in five year.

The cost of utility scale PV, already down 90 per cent over the past decade, has fallen a further 4 per cent. The takes their respective benchmark, or global average costs taking into account the varied wind and solar resources, to an average of $US44/MWh for wind and $US50/MWh for utility scale solar."
http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-wind-and-battery-storage-now-cheapest-energy-options-just-about-everywhere-95748/

Have a look at the regional studies. (Geography really affects the output!) It's now MUCH cheaper than coal! (Check 2021 data.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Regional_studies

There is one form of transport that beats EVs hands down except for speed, being limited to 50 kph for short trips.
More fuel efficient, cheaper fuel, low environment impact, fully recyclable and the byproducts of fuel are reusable.

Yes Is Mise - I support cycling.
I also support New Urbanism.

Bloomberg analyses Vienna's public housing success. Instead of being a place for welfare recipients, this is where their middle class live. It's not quite government owned and run housing - but hybrid. The government buys the land off citizens at a fair price. (This would HAVE to happen here "On just terms" - remember your constitution. Or at least "The Castle".) Then, because the government can't afford to house everyone in a middle class suburban home - the homes are demolished and higher density housing put in. But unlike just "flats" which are basically coffins in the sky you go home to sleep in - these are more New Urban town plans with shops and everything around a tram or train station.
https://youtu.be/41VJudBdYXY

This is my favourite New Urban primer - only 3 minutes. A town square with a tram, surrounded by shops and services and a walkable high-density neighbourhood that only takes 7 minutes to get home to your eco-apartment.
http://youtu.be/VGJt_YXIoJI

This next video is 13 minutes and describes the "Third Place". It’s a walkable local pub or town square park and eating place where anyone can hang out. For locals. Not something anonymous and huge and distant that you drive to – like a supermall that services 300,000. It's like your lounge room, but public. A broad range of different people just hang there - because it's fun.

The town plan itself fights loneliness and isolation. It’s charming and nostalgic - but many of us do not experience this kind of spontaneous local fun. We live in suburbia. There’s no ‘there’ there. But real-world studies confirm that the many physical and mental health benefits are real!

http://youtu.be/VvdQ381K5xg

Max,
Very interesting, l’ve been an advocate for New Urbanism for some time.
They already have it in India, more by accident than design, we have a flat in Mumbai and everyone in the building knows everyone else; we are in comfortable walking distance of the Metro station which links to three suburban rail lines.
There are plenty of local small shops, including food takeaways, all of which do deliveries; ring up for a toasted sandwich and tea and five minutes later there’s a knock at the door; cheap too including the tip.
We could make our own, but as “Rich” Australians it is expected that we’d spend locally.
We’re also expected to hire a washer woman to do the clothes, another to sweep the flat and mop the floors.
She however doesn’t do windows so each visit we also hire a window cleaner who comes around every two weeks.
The many high rise apartment blocks often have landscaped meeting areas, and we have very rich friends who rent a full floor apartment in such a block, they are on the 25th floor of a 27 floor building, the ground floor is shops, 1st and 2nd floors are.business offices, 3rd to 26th are whole floor apartments and the top floor is utilities, such as water tanks, AC machinery, electrical including the standby generator and the lift winding machinery.

Hi Max,

The article you linked claimed 40 to 50 USD per mwh from wind and solar. It also included the 80 to 90 USD per mwh for storage, but not the 20% energy loss for stored power, making the cost of wind and solar power up to 150 USD per mwh.

In contrast, French nuclear power can cost as little as 30 to 40 USD over the life of the power plant, or about a fifth to a quarter the cost of stored wind and solar as claimed in your link.

http://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/column/REupdate/20220128.php

So how is it that solar and wind are "four times as cheap" as nuclear? I think you are being conned by renewable energy marketeers Max.

Issy,

Do you also have a local coolie to fan you on hot days, and massage your tootsy-wootsys before bed? Just asking.

Hi Fester,
you're double counting again. Where do you get the idea that round-trip losses were omitted from the energy studies? ESOI / firmed studies must lincude what it takes to deliver power at a certain level of reliability.

It gets WAY above our lay person heads in that this then involves weather modelling of decades of weather data. So they measure 100% renewables penetration + storage and the storage costs are WAY too high. But 200%? 300%? 400%? When we OVER-build, it radically reduces the storage required to the point where even with bad weather, La Nina, and storage inefficiencies HIGHER than 20% loss - the cost comes in at a certain price.

Nuclear is great - but the French fleet was built out in old Gen 2 technology. It's probably illegal to build a reactor like that today due to increased safety requirements of the post-Chernobyl and post-Fukushima world. (Remember - I'd live in both those exclusion zones as the radiation just isn't that bad.)

But today's Gen3 reactors? The EPR has been a disaster in the UK - SO expensive. To make nuclear competitive would require a huge government standardised assembly line construction that I just don't see the populations of the world backing today.

Renewables are here. They are accelerating. They are being built 3 times faster than all other new energy sources combined. And Australia WILL be around 90% renewables in just 8 years.

Where do you get this garbage you push Max?

We couldn't buy & install enough so called renewables to reliably supply 50% of our power requirements in 50 years let alone your ridiculous 8 years. Are you drinking the same stuff as Albo & Bowen. Give it up before it totally rots your brain.

Max,
It ain’t a bike but a horse.
Production: time and grass and water.
Can carry goods, pull an implement, power a machine, all fuel locally produced, can go through water that will stop 99% of vehicles, can supply milk (if the correct sex), can travel across country, is excellent for carrying people (usually one but can cary more depending on their size) completely recyclable, meat can be eaten or used as fertiliser, bones can be crushed and used as a filter material or fertiliser, skin makes excellent leather and the hooves make very good glue, intestines provide sausage skins in fact the whole is recyclable.
What’s more the seating arrangement is transferrable as is the steering gear and other controls
All in all beats the car hands down except for speed and weather proofing.

Hi Max,

Thanks for pointing out my error. What I was trying to calculate was the cost of a mwh of solar energy supplied from battery storage. From your supplied link the cost estimate is about $210 US, or between five and seven times the cost of nuclear. You might dispute the exact figure, but I think you would agree that it is far more expensive than nuclear. Overbuilding does not solve the problem, not least because the cheapest renewable power you get costs more than nuclear.

Also, your claims of renewables are not estimated from actual operations. They are guesstimates and could be highly inaccurate. In contrast, the nuclear cost estimates are based on decades of operational data. As for your criticism of nuclear costs, note that the reason nuclear power is so cheap in the long run is because a nuclear power plant can last a very long time, over a century by some estimates.

I wonder how long it will be before the penny drops and the public realise that renewable energy to power the grid is just a big con?

