@antipodean IMHO nuclear is also a requirement for ongoing space exploration. SMR-equipped craft would make much more sense than the other options.

antipodean said:

The decreasing cost of producing a MW for renewables means sources that aren't intermittent can't compete with such a low cost. But they're eminently economic as soon as the wind isn't blowing, sun isn't shining and your storage has depleted.

Similarly, when your coal station trips, the value of that "tiny" battery in South Australia skyrockets on the FCAS market.

The source of generation isn't really the problem: its the way the market is constructed. Renewables bid into the NEM here at whatever rate they can get because they need to use it when they've got it. Gas peakers hold off until the price is right to help justify the fact their operating costs are higher.

I blame the imbeciles that equated Chernobyl and bombs with power generation. Had these scientifically illiterate peaceniks been forced to pay attention at school, we'd be living in a wonderland now.

Agreed. Some well-distributed, appropriately sized nuclear - in a country with a metric fuckton of yellowcake - could rock on and rock off generation input all day to meet demand.

But that ship has sailed, so we need to deal with the reality.

Size of project is also key: new coal/gas needs to be of a certain capacity to reach anything like profit. By the time you stood up another 1000MW coal station you could build 10,000MW of wind - distributed across the network - and reduce your intermittency risk.

Rancid Schnitzel said:

there is no way we can have cheap and reliable energy from solar and wind.

Quote your sources, and I'll happily reply to those assumptions.

I might be reading between the lines, but one major assumption you're making appears to be that nothing needs to be done about emissions. I'm not sure why you'd think that, given the multiple, overwhelming research into climate change and the link to fossil fuel emissions.

Are all those nations wrong about the Paris Agreement?

Multiple analysts have renewables at cost parity (LCOE) by 2021 in most countries, 2020 in Australia. India has already reached cost parity because new build centralised projects are hideously expensive there compared to distributed renewables. The energy requirement profile is also significantly lower there.

If coal had to pay for its emissions - which it should do given the absolute certainty of effect on the environment - it would be playing second fiddle on value. To say nothing of employment and sustainability.

Notable quotes from this article using Deloitte as the source:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-case-for-renewables-has-never-been-stronger-says-deloitte-study-24651/

The Deloitte report also addresses some of the commonly pedalled myths around the impact of renewables on energy bills. In Germany, it notes, the price of electricity on the wholesale market has halved, benefiting business.

In Denmark, once taxes are stripped out (the government uses electricity as a revenue raiser), electricity in the country with the biggest penetration of renewables is in fact cheaper than most other places in Europe.

China is seeking to remove subsidies on solar/wind asap - particularly in areas where ongoing goverment support is a drain on the central coffers. Instead they'd allow local governments to incentivize tariffs for generators - which is only fair as the wholesale market sells power. That's the idea.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/21/china-seeks-to-achieve-grid-price-parity-for-wind-solar/

BNEF predicts renewables at 50% of world supply by 2050, while coal shrinks to 11%
https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/

Lastly, here is our current PM in his former role smacking down new coal:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/04/scott-morrison-new-coal-fired-power-station-not-the-answer

Morrison used a public appearance on Wednesday to rebuff fresh positioning by conservatives on coal, declaring it “false to think that a new coal-fired power station will generate electricity at the same price as old coal-fired power stations”.

The bigger picture there is that existing coal- and gas-fired power stations in Australia are the least reliable part of the network, and the cost of remediation is way beyond what any of the owners want to pay.

Since mid-December, gas or coal have broken down over 100 times:

http://www.tai.org.au/gas-coal-watch

Which you could understand for old plants like Loy Yang, but Kogan Creek (QLD) was commissioned in 2007, is on the smaller side at 750MW, and still suffers regular issues - tripped completely or had to shed capacity 5 times this calendar year, and again last December.

14% of the coal and gas fleet on the NEM fell over in the February heat wave, which drove prices up across the network as other generators rushed to fill the gap. That was market forces, not renewables.

Of course, "reliability" is the issue that coal supporters bring up as a flaw with wind and solar. What they mean of course is "intermittency", but they don't really understand the difference.

As to your question about hydro: there are (literally) hundreds to