-
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Compare it to France which hasn't been spending $50 billion dollarydoos each year for the last five years on energy transformation like Germany has on Energiewende.
France's nuclear fleet is also rusting away, so they'll need to address something like a transition, and soon.
Smarter people than me are pointing to 200% renewables being far better than 100% renewables. People talk about the cost - and I'd also point out (again) that Germany started decades ago in renewables so isn't comparable - but what is the alternative?
Building nuclear is ten years away for Australia (political football aside). Judging from many high profile builds around the world, pretty much anyone breaking ground today won't get one done safely inside a decade.
SMR is probably further, though I wish it wasn't.
Nuclear supporters like Shellenberger keep saying it is the answer, and from an engineering standpoint it ticks all the boxes except responsiveness, where renewables and storage kick in on demand. So the engineers are generally happy.
But the taxpayer will cop it in the neck. We've not had to pay for the external costs of fossil fuels, which is why FF are "cheap" historically in Australia.
To replace 50% of capacity in the NEM would need around 25GW of nuclear. 🤔 Though it could be argued we only have such a big coal fleet because they're not very reliable.
Hinkley Point C is estimated to cost around 20B pounds - so is a complete fuckup of project management @ AUD$12B/GW.
At the upper end, that means $300B build cost for the NEM - doesn't include WA or NT. If we don't fuck up the builds, it could be half that, before operating costs, for EPR.
I personally think it will tend toward (or over) the upper end, having to establish an industry here from scratch. But fuck, the Libs will subsidize anything if their back gets scratched by mining.
What is the likelihood of that happening, given its political poison and also requires vast quantities of water to operate?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Compare it to France which hasn't been spending $50 billion dollarydoos each year for the last five years on energy transformation like Germany has on Energiewende.
France's nuclear fleet is also rusting away, so they'll need to address something like a transition, and soon.
Smarter people than me are pointing to 200% renewables being far better than 100% renewables. People talk about the cost - and I'd also point out (again) that Germany started decades ago in renewables so isn't comparable - but what is the alternative?
200% is better than 100% because of the capacity factor. It's still not enough.
The big part of Germany's Energiewende is yet to come. Replacing 1000MW (for argument's sake) is cheaper with renewables, but then you have to add the capacity factor and network upgrades to that cost. One only has to look at the predicted cost of Energiewende by 2025 is over €520 billion (or ~780 billion dollarydoos) because to stitch all this renewable together to have a functioning grid with dependable power requires 7,700 new kilometers of transmission lines. Of that only 8% have been built.
Building nuclear is ten years away for Australia (political football aside). Judging from many high profile builds around the world, pretty much anyone breaking ground today won't get one done safely inside a decade.
The longer we vacillate, the longer it will take.
SMR is probably further, though I wish it wasn't.
Nuclear supporters like Shellenberger keep saying it is the answer, and from an engineering standpoint it ticks all the boxes except responsiveness, where renewables and storage kick in on demand. So the engineers are generally happy.
Works perfectly well everywhere else and somehow they've managed to cope with spinning coal.
But the taxpayer will cop it in the neck. We've not had to pay for the external costs of fossil fuels, which is why FF are "cheap" historically in Australia.
The taxpayer will cop it regardless.
To replace 50% of capacity in the NEM would need around 25GW of nuclear. 🤔 Though it could be argued we only have such a big coal fleet because they're not very reliable.
Hinkley Point C is estimated to cost around 20B pounds - so is a complete fuckup of project management @ AUD$12B/GW.
At the upper end, that means $300B build cost for the NEM - doesn't include WA or NT. If we don't fuck up the builds, it could be half that, before operating costs, for EPR.
I personally think it will tend toward (or over) the upper end, having to establish an industry here from scratch. But fuck, the Libs will subsidize anything if their back gets scratched by mining.
If you're prepared to state that Germany gets a pass because it was an early adopter and costs have come down, the same holds true for nuclear.
20GW of reliable safe climate friendly power could be had in this country at Barakah prices for $100 billion.
What is the likelihood of that happening, given its political poison and also requires vast quantities of water to operate?
We're an island.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
20GW of reliable safe climate friendly power could be had in this country at Barakah prices for $100 billion.
Barakah? That is utter fantasy. Not going to get UAE labour prices here, and there is also the small matter of "safe"
Nuclear establishment costs have NOT come down despite being a technology established 60 years ago.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
We're an island.
Either you situate nuclear at existing coal sites - which are basically inland and therefore require pipeline build - which might work as you can put desal online nearby.
Or you build nuclear on the shoreline (desperately unpopular move) and upgrade transmission to suit.
