-
@nta in my tiny brain, I often wonder about this analogy in terms of solar and wind power capabilities.
During my life we went from betamax to vhs to CD and DVD to today in terms of watching stuff not live on the tele.
Could the same be said of renewables in that the technology and demand is currently analogous to betamax stage? I.e. humankind will eventually nail alternative energy to oil?
Mostly I want this to be true as oil dependency seems to me to be the ONLY reason we put up with a particular ghastly religion ( and the pollution)
(I don't mean to dumb down this discussion but I yearn to sound clever at parties, could renewables provide the energy we currently use?)
-
Siam said:
Mostly I want this to be true as oil dependency seems to me to be the ONLY reason we put up with a particular ghastly religion ( and the pollution)
Places like the UAE are sinking fuckloads into solar because they've got a lot of sun. It's really frigging cheap too because parts of their labour chain is slave level.
In any case, I would say that the rapidity of change in this area usually outstrips the forecasts. The International Energy Association makes predictions about solar prices and uptake every year, and they're always proven to be pessimistic
-
@rancid-schnitzel You keep bringing up South Australia.
South Australia is used by some as an example of high prices and lack of reliability DUE TO RENEWABLES!!!! It's mostly conservative flogs who don't understand our energy market that come to this conclusion, dragging the gullible along with them.
Overseas, South Australia is seen as a beacon of progress. There are multiple articles I could reference that point out why South Australia has higher prices than other NEM states, and while it's nothing to do with renewables, that's not what you want to hear.
I work in energy. I know a lot of people who work in energy. They're all in agreement that coal has limited time left, and Australia is not a market where new coal can be built, because the economics don't stack up.
To claim that a lack of policy is what is holding coal back is to ignore the overwhelming evidence. If that was the case it would be holding back every new build tech available to the market.
I asked you to provide sources, and you provided none. So it becomes (again) a case of simply leaving it lie.
-
NTA said:
@rancid-schnitzel You keep bringing up South Australia.
South Australia is used by some as an example of high prices and lack of reliability DUE TO RENEWABLES!!!! It's mostly conservative flogs who don't understand our energy market that come to this conclusion, dragging the gullible along with them.
Overseas, South Australia is seen as a beacon of progress. There are multiple articles I could reference that point out why South Australia has higher prices than other NEM states, and while it's nothing to do with renewables, that's not what you want to hear.
I work in energy. I know a lot of people who work in energy. They're all in agreement that coal has limited time left, and Australia is not a market where new coal can be built, because the economics don't stack up.
To claim that a lack of policy is what is holding coal back is to ignore the overwhelming evidence. If that was the case it would be holding back every new build tech available to the market.
I asked you to provide sources, and you provided none. So it becomes (again) a case of simply leaving it lie.
Yes of course it's just conservative flogs. Probably mostly white. That apparently has some meaning for you. If coal is dead as you say why are there still major coal programmes underway in many countries, including China?
And where is South Australia held up as a beacon of awesomeness? Are you honestly trying to claim that the power prices there have nothing to do with energy policy and their massive focus on renewables?
With all due respect Nick, you're about as trustworthy a source as Big Coal. You say everyone you know states this. No doubt they also think the planet will fry if we don't do something or have a financial interest in renewables doing well. In other words, why should I trust the word of anyone with a vested interest in a specific outcome? You wouldn't trust a shill for coal so why should I trust you more?
-
@rancid-schnitzel don't particularly give a fuck what you do with the evidence you're presented. You've got your opinion, I delight in giving you facts from real experts to see how you're going to ignore them, while you repeatedly fail to bring any evidence to the table.
Other people look on and probably learn something from both of us, or at least go do their own research if they think one of us is bullshitting.
-
I’ve got no idea what either one of you talking about but I saw my first Tesla today and the prick driving it cut me off twice in traffic and then a Nissan Leaf driver wouldn’t let me into her lane. Based on that it seems pretty obvious to me that electric car owners trying to offset their innate cuntishness by vehicular virtue signalling.
-
NTA said:
@rancid-schnitzel don't particularly give a fuck what you do with the evidence you're presented. You've got your opinion, I delight in giving you facts from real experts to see how you're going to ignore them, while you repeatedly fail to bring any evidence to the table.
Other people look on and probably learn something from both of us, or at least go do their own research if they think one of us is bullshitting.
It doesn't matter what I present to you because you'll just write it off as big coal, far-right, too white etc. There is absolutely no point. That's the stupidity about this entire thing. The "facts" depend on whatever source you want to quote. All sides are guilty of this and I don't trust any of them.
What I do know is that there has been an appalling amount of waste associated with these green schemes. Waste that has done sweet fa for saving the planet while at the same time increased energy prices across the board. Those are the facts I focus on and the ones I care about when I have to pay my ridiculous power bill every quarter.
-
jegga said:
I’ve got no idea what either one of you talking about but I saw my first Tesla today and the prick driving it cut me off twice in traffic and then a Nissan Leaf driver wouldn’t let me into her lane. Based on that it seems pretty obvious to me that electric car owners trying to offset their innate cuntishness by vehicular virtue signalling.