Hi Fester,

this is now 6 years old but there's this?
I forget what you're quoting but it's probably looking at the storage cost alone per mwh. That's fine, and a useful measure. Much like LCOE is.

But as you and many here have correctly pointed out - LCOE is not the whole story! Imagine comparing building a grid to building a house. Imagine someone saying "Windows are cheaper than sandstone blocks - so we'll build the whole house out of windows." That's sort of what I imagined solar people to be saying months ago. I wanted to scream the punchline being something like "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!"

But LCOE is the cost to the utility - not what the utility charges customers. That works against the people shouting "Solar is 4 times cheaper than nuclear!" AS IF that's the whole story. It isn't - and Blakers is not doing that.

Blakers are saying it's 4 times cheaper, so we build a house with lots of windows, but also lots of wooden beams. The PHES are the wooden beams.

So in the grid, this is overbuilding the solar, and backing it up with extra wind in the evenings (cheaper still!) and some PHES.

Now, while the PHES on its own is expensive - it is used so rarely that the utility doesn't charge that all at once. Instead the storage is spread out through the megawatt hours to the customer.

"The additional cost of balancing renewable energy supply with demand on an hourly rather than annual basis is found to be modest: AU$25–30/MWh (US$19–23/MWh). Using 2016 prices prevailing in Australia, the levelised cost of renewable electricity (LCOE) with hourly balancing is estimated to be AU$93/MWh (US$70/MWh). LCOE is almost certain to decrease due to rapidly falling cost of wind and PV."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217309568

Oh, and another thing about powering cars or anything else with renewables. The critical considerations are the maximum amount of energy you need and the minimum capacity factor for your generators. For example, a one gigawatt nuclear generator can supply power reliably over ninety percent of the time, so you could cover demand with an extra ten percent generating capacity. With renewables you might get less than fifteen percent of capacity for periods, hence the need for multiples of supply.

US to help Thailand develop nuclear power as part of global clean energy initiative
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3200264/us-help-thailand-develop-nuclear-power-part-global-clean-energy-initiative

"The White House said the help was part of its Net Zero World Initiative, a project launched at last year’s Glasgow climate summit in which the United States partners with the private sector and philanthropists to promote clean energy."

Net Zero World Initiative
http://www.energy.gov/articles/us-launches-net-zero-world-initiative-accelerate-global-energy-system-decarbonization

Printable solar cells are here for $10 per metre. This is just TOO cheap to resist!

Tradies will be able to carry these in the back of their electric cybertruck. If they're out working on a farm property, they can spread a whole bunch of them out on the ground and recharge their truck while they work. Many trades trucks will have electric charging ports of their own to recharge electric drills and leaf blowers and chainsaws etc.

Printable solar - visit them in Lane Cove Sydney if you're here.
http://youtu.be/tvYeq_livXc

More here
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/public-debut-for-printed-solar

However, I’m guessing they’re cheap but inefficient. (I read this as a general comment on printed solar a while back, and have no information to this effect from Newcastle uni.)

That is, they’d probably require a lot more area to produce the same power. Probably too much space required to generate enough power for domestic users - especially as we all start getting electric cars. But what if rooftop space was not an issue? What if we could still 'buy' solar way out west in the desert or rural areas where land is super-cheap - or even float solar panels on Warragamba dam catchments or other reservoirs like it?

This is where I imagine an Energy Co-Op would shine! Renters or apartment owners in Strata Title who can't put solar on their own rooftops could already choose to buy into an energy co-op like the “Solar Garden” below.

But imagine the co-op is buying super-cheap plastic printed solar.

Imagine they get more ambitious and build a PHES scheme for overnight discounted electricity as well? (Pumped Hydro Electricity Storage.) If investors invest in the PHES - they might get cheap overnight power as well?

How the existing Solar Garden scheme works:-

1. Become a member of Haystacks Solar Garden Co-operative.

2. Apply for a solar garden plot and transfer the plot fee

3. Switch your electricity retailer to the participating retailer – Energy Locals

4. Once the solar panels are generating electricity, receive credit on your electricity bill.”

From Haystacks Solar Garden http://haystacks.solargarden.org.au/

"Printable solar cells are here for $10 per metre. This is just TOO cheap to resist!"

- Says ye who screams "were running out of oil" and has no faith in humans ability to innovate.

"Tradies will be able to carry these in the back of their electric cybertruck. If they're out working on a farm property, they can spread a whole bunch of them out on the ground and recharge their truck while they work. Many trades trucks will have electric charging ports of their own to recharge electric drills and leaf blowers and chainsaws etc."

Tesla cybertruck doesn't look all that ideal for tradies.
Spreading them out on the ground mite be a hassle and they could get damaged.
Vehicles may need a dual battery and an isolator or they will flatten the driving battery

Sunpower has had flexible solar panels around for quite a few years.
Printable panels seem like an advancement, but as you say the efficiency might not be great yet.

I saw the roll-out solar arrays on one of the space missions the other day, that could work like a kings 4wd awning.
If they could make the roll-out kind durable / cheap /efficient enough, I reckon that might be a bit of a game changer.

Haystacks Solar Garden = looks like a return of the hippy commune

Let's look at the details

"Haystacks Solar Garden will be hosted by the 1.5MW
Grong Grong Solar Farm in the Riverina region of NSW
and will provide the opportunity for 333 cooperative
members to purchase 3kW equivalent solar garden plots.
Solar garden plots cost $4,200 each and are estimated to
produce an average $505 credit* on a member's
electricity bill each year for 10 years.
Cooperative Capital Units (CCUs) are being used as the
legal tool for selling solar garden plots to the co-op
members. CCUs are a type of debenture.
The anticipated $1,398,000 to be raised from the sale of
the 333 solar garden plots is planned to be loaned to the
1.5MW Grong Grong Solar Farm to partially fund its
construction. The remainder of funding for construction
comes from equity owners of Grong Grong Solar Farm
and grant funding from the NSW Government Regional
Community Energy Fund. The loan repayments from
Grong Grong Solar Farm to Haystacks Solar Garden will
form the revenue needed to create the on-bill credits for
members."

Looks more like a model for funding, where the electricity 'credits' are essentially just a loan repayment.
I'm not sure that you 'own' the garden plots generating capacity that you are essentially paying for, if its only a 10 year plan.

Armchair - once again you demonstrate why I don't bother speaking to you.
"Says ye who screams "were running out of oil" and has no faith in humans ability to innovate." You apparently missed all the bits where I said Solar and EV's are the answer? You seemed to miss the very point of this entire thread? (Facepalm. DERP!)
Also, if you look at the overall tone of my previous post you can see that I'm PROPOSING AN IDEA - not saying Haystacks Solar Garden are THE ONLY WAY to do it. You missed...
"This is where I imagine an Energy Co-Op would shine!..."
"But imagine the co-op is buying super-cheap plastic printed solar...."
"Imagine they get more ambitious and build a PHES scheme for overnight discounted electricity as well? (Pumped Hydro Electricity Storage.) If investors invest in the PHES - they might get cheap overnight power as well?"
Did I also mention that I want them NOT to be a greedy Corporation beholden to the stock market, but a Worker's Co-Op like the Mondragon Accord in Spain? That I want the workers to be paid fairly, and the CEO not to earn more than 8 times what the cleaners earn? That I want to be able to buy in for an insured package that lasts the warrenty period of the solar - NOT just 10 years - unless of course 10 years is the lifetime of printed solar?
How did ya go looking up those Haber-Bosch figures yet? Understand the 10:1 energy ratio yet - or still DERPING over that one? (Don't let this get your hopes up. I don't really want to talk to you right now or give you all the weird negative attention you want.)

So we have hundreds of battery swap stations, changing hundreds of five thousand pound batteries every day, what then?

Do we have a fleet of trucks carrying those 500,000 lbs of batteries back to central charging stations, large diesel generating plants at each changing station recharging the flat batteries, or is the long suffering public supposed to spend trillions on transmission lines to get enough power to those changing stations to recharge those flat batteries ready for the next truck?

As with all this "alternate" energy bunpf, it all sounds OK, until you look at the small print.

Hasbeen - that's SUCH a dump post I'm wondering if I should quote POE's Law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

First - we may not NEED the battery swap gizmo. The Tesla Semi test has been completed and it took 36 tons 800km on one charge. Also, the Megachargers have been rumoured to give 400 MILES in 30 minutes. That's another 640 km's after a 30 minute lunch stop!
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-megacharger-charging-port-close-up-look/

Second - there's a whole battery revolution beginning. The Tesla Semi stats above will be beaten in the next 5 years by another 100 km range - and then ANOTHER 100 km range - and on and on it will go for a while yet.

Third - if we DO need battery swaps as this trucking line are using - why can't they charge them where they are? Why can't they charge them off renewables?

Trucking will need breaks somewhere between Sydney and Melbourne. You don't trust Toll or Kennards or whoever to set up a battery swap warehouse somewhere with a POWER GRID? (Facepalm DERP!)

Dude - get a life.

Rural areas have lots of space. That's their resource. They can use that by having sunlight fall on grass to feed cows, or solar panels to feed the grid. Super-cheap $10 per square meter printed plastic solar could be so cheap that this becomes a whole new industry!

Maybe the Toll or Kennards base will even buy power off a local off-grid country grid co-op like I'm imagining Walpole will from in the future? Walpole are the guys buying their own small PHES.

They might choose to go off-grid in a few years. PHES will be finished sometime next year. It gives them nearly 3 days backup.

ABC news story
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-01/renewable-energy-fix-walpole-power-problems/100579700

Western Power promo - Walpole looks like many coastal Aussie towns. Makes me nostalgic and need a holiday. Kick back and enjoy - 3 minutes.
http://youtu.be/vGqdYhVfYwM

Max,
If you don’t bother speaking to Armchair Critic why are you speaking to him?

Hey Max Green,

"You apparently missed all the bits where I said Solar and EV's are the answer?"
- I'm not sure it's the whole answer, but I'm sure it's a part of it.

Whilst not as technically versed as some of the others, I think they make a good point about base-load power (and renewables inability to provide it), and I'm not sure building renewables out 5x like you've stated is necessarily an ideal solution.
- Even if solar panels were free it would take a lot to build that.

"Also, if you look at the overall tone of my previous post you can see that I'm PROPOSING AN IDEA - not saying Haystacks Solar Garden are THE ONLY WAY to do it. You missed..."
- Sorry, I'm not necessarily saying the co-op idea doesn't have potential.

"Imagine they get more ambitious and build a PHES scheme for overnight discounted electricity as well?"
- I'm all for looking into more efficient dams, I like them, they're like giant batteries.

"Understand the 10:1 energy ratio yet - or still DERPING over that one?"
- Still derping it.

'negative attention'... [rolls eyes]

I think the part you don't get is when someone proposes something that affect others in a 'negative way', (checkmate negative attention) then those people have no choice but to stand up against it to defend their own interests;
- Like you did, when proposing we all eat mealworms, insects, and lab grown whatever-the-hell-you-call-it, with such enthusiasm, celebrating the idea.

- Do you understand that it's at this point where the issues YOU SUPPORT impact MY way of life in a negative manner, and I have a right and a duty to stand against them? (and not just for me)
Also at this point, instead of coming across as someone with realistic ideas that wishes to make other peoples lives better, you cross a line over to becoming 'drunk on climate religion' or a 'Mengler' (someone who took their interests too damn far)
- and essentially became a danger to the rest of us.

Any one care to comment on EVs and water?
Can they be used as emergency vehicles in floods?
What depth of water can they negotiate?

Hi Is Mise,
that is your best question so far. I genuinely don't know!

Oh, and I got to see that Bond car again!
http://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/can-electric-cars-get-wet/

These guys seem confident it can be dealt with...
http://mr4x4.com.au/crossing-rivers-in-an-electric-rivian/

So the first part of the answer is that where an undamaged EV is floating down a flooded road or river, its electrical components are well sealed and extremely unlikely to provide an electrical hazard to its occupants, bystanders … or passing fish ….

"A second part to the question does however present itself: what happens if the EV is damaged and sections of the high voltage electrics become exposed?

In this case, a series of safety and protection systems will kick in. In the event of a crash, automatic disconnection of the high voltage electrics occurs through an impact sensor (which exists in all modern cars), thereby limiting the presence of high voltage to within the battery only. Another system (called a ground-fault detection system) is also built into EVs."

http://thedriven.io/2018/12/04/is-a-battery-electric-vehicle-safe-in-a-flood/

HI ARMCHAIR - the 10:1 Haber Bosch things is WELL KNOWN.

"For me, one of the most startling truths is just how much energy is embedded in our industrialized food system. From the chemical fertilizers that make it grow, to the diesel fuel that powers the farm machinery and refrigerated trucks, to the plastic wrap that keeps it fresh for weeks (or months, or years), the vast majority of food we purchase is so full of fossil-fuel energy, it's amazing it doesn't smell like oil. Most studies put it at about 10-to-one; in other words, for every calorie of food energy we consume, we're burning 10 calories of fossil fuel energy. Doesn't exactly reek of sustainability, does it?"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a1127/4206698/

Max,
Thanks for that, very informative.
I, used to work on submarines and know and appreciate the trouble that has to be gone to to protect batteries from water.
Submarine batteries, just as a point of interest, are the same voltage as a single cell in a car battery but are about 4 feet tall and about a foot square.

Hey Max Green,
I read your article.

Whilst I didn't know the story behind Haber, who stated in 1898 that that the worlds use of saltpeter as fertilizer was unsustainable and that the answer to this problem was nitrogen, to which he was able to only make a small amount of ammonia, and that I also didn't know that Bosch in 1909 found a way to make ammonia in large quantities, nor do I know the exact process for doing so...

I certainly did know that fertilizer use makes agriculture more productive, and I've heard about the problem of runoff but certainly no expert on these things...

I watched a video before and learned a little, but the 10:1 thing wasn't explained.

The part I just cant get my head around is 'calories of fossil fuels'

Its like saying I was traveling in my car at a speed of 100kg
Or saying the plane I was flying in leveled off at 30,000 litres
Or that the weight of one of the cows out in the front paddock is 500klms

I may be the dummy here, but it just doesn't make sense to me.
- You (and the person in your article) need to explain things better, and not in a way that boggles my mind and makes me think 'what the hell are these mad people on about'.

If you said the combine harvester uses 100 litres of diesel to harvest a 500m x 500m field and the average harvest is 20 tonnes (rough estimate I don't know typical amounts are) that would make sense to me.
If you said it took 1kw of power to turn 1 tonne of grain into 1 tonne of flour, well this would make sense to me.
If you added up all the production values for each part of the process and listed them, then this would make more sense to me.

[Cont.]
Saying it takes 10 calories of fossil fuels to make 1 calorie of food, well it just makes my brain implode, I just can't comprehend it, and not only that, but saying 'calories of fossil fuels' feels like I'm being baffled with bs... or something..
'Keep it simple stupid' comes to mind, even if it has to be more complicated to make sense.

Ok... next.
I understand that you're extremely passionate about 'green things' for example reducing emissions and cleaner more efficient energy production that is better for the environment
But you need to understand that if you say you want to mess with the food, you're actually asking for pushback.
I'm actually trying to give you advice here
- It's fine to talk about EV's and solar farms, and pumped hydro, as they all have positive benefits but if you talk about messing with food, people are going to want to string you up when they are forced to eat acheta, and mealworms.
Likewise if 'green ideas' lead to blowing up all the coal plants and the price of electricity doubles, then you're going to get pushback.
People are going to be mad about it.
Or going after peoples pets, you're asking for trouble there
Just thoughts...

Meanwhile society raises horses for racing as a sport, but if the horse don't win it's going to be repurposed
- glue factory and pet food for the greyhound industry.
But we can't have meat?
Seriously, all this talk of frankenslop has got me considering going on a carnivore diet.

As for food being emissions costly, I think one of the biggest waste of resources and energy is commercialism;
why does the inhabitants on planet earth need to create 1000 new car models every year, why does the throw-away society produce things that aren't built to last before needing to be replaced?

You should see the amount of stuff people throw away now.
Have you been to the tip lately?

Armchair,
Calories are an obsolete unit of energy that's still in use. So are kilowatt hours, mega electron volts, and BTUs.
For comparison it makes sense to use the SI unit: Joules.
But energy is energy, and can be compared in any unit of energy. Just be careful not to conflate calories with kilocalories.
And don't blindly accept claims about "most studies" that don't cite any of them.

I don't see Max mentioning forcing people to eat mealworms or anything else. Is it in another thread? So far in this thread you're the only person to have mentioned mealworms. But since we're now on that subject, I expect they'll play a major role in fish farming.

BTW animal glue almost disappeared overnight when PVA became available.
And despite ttbn's libellous claims, I stand by what I said about Australia's debt not being a problem. The consequences of government borrowing are quite different to what many people assume, but I have never made (and would never make) the ludicrous claim that there are no consequences at all.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Fester,
Why do you assume the absence of a working model? Renewable energy already provides the majority of my state's electricity. I haven't assumed any completely new
technology; merely improvements to existing technology. It would be unreasonable to assume that costs which have been falling for decades due to ongoing technological improvements would suddenly cease to fall, or that the many competing teams of scientists and engineers would ALL fail to find a way of commercialising what can already be done in the lab!

French nuclear power is cheap because cost of building the power stations was inflated away in the 1970s. Unless you're suggesting the government implement a high inflation policy, it's irrelevant for new power even in France, let alone here.

Even five years ago it wasn't clear how 100% renewables could be achieved. But now it is: go for a large overbuild, and use the excess power to produce hydrogen.

Max, mhaze and Bazz,
Similarly to how lasers don't disperse like ordinary light, microwave beams stay at high efficiency and AIUI can be converted back to electricity at a fairly high rate of efficiency. Even so, the technology's a non starter for supplying our energy needs. Too hazardous, too expensive, too much energy to set up, and probably too much global warming potential.

Hey Aiden,
Max spoke about food here, and maybe other places.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22234#387954

I think I might've been the one who brought up wet pet-food from an article I read,
I suppose I saw it as being in line with the same sort of 'take-things-too-far' feeling I got from him when he'd already mentioned moving away from meat.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984&page=0#340682

As for coal, I'm not sure Max has been too specific on it;
- But when I asked the question 'If it cost a trillion dollars to fill your climate change wish-list, and you could click your fingers and instantly 1 trillion dollars worth of our resources (coal, oil and gas) was instantly loaded aboard ships for export, would you do it?
- He avoided the question which left me assuming his position was to leave these resources in the ground;
- which made me think that people who aren't willing to do what needs to be done to get the money so we can move to a better way of doing things are preventing us from actually doing so, and I considered Max (maybe rightly or wrongly so) to be one of those people.
I also pointed out that we can't exactly export renewable energy, but coal oil and gas we can.
- Different countries have different resources and Australia's largely a country of mining, it's just the reality of the way it is for us.

"I stand by what I said about Australia's debt not being a problem. The consequences of government borrowing are quite different to what many people assume, but I have never made (and would never make) the ludicrous claim that there are no consequences at all."

- Maybe you didn't specifically say there were no consequences, but you did say (just as you have again now) that our debt isn't a problem.
I'm sorry if I incorrectly stated what you originally said and meant.

Hi AC,

First up I will state the bloody obvious: We are discussing the future are are probably all wildly inaccurate.

As for a working model I mean a 24/7 renewable supply. It is not hard to provide solar and wind energy piecemeal, but continuity is challenging. South Australia is the place to watch as it passes 70% renewable supply. If/when it hits 100% it will be a working model and costs can be calculated.

Armchair,
"The part I just cant get my head around is 'calories of fossil fuels'
Its like saying I was traveling in my car at a speed of 100kg
Or saying the plane I was flying in leveled off at 30,000 litres
Or that the weight of one of the cows out in the front paddock is 500klms"

Not at all. It's more like saying 10 kg or 22.0462 pounds. It's the same thing - weight - but measuring in a differnet 'language'.
Calories are one way of measuring energy, BTU's another, joules another, barrels of oil equivalent another, etc. In reality it's probably coal energy running the Haber process. There are website converters that let you plug in the units of energy and convert them to equivalents in another system. Here is one - and I've rigged it up by converting BOE (Barrels Oil Equivalent Energy) to Kilocalories.
https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-energy-from-boe-to-kcal.html

Go underneath and click your starting energy from the left hand column, and then choose what you want to convert it to on the right hand column. Wow - they've even got Megatons TNT! That's how we speak about nukes - and I'm not talking about the power plants but the kind that go BOOM!

"I may be the dummy here, but it just doesn't make sense to me."
I actually don't think you're that dumb. I'm not a scientist either but did humanities subjects. But this stuff can be understood if you google around - and try to stop being STUBBORN! (Winks - I'm having trouble in that area myself as I get older.)

Hi again Armchair,

FOOD: Do you drink beer or wine or eat cheese or bread? These things are using yeasts and the by-products of yeasts, or at least some fermentation of some sort. Why are they not Franken-foods?

We're just going to be tinkering with the yeasts to grow better proteins than we can get from animals. I don't think there will be laws BANNING eating animals. They'll just go the way of ice-haulers when fridges were invented, or Kodak film as digital cameras replaced them.

The market will decide. Right now there are meat alternatives that have heme in the soy bean. That's the blood flavour us carnivores love - and I include myself in that category!

Here's some vegetables 3d printed into something that works a bit like a steak - with alternative 'muscle' fibres layered with fats. I haven't had any of this one yet - but I had the Impossible Burger from Hungry Jacks and it was OK. Not fantastic - the texture wasn't quite right. But OK! And I hear Grill'd have an even more authentic tasting Impossible Burger 'meat' pattie.

Vege printed steak. Take a look!

One day all the proteins and fats and carbs we want might be printed like this into a whole variety of steak flavours we can't even imagine now. And instead of $25 per kg, it might not even be a few bucks.

http://youtu.be/LJYWM-5taIE

Fester, not all energy in SA will ever be renewable, as interstate trucks and cars will still be using fossil fuel unless they ban their use or entry into SA.

What ranges do Australian Electric Semi’s need to compete with oil?
Drivers are not allowed to drive more than 100 kmh, and not allowed to do more than 11 hours 30 minutes in a shift. The maximum LEGAL distance is therefore 1150 km.
https://www.truckers-trip-planning-app.com/australian-standard-hos-rule

Janus has electric trucks that can take 100 tons 600 km – and then battery swap in just 4 minutes. DONE!
SBS World News: http://youtu.be/4rAKqch3oMQ
http://thedriven.io/2022/02/10/janus-unveils-first-electric-truck-for-australian-east-coast-battery-swap-route/

The Tesla Semi pulled 36 tonnes 800 km in one charge. But as the Truckers link above shows, drivers are LEGALLY REQUIRED to take a 15 minute break 5.5 hours (or 550 km) into their shift. Tesla have promised their Semi Megacharger will charge 640 km in half an hour. So in a 15 minute break that’s 320 km. 800 km starting range + 320 km top up is 1120 km.
But wait there’s more! From Truckers again:-
“A driver operating within the Australia Standard Hours of Service rules must take a mandatory 30 minute break in blocks of at least 15 continuous minutes prior to the completion of 8 hours of continuous work.”

800 km + 640 km = 1240 km – 90 km over what they are legally allowed to do anyway.
THEN consider that Janus might be tempted to buy a solar farm out in their battery swap areas – because that’s like buying your own oil refinery and getting off the world oil market once and for all.

THEN consider the money Toll and Linfox and Auspost have serious MONEY to put into saving money long-run by investing in either super-chargers or battery-swap warehouses and solar farms.

THEN consider that battery tech is still evolving. Imagine what will emerge in the coming years as BIG OIL money switches into BIG BATTERY!

THEN consider the geopolitical implications as ENORMOUS multinationals like Toll realise they can be seen as the good guys by not buying oil off all those countries that don't like us very much, like the Middle Eastern Theocracies and Russian autocrats.

THEN consider whether you want your super anywhere near fossil fuel investments!

Thanks Josephus. If transport were to go low carbon I would like to see it based on aluminium/air batteries made using nuclear energy, preferably Alan's thorium variety.

"THEN consider whether you want your super anywhere near fossil fuel investments!"

My stranded assets are getting me a 100% return every quarter Max. Plenty of "new world" companies fail. Predicting the future is not simple.

Hey Max Green,
I just had a look at your converter.
1 barrel of oil equivalent = 1400000 kcal
- I see it, but it still doesn't make sense.
I suppose I'll need to learn more about how this works to be able to follow along with you.

"Do you drink beer or wine or eat cheese or bread?"
Bread and cheese yes, beer and wine, not so much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast
"Yeasts are eukaryotic, single-celled microorganisms classified as members of the fungus kingdom."

Eww.. I guess I never really thought about that to be honest.
I suppose eating bacteria doesn't really sound any better or worse than eating fungus, however 'mushrooms' as fungus does come to mind.
- I don't mind good plate of stroganoff, or a bit of mushroom on my pizza.

As far as the 'it's not just about me' that I said earlier;
I want kids in the future to still be able to enjoy pancakes with jam and cream on a Saturday morning.
Bacon and eggs on Sunday morning and the good 'ol roast.
I don't want kids in the future saying "what did actual real butter taste like, and never have a chance to enjoy ice-cream.
- That would be a horrible world, and we'll I'd be prepared to abuse anyone that says they can't have it, sorry.

- I do understand though that changes may need to be made with the world population expanding,
But I'd rather see human ingenuity win, than depriving future humans of the things we currently enjoy.

The Rebel Whopper - Lol.
I've never tried it honestly, but I'll tell you a story.

I think it must've been 6mths or maybe a year back.
I went through the local HJ drive thru, as I sometimes do.

I said to the girl on the speaker "I'd like a rebel whopper please", and she says "ok, no problems"
- And then I'm like "Nar just kidding, you'd have to pay me to eat that stuff"
- "How many people actually eat these things?"

The thought of eating it scares me, I'll stick with the beef.
- Tried and true.

Hi AC,

Try story, not long back I was in the local Hungry Jacks, when a barrage of buns from the food prep area landed in the customer service and dining area, obviously launched by the pimply faced adolescent 'chefs" whilst preparing the culinary delights for the clientele. I did approach the 'counter girl' requesting to; "see the duty manager", an elderly chap by the standards of the staff, probably all of 17! Informing him of the melee and subsequent bombardment i has just witnessed, un-exploded buns on the floor were evidence enough. In a voice reminiscent of Tiny Tim with laryngitis the manager lad said; "please fellas don't throw buns." I replied ; " That's it, a please don't... I'd tell em, do that again and you'll be out on your arse! and should I (Paul) lodge a complaint with HJ's HQ I'm sure YOU would be following them!". I didn't complain to HJ's HQ, on the grounds if you pay peanuts you get monkeys, and monkeys are likely to throw sh!t around from time to time.

ARMCHAIR:
"I don't want kids in the future saying "what did actual real butter taste like, and never have a chance to enjoy ice-cream."

That's a values claim. Your personal values. How arrogant of you to assume you know what future generations will want?

"That would be a horrible world, and we'll I'd be prepared to abuse anyone that says they can't have it, sorry."
That's a values claim. Your personal values. How arrogant of you to assume you know what future generations will want?

I'm seeing every indication that more and more kids are becoming vegan or vegetarian. Our grandchildren may well look at us and shudder at what we eat today. And the irony? Their butter may taste a whole lot BETTER! Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it isn't real. You can't imagine 10 calories of fossil energy to make 1 calorie of food energy - but it's real!

It’s already happening in a company called Joywell making sweet proteins that taste great but don’t cause an insulin reaction. http://techcrunch.com/2022/05/27/joywell-foods-raises-25m-to-bring-sweet-proteins-to-market/ How good will it be for diabetics to enjoy protein ice-cream and chocolate again? That’s what they’re working on. They’ve already got soft-drinks!

How good will it be when "drought" can no longer cause famine! When a grasshopper plague or hail damage or La Nina rains can no longer ruin our harvest - because MOST of it is brewed? Now THAT'S climate-change proof food! Another solution to the most dangerous climate catatasrophe for us humans - food shortages!

HI ALL - BACK TO THE OPENING POST

Anyone proud of our uniquely Australian thing of having the longest trucks in the world? Our infamous Road Trains on movies like Crocodile Dundee - just seem to keep going forever. They're known to carry 200 tons!

Janus are hoping to convert Aussie road trains to this battery swap trick. Anywhere outback with sunshine and a some spare space (which is everywhere - right?) can whack down a warehouse and solar and charge these batteries.

200 ton Electric Road Trains. I can't wait to see that! http://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/entrepreneur-big-trucks-big-savings-big-electric-plans-20220811-p5b91o.html

Hi Paul1405,
It wasn't Hungry Jacks Vicky Pt was it?
They can be pretty average down there, but I've never seen anything like that, even I would've been a bit shocked.
They probably picked up the buns from off the floor and put them back into the trays for the next customers.

"I'd tell em, do that again and you'll be out on your arse!"

- Agreed, but the thing is we'd probably end up being the ones getting told off ourselves for bullying the little snowflakes.
All those buns should've been binned, and any staff member willfully throwing food around should at least cop an official warning.

Hey Max Green,
"That's a values claim. Your personal values. How arrogant of you to assume you know what future generations will want?"

C'mon man, seriously?
This is what I mean about being practical.
No offense, but you seem to be making an assumption yourself that kids won't like this food, (which seems unrealistic) and this is probably more about your values, not anyone elses.
- Assuming kids of the future won't like chocolate ice-cream is a pretty big statement.

FYI, there's a difference between forcing the food I mentioned down kids throats, and depriving them of ever having a chance to enjoy it.

My girlfriends 7 year old, (soon to be 8) has strange food preferences at times.
Offer her something that you think kids would find irresistible, and she often says no.
Offer her some olives and she will eat the whole damn jar.

She seems to go through phases, one week she'll only want to eat the $8.50 trays of woolies meat patties, the next week she will only want to eat little popcorn chicken things, and sometimes she just wants ice cream.

eg. Last week it loves ham, this week it doesn't like ham anymore and wants 'devon' or 'fritz'.

Mum tries to make her eat more healthier things but she struggles at times to find things she likes, and getting her to try new things can be a challenge,
If she doesn't want to eat it, well Mum doesn't force her.

Mum's got a few allergies, lactose etc mostly she only makes meals for her daughter and makes things for herself separately.
- Which can be frustrating when you cook a whole meal for your daughter and she doesn't want to eat any of it, and you're allergic to some of the ingredients yourself.

As for electric road trains, well don't get too far ahead of yourself.
Time will tell if these things can become a reality, but we're not there yet.

This is great!

What about hydrogen airlines!?

Hydrogen takes up more cargo or passenger space. That sounds like a real problem when that's cutting into an airlines already very tight profits. But here's the thing. Fuel cells require vastly less servicing than combustion engines! So overall the CASM (Cost for Available Seat Mile) goes down! That means, although there's less seats - the savings on the cost per seat is actually so low the airline might make MORE MONEY per passenger.

Less passengers: but more profit per passenger!
https://youtu.be/f-4if26F_RA

A little fact to chew on, regarding the total inability of wind & solar to power anything much.

Last month, Jeff Currie, Goldman Sachs’ Head of Commodities Research, provided testimony to this, stating in an interview: “At the end of last year, overall fossil fuels represented 81% of energy consumption. 10 years ago, they were at 82%…$3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuels from 82% to 81% of the overall energy consumption.” It is apparent that renewable energy is not going anywhere fast.

To illustrate the lack of ability of battery power to do much, & illustrate coal’s energy density, a Tesla battery that weighs over 500kg and takes 25-50 tons of minerals to be mined, processed, and transported, can store the same energy as a mere 30kg of coal. No wonder the Chinese use coal power to make batteries & windmills.

Hasbeen - in line with your username - don't fall for past trends - try to anticipate new trends.

Try to feel the impact of the cost curve reductions moving forward. Solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of power EVER and so allow overbuild - and yet they're still reaching new economies of scale, and are expected to drop another 70%. Overbuild to avoid winter storage as much as possible - and even with PHES they're still cheaper!

But I get it. Until June this year I was with you. I was for about a half nuclear, half renewable grid - and sceptical that 100% renewables could be a thing. But I never blinded myself to the data the way you have! Even I was prepared to admit the following. Stick this in your pipe and smoke it!

"The share of renewables in global electricity generation jumped to nearly 28% in Q1 2020 from 26% in Q1 2019. The increase in renewables came mainly at the cost of coal and gas, though those two sources still represent close to 60% of global electricity supply. In Q1 2020 variable renewables – in the form of solar PV and wind power – reached 9% of generation, up from 8% in Q1 2019."
http://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020/renewables

The recent announcements from the State governments alone take us to 70% by 2030 - private rooftop solar will be more.

"These grand plans will have variable renewable energy (VRE, or wind and solar) output increasing by 15TWh per year in the 2029-2032 timeframe; more than double what we are achieving at present. Broadly speaking, about 31GW of wind and 10.5GW of utility solar will be installed." http://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-biggest-states-have-set-stunning-renewable-plans-now-we-need-a-national-strategy/#

Hi Max.

Here is another stat. Two trillion dollars spent on nuclear power produces twice as much energy per year as 2.3 trillion dollars spent on wind and solar. You keep claiming wind and solar to be the cheapest, yet real world statistics would suggest that your claims are false.

Hi Fester,

You make that claim, but where is a reference that would back it up?

Hi Paul. This article mentions it. I get put off by the glossy sales brochure approach of the renewable industry.

http://smallcaps.com.au/bill-introduced-remove-nuclear-energy-ban-australia/

You see Hasbeen,
you're going off old data! This is a paragraph about the past!

"Across the globe, nuclear power produces double the electricity than that of solar and wind, yet between 1965 and 2018, global investment on solar and wind has reached $2.3 trillion, compared to $2 trillion on nuclear."
http://smallcaps.com.au/bill-introduced-remove-nuclear-energy-ban-australia/

Learning rates, economies of scale, and technological improvement are ALL factors here. Tell us Hasbeen what was the cost per kwh of solar in 1980? 1990? 2000? 2010? 2020? 2022?

The following comes from Our World in Data from 2020 - not some right wing blogger.

"Fossil fuels dominate the global power supply because until very recently electricity from fossil fuels was the cheapest. This has changed dramatically. In most places power from new renewables is now cheaper than new fossil fuels....

...The fundamental driver of this change is that renewable energy technologies follow learning curves, which means that with each doubling of the cumulative installed capacity their price declines by the same fraction. The price of electricity from fossil fuel sources however does not follow learning curves so that we should expect that the price difference between expensive fossil fuels and cheap renewables will become even larger in the future."

http://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

Learning curvess since 1970... from $115 per watt to cents per watt. And it's still got a way to go!
http://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-solar-pv-module-cost-by-data-source-1970-2020

Check this graphic out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png

Hi again Fester,

I read the link you provided, I misunderstood your post. The fact that nuclear is producing double the power of solar and wind is not dependent on the fact that between 1965 and 2018 more was invested in S & W. I would say much of the nuclear investment was earlier on and is now a well established means of production, where as S & W is more of a recent development and much of the investment is in R & D and not in actual production of commercial power where initial production costs would be very high.

As a GREEN member I'm not opposed to nuclear power, and I'm not rejecting it out of hand, but want a holistic approach where all factors are considered, not just the economic considerations, environmental as well.

Thanks Paul. I think the advantage of nuclear is the long service life of the power plants. I remember claims of very cheap power by the nuclear industry in its early days that turned out to be untrue, which makes me suspicious of the current hype with renewables. Continuous supply is more costly than piecemeal with renewables. I am still an optimist, but I have seen plenty of hype and BS over the years to curb my enthusiasm for "breakthroughs".

NOT so fast Fester!

The good news is solar can work for 50 years. This 25 year thing is a myth - it's only down to 90% effectiveness. If big utilities have the room in the outback or floating on hydro, why wouldn't they get another decade or so out of it?

But your nuclear "too cheap to metre" analogy breaks down.

It's like nuclear got deployed and before people realised it the utilities were removing the metre box!

It's here. Today. The CURRENT established, tested, repeated, demonstrable price of solar panels. Now.

This is ALREADY the cheapest form of electricity the human race has EVER enjoyed.

This is AFTER they've run a full LCOE test - which counts the low capacity factor. It's the cheapest form of energy on a kwh basis to the grid.

Now, I'm fully aware - that's to the grid.

Not the grid to the customer. The grid must charge for transmission wires, extra builds of solar, and PHES. But how to measure what the sun and weather DO? How much wind and solar we'd need?

That's where the Blakers team at the ANU, CSIRO, and others like Tony Seba have all modelled this.

They've fed 40 years of weather data into the model, looked for the WORST DUNKELFLAUTE (Dark Lull), and measured how much wind and solar overbuild would lower PHES costs.

These are the prices from 2017 - and solar so much cheaper now these are overblown!

"LCOE from a 100% renewable Australian electricity system is US$70/MWh (2017 prices).” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217309568

How is this for the latest trend Max.

Swiss look to ban use of electric cars over the winter to save energy

Yay Hasbeen - so by your silence you automatically grant that solar IS the cheapest form of power ever, that renewables penetration HAS grown enormously, and the current trends indicate it will get cheaper still? That's great progress for you Hasbeen!

Because I'm not playing that game where "Denier's don't debate, they rotate." If you have something to say about the responses I took time to submit, then do so. If you're learned something, say so. But don't be a cliché and just move on to your next silly objection!

So the Swiss ban on EV's charging during winter? Boy - that's because there's a wholesale rejection of EV's, right? Because something went wrong with the technology, right? No? You mean this is a once-in-a-lifetime energy crisis because of an unforeseen WAR WITH RUSSIA?

Oh. I see. Not really a problem with EV's after all. Actually, instead of illustrating something wrong with this tech - weaning off Russian gas has turned renewables + electrifying transport into a WAR CRY! Into a patriotic duty! Into national security!

"If achieved, the countries' latest plans would see 63% of EU electricity produced from renewables by 2030, up from 55% under their 2019 policies, the researchers said.

That implies a drop in EU fossil fuel-based power generation to 595 terawatt hours in 2030, down from 1,069 TWh in 2021.

"Europe is not coming back to coal or to gas to ensure security, it's the actually the opposite. Countries are accelerating renewables," Ember senior analyst Pawel Czyzak said.

http://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/ukraine-war-pandemic-set-speed-europes-green-energy-transition-report-finds-2022-06-01/

Hey Max Green,
Do you ever wonder what the non-climate cult people watch?
Why are you here if you don't want to ever acknowledge the other side of arguments?

It's you people that are going to war against us, not the other way around, but your message is packed around an idea 'sustainability / environmentalism' and fools buy into it.

You keep pushing your crap down peoples throats and wont listen to anything else.
The climate cultists are so single minded in their beliefs that they have no concept whatsoever of the other side of things.

Here you are saying kids of the future wont like chocolate ice cream.
Your delusions have no boundaries.
- You people aren't saving the world, your destroying it.

And yes I am mad, because for a minute there I almost partly bought into your feelgood crap.
I told you I'm not against doing thing that are better for the environment, but I will never support cutting our noses off to spite our faces.
If you cant accept that, it's because your a climate extremist.
- At least I try to be practical.

Watch
http://youtu.be/bFzy7EEURJQ

And don't even get me started on Ukraine, Putin didn't start that war.
It's people like you (and others here as well that keep it going.)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22255&page=0#388216

[Cont.]
No matter how much the 'deniers' actually try to accommodate the cultists beliefs, it's never enough.
You people and others like you will always keeps shifting the goalposts.
Give 'em an inch and they want a mile.

It's like allowing the mormons an opportinity to stick their shoe in your door, when they cling to the belief that they are the ones saving you.
Believe whatever you want, I don't care but stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you.

It's better to not entertain any of the climate cultists beliefs anyway.
I tried to be reasonable in the things I said, but it's proven to be a fools errand.
I'm not even going to give that inch with people like you anymore.

Sorry if you're offended.
You seemed capable of being reasonable some of the time.
- But I just cant buy into the climate cultists religion sorry
I have to stand up for what I believe in and oppose it.

ARMCHAIR,
"Why are you here if you don't want to ever acknowledge the other side of arguments?"
Waaa - what are you crying like some woke little snow-flake? Don't WHINE at me that you WANT to be taken seriously! QUOTE SOMETHING I HAVE to take seriously! Give me your best! But if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Just don't CRY about it.

"It's you people that are going to war against us"
Yeah - energy security, national security, clean air, a stable climate, better health, cheaper power bills - just an awful world we're creating for you. Stubborn old echo-chamber Armchair Warriors like yourself will only love us when we win.

"The climate cultists are so single minded in their beliefs that they have no concept whatsoever of the other side of things."
What crap! I used to be a climate denier! I could be a better Denier than you are! But it’s all cherry picking, half-truths and outright lies.

"Here you are saying kids of the future wont like chocolate ice cream."
I said they’d hate the idea of abusing animals when we can have the BEST ICE CREAM IN THE WORLD from yeasts. It’s already happening in some places.
https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/precision-fermentation-animal-free-dairy-facts/

"And yes I am mad, because for a minute there I almost partly bought into your feelgood crap."
Waaaa! Listen – I didn’t even read your second post because of the tone of this post. I’m tired of alternative reality types bitching that I won’t take their retarded little conspiracy theories seriously.

MAN UP.
Find pertinent source quotes with substantive objections.
Stop whining that you WANT respect.
EARN IT INSTEAD!

Hi Max,

The cheap renewable energy that holds your enthusiasm is over twice the price of French nuclear. And the cost calculations s and fifty year service life claims don't come from decades of experience. Such claims are to be found in glossy sales brochures. That said I do think solar and wind have application in remote places or where continuous supply is not required.

Max,

While the Levelized cost of solar is the cheapest form of power, there are several other factors not included in the LCOE calculations which make nuclear power in reality far cheaper to build, operate and maintain.

1) The network capacity has to be designed, built and maintained based on the max capacity of the renewables while the CF of solar is about 15% which means that per unit of power the network costs about 6x that for nuclear power.

So while the greenies are not lying per se they are certainly not telling the whole truth.

2) The peak demand for electricity is typically 7am-9am and 5pm-8pm outside the power production of solar. So while nuclear needs nothing else, Solar needs either battery support or gas-peaking support which pushes the cost way over the cost of nuclear.

So what you saying is not false, but only half the story.

Hi Fester,
you're going to have to source that. The French nuclear was highly subsidised and costs for dealing with waste probably not truly accounted for. I mean, IF these cool MCSFR reactors come along and gobble up all the waste, awesome! But they really are going to have trouble coming in as cheap as solar panels.

I'm a fan of nuclear. I think it's an amazing technology. But the FACTS are it is 4 times more expensive than renewables UNLESS the government buys like 20 or 30 reactors! Then learning rates and economies of scale can bring costs down.

But across practically EVERY energy outlet I can find the studies confirm it.

Tell me - what do you have against CSIRO?

BTW - I have sympathy for what you're going through. I changed my mind in June this year and became more open to the idea of an all-renewable grid.

"CSIRO and AEMO’s GenCost 2021-22 report confirms that wind and solar are the cheapest sources for electricity generation and storage in Australia.
The report concluded that once the current inflationary cycle ends, wind, solar and batteries will continue to become cheaper. It highlights a range of scenarios to help predict the mix and cost of potential technologies into the future.
The Hon Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, said, ‘This important report underlines the need for Australia and the world to invest heavily in renewable energy sources to put downward pressure on power prices.’
‘The government is determined that Australia will lead the way in reducing emissions and this report shows that renewable energy is the most cost-effective way to achieve that.’"
http://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/news/renewables-confirmed-cheapest-source-electricity

Hi Shadow minister,

I hear you!

LCOE usually refers to how much a particular power station or solar farm will generate over it's lifetime divided by the input costs. It's very raw data - and does not account for the intermittent variable nature of solar or wind. Think of it as the price to the grid, not from the grid utility, not to the customer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

But there are models from the experts that DO account for the intermittent nature of wind and solar. Most of them conclude we CANNOT build a 100% wind and solar grid - because that would leave us exposed to Dunkelflaute events in winter. The dreaded "Dark Lulls" or energy droughts when weeks are too cloudy and quiet. Instead, they conclude we need to build 150% or 200% of the grid - or even higher if the goal is to replace oil as well. (The following *says* 100% but in the details goes higher.)

“PV and wind allow Australia to reach 100% renewable electricity rapidly at low cost. Wide dispersion of wind and PV over 10–100 million hectares reduces cost. Off-river pumped hydro energy storage is the cheapest form of mass storage. There are effectively unlimited sites available in Australia. LCOE from a 100% renewable Australian electricity system is US$70/MWh (2017 prices).” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217309568
https://www.energy.gov.au/news-media/news/renewables-confirmed-cheapest-source-electricity

Wind and solar are now SO cheap we can radically overbuild them to cope with winter and reduce electricity storage down to a few days. http://youtu.be/fsnkPLkf1ao

Along these lines, I see the French government has to buy statistical
Megawatts in CO2 credits on the European trading market, E500 Million worth.
I suppose someone will be able to keep warm burning these paper cons.
The Russian Oligarchs probably will have plenty of Ukrainian factories
that have been closed that they can buy and so claim the co2 reduction
as carbon credits, and flog them to the French.
When will the Australian government get a demand to buy co2 credits ?

Max, that csiro article to which you pointed us is no longer available.

Hi Bazz,
well spotted.

Try here:
http://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP2022-2576

Look for the PDF at:

"Full text availability
GenCost2021-22Final_20220708.pdf (pdf) (2.05MB)"

Hi Max,

This link will give you an idea of why nuclear is so cheap:

http://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/

I have no problem with the CSIRO, but I do wonder why the CSIRO has such a big problem with nuclear energy. Their cost projections for nuclear energy seem to be vastly inflated, which makes me wonder whether their cost modelling for 24/7 renewables are overly optimistic. Cost modelling done with great skill and integrity can be highly inaccurate, which is why I like technologies to be well tried and tested. That is the case with fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. It is not the case for renewable energy. South Australia is at 60 to 70 percent renewable energy currently. Getting to 100% could be very challenging and expensive.

Cheers