More cost.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger I love the way you deniers say on 1 hand, " look at the economic bastardry of renewables! The handouts! The rising bills! The grants being paid to corrupt scientists". And on the other you say, "what Government would call out climate change, there is too much money in it!"
It's lunacy
And the way that anyone who believes the myriad of scientists who have put their name to the science of climate and our impact on it, is a "believer in a religion!". Yet you get to believe a much smaller group because you have this wonderful ability to "think for yourself "
It's just fucking absurd.
But even if you choose to ignore the avalanche of science around this, what I'll never understand is why you would not be seeking to mitigate the effects of the changing climate. Even if you're 100% convinced that we don't cause it, I cannot understand why you'd oppose science finding a way to limit/slow it, and ultimately live with it.
Because make no mistake, we cannot live easily with the sort of temperature rises and quantity/impact of events that will come with our current trajectory.
And this sums up the issues I have, such emotive language as 'avalanche of science', 'myriad of scientists'
The article I linked to completely debunks the theory that the science is settled or other such statements. It certainly doesnt disprove the theories of the IPCC, but it certainly shows that the science is not settled and that the IPCC is pretty flawed in its approach, they do deserve some sympathy as predictive models are just not easy in this area.
As for the posters claiming they are doing somehitng personally.... they are kidding themselves, they are doing fuck all. They are nowhere even remotely close to living a zero carbon life. They are nowhere near doing what we are lectured and told we have to do.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
20GW of reliable safe climate friendly power could be had in this country at Barakah prices for $100 billion.
Barakah? That is utter fantasy. Not going to get UAE labour prices here, and there is also the small matter of "safe"
You may want to read the article, just saying.
Nuclear establishment costs have NOT come down despite being a technology established 60 years ago.
Because of the ridiculous regulatory burden and sovereign risk. At any point a change in government or policy can mothball billions in capital cost.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
We're an island.
Either you situate nuclear at existing coal sites - which are basically inland and therefore require pipeline build - which might work as you can put desal online nearby.
Or you build nuclear on the shoreline (desperately unpopular move) and upgrade transmission to suit.
More cost.
You put them on the coast, they don't have to be near the existing desal plants (which they can run), but it would be nice. The UHV lines would still be orders of magnitude cheaper than wiring the disparate sources of windfarms and solar installations across the country.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback oh dear Baron, you really are getting a bit sensitive these days. I had no idea that "avalanche" or "myriad" were such emotive words for you! I shall try to tone down my religious zealotry, though it is hard when the climate gods speak to loudly to me.
In the interim, if you or @Winger could have a go at explaining to me how renewables are at the same time killing our economy and also a financial boon for the Government, I'd be ever so grateful.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are nowhere even remotely close to living a zero carbon life.
Didn't see anyone say that? Who was it? I just said solar made economic sense. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Something is still better than nothing also.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are nowhere even remotely close to living a zero carbon life.
Didn't see anyone say that? Who was it? I just said solar made economic sense. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Something is still better than nothing also.
Not in the Denierverse. It's called "Gore's Law".
And when you point out what a pile of straw man shit they're holding up, they'll accuse you of the same thing.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are nowhere even remotely close to living a zero carbon life.
Didn't see anyone say that? Who was it? I just said solar made economic sense. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Something is still better than nothing also.
Not in the Denierverse. It's called "Gore's Law".
And when you point out what a pile of straw man shit they're holding up, they'll accuse you of the same thing.
I definitely saw you make that statement @Snowy, no backtracking now. I believe it was in response to @NTA claiming that 110% of scientists worldwide agreed with him on the science.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Snowy said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
They are nowhere even remotely close to living a zero carbon life.
Didn't see anyone say that? Who was it? I just said solar made economic sense. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Something is still better than nothing also.
Not in the Denierverse. It's called "Gore's Law".
And when you point out what a pile of straw man shit they're holding up, they'll accuse you of the same thing.
I definitely saw you make that statement @Snowy, no backtracking now. I believe it was in response to @NTA claiming that 110% of scientists worldwide agreed with him on the science.
Gonna take me a while to be carbon neutral. I just worked out that I have been responsible for burning over 90,000,000 kg of fossil fuels (there were about 900,000 other people involved though) and that doesn't include cars or boats.
Carbon neutral I am not. -
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback oh dear Baron, you really are getting a bit sensitive these days. I had no idea that "avalanche" or "myriad" were such emotive words for you! I shall try to tone down my religious zealotry, though it is hard when the climate gods speak to loudly to me.
In the interim, if you or @Winger could have a go at explaining to me how renewables are at the same time killing our economy and also a financial boon for the Government, I'd be ever so grateful.
Killing the economy? Not yet.
But the subsidies given to these come with massive risk, they tilt the competitive landscape and force non chosen industries out. All at tax payer expense, and that's just the start, when govt starts to decide what industries should succeed and which should die, it is not good.
If renewables make economic sense, then great, and clearly some of you have had a good crack at it, but the relaity is that things like electric cars just dont stack up as yet for most people and still rely on govt subsidies. I would prefer taxpayer money be spent on real problems in society, not so that middle class folks can feel good at driving an electric vehicle.But it is isnt just subsidies you just cannot seperate the climate change movement form far left marxist ideology nowadays, reasonable goo d willed folks might see a difference, but the sad reality is that the movement has been completely hijacked byt the extreme left. Do you deny that?
-
Killing the economy? Not yet.
Well, not at all in fact. The recent Snowy tender for renewables saw the winning projects bidding in at low $40/MWh and solar at low $50/MWh. Yes those projects provide intermittent power, but firming can be done for something like $30 which bring them well inside the cost of new coal, even if you could get someone to actually build it. The reality is that there aren't any genuine subsidies anymore for renewables given the value of an LGC is effectively heading fast to zero.
Note, I am only speaking about Australia here, I have no in-depth knowledge of other countries.
One of the main reasons that renewables are now so cheap compared to other generation (other than falling capital costs of course) is the cost of finance. You can find equity at 8% and debt at BBSY + 1.50% for projects with an offtake the quality Snowy. At leverage of 70% (you can't get higher given the PPA prices are so low), thats a WACC of < 5%which is pretty damn low. I have no idea what returns investors would want in Aus for a nuclear plant, but I can guarantee they'd want a significant premium until COD at least. One of the biggest risks here for constructing new build projects is connection - and any delays or potential delays massively increase that risk. With the history of recent nuclear overruns, you'd need a big old balance sheet standing behind the construction along with a pretty substantial sponsor. As for new build coal plant, good luck raising money at all .
The reality is that Australia needs new generation to replace ageing coal. This isn't a climate-driven event, its just old, unreliable kit reaching the end of its life. With the current restrictions on gas, we are looking at wind/solar + battery pumped (hydro, lithium-ion, flow, molten salt, whatever), plus some gas peaking. I can't see any forthcoming approvals for nuclear or coal any time soon.
things like electric cars just dont stack up as yet for most people and still rely on govt subsidies
I agree that right now EV's don't make much sense, they are too expensive still, we still need to power them with predominantly coal, and we haven't got the smart grid to use them as batteries. But all that will change fast, and its definitely only going in 1 direction
the sad reality is that the movement has been completely hijacked byt the extreme left. Do you deny that?
I most definitely don't deny that there are some far-left lunatics out there that get fa to much media coverage. They also operate in the Green parties around the world and unfortunately do way more harm than good (in Aus here they were responsible for blocking very sensible legislation that would have us in a far better position than we are in now).
But there is a much bigger portion of the population and industry that takes a pragmatic approach to this issue. They believe in the climate science, but want orderly transition to a lower carbon future. Orderly shut down of coal as they come to the end of their lives, or earlier if there are viable alternatives. Orderly build-out of renewables and the grid support required. A bipartisan approach to climate policy, and ideally a depoliticization (sp) of debate. This group if far less vocal on social media, and is much too boring for the media to latch on to.
Unfortunately many deniers and even some sensible folk only see the lunatics and think they represent the rest of us.
-
@voodoo Good post. I dont think we are a million miles part, but yet hold very different views.. if that makes sense.
You seem to put more stock in the IPCC verison of the future than I do. I think we can agree that f there are cleaner ways of creating energy that are economically viable without massive govt subsidies then they should be used.
I get more concerned about the limits put on personal freedoms (usually via punitive taxes etc), I see no reason that the govt should be given more and more and more power so they can supposedly save us. If the IPCC version is proven corretc over time, then the govt wont ever be the ones to save us. -
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I agree that right now EV's don't make much sense, they are too expensive still, we still need to power them with predominantly coal,
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I think we can agree that f there are cleaner ways of creating energy that are economically viable without massive govt subsidies then they should be used.
Two good full posts there.
My comments though:EV price, yes, which is one of the reasons that I haven't got one in spite of having solar as I have a battery. They do make sense for some though. As has been mentioned the power companies don't pay much for surplus solar so running an EV makes a lot of sense. Effectively you get about %10 (8% at worst) return on investment in an EV compared to petrol if you have solar generation and do average mileage. That is likely to go up too as fuel costs rise. Find me low risk 8% return in NZ!
Again, as an economic exercise even EV can work and NZ only has Huntly left as coal I think from an environmental view? Different to Aus obviously.
Climate Change