Got to beat those BMW drivers some how
-
Rancid Schnitzel said:
It doesn't matter what I present to you because you'll just write it off as big coal, far-right, too white etc.
Point of order: you've never even tried. Not a single scientific reference, energy consultant article, industry paper, financial breakdown, etc backing the cause of big coal and refuting the value of renewables or the futility and waste associated with renewables.
Not one.
-
NTA said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
It doesn't matter what I present to you because you'll just write it off as big coal, far-right, too white etc.
Point of order: you've never even tried. Not a single scientific reference, energy consultant article, industry paper, financial breakdown, etc backing the cause of big coal and refuting the value of renewables or the futility and waste associated with renewables.
Not one.
Point of order. There was never any point so no need to waste my time.
If you want, just Google Energiwende. But those articles were probably funded by evil white coal men.
-
-
@antipodean great example of how the NEM operates when conditions are right: big profits are there to be made when the opportunity presents.
You can see more detail about that particular day here:
And here is the more technical analysis:
The end of that second article outlines some of the major reasons, but my summary:
It is critical that the interconnector was not working as usual, and local gas generation was lowballing. Demand wasn't particularly high and capacity was available. The market saw an opportunity for profit, and took it.
The QLD government has stepped in the last year or so to prevent generator gaming by telling their guys to quit pissing around; a luxury when you hold the leash.
But are we going to revert all generators to public ownership? might be a good time to do it as interest rates are so low.
More storage could have helped. Particularly local storage in the form of consumer-grade batteries as a Virtual Power Plant (VPP) which the SA Liberal government is supporting right now. A working interconnector would be better, allowing the market to operate with the usual level of competition that keeps wholesale prices around 9c / kWh
As a side note: only 30MW of Hornsdale battery is available to the market as delivery, because the other ~100MW is for FCAS which is another ballgame entirely, and critical to grid stability when bigger generators trip units or connectors entirely.
-
@antipodean off the topic of climate change, and onto the topic of networks for a second: the same site did a piece on the interconnector failures on August 25
Lighting strike on one of the QLD-NSW interconnectors was a factor, setting off a set of events as the failsafes tried to maintain frequency and volume into the NEM.
Good thing it was a Saturday. Big, complex systems tripping off at peak time business days is not cool.
Given we spent so much to gold plate the network in the first place, its a shame the infrastructure is still vulnerable in some ways.
It operates above 99% reliability, mind.
https://www.aemc.gov.au/energy-system/electricity/electricity-system/reliability
That last 0.002% is very expensive to reach - building a third interconnector per NEM state would be tens of millions and consumers would bear the brunt. The fixed cost of networks are already responsible for a significant part of consumer and business bills:
-
NTA said:
And here is the more technical analysis:
Interesting and insightful article, cheers.
The change to a five minute settlement in a few years may help, but by then we'll have spent a fortune on additional capacity and energy prices.
-
antipodean said:
Interesting and insightful article, cheers.
No worries. I'm in the process of building my first modelling for a solar/battery site we have at work. So many moving parts and guys like these authors are fucking ninja masters.
antipodean said:
The change to a five minute settlement in a few years may help, but by then we'll have spent a fortune on additional capacity and energy prices.
Yep. As one of the ninjas I know has said: the NEM isn't broken by any means. It could just use some improvements.
The price of integrating newer technology into the market is going to be key. "Smart grid" is a term that gets thrown around, and with demand-response being a key aspect, being able to respond to market events and grid failures is a key.
Renewables can continue to drop in implementation cost BUT at the end of the day someone still needs to make money in order to have someone interested in deploying it.
The hippies talking about "free energy for everyone!" ignores completely that it'll cost money to maintain and replace in future.
I take some solace in the fact that we've not even touched offshore wind yet - and we have heaps of space onshore to use - but it isn't simply a case of building overcapacity of wind/solar/hydro and just expecting it all to do its thing.
-
@rocky-rockbottom it's already fuuuucking hot in the Tropics and it's not even November, so yea, I'm with this dude
-
@rocky-rockbottom New York Magazine published an article by David Wallace-Wells detailing the potential impacts of climate change if no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the article explores “worst case” scenarios of change in the climate system and the resulting impacts on human populations.
Scientists reviewed the article to determine whether the descriptions of those scenarios accurately reflect the state of scientific knowledge. The New York Magazine article has triggered a number of responses debating the merits of the decision to focus on worst case scenarios, but our review simply addresses the scientific accuracy of the article.
The reviewers found that some statements in this complex article do misrepresent research on the topic, and some others lack the necessary context to be clearly understood by the reader. Many other explanations in the article are correct, but readers are likely left with an overall conclusion that is exaggerated compared to our best scientific understanding.
-
@chris-b said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@rocky-rockbottom
Pah - this guy reckons it's all done inside a decade!
University of Arizona might want to check on their policy of tenure going forward...
-
@antipodean I daresay he likes getting invitations to speak at conferences.
Climate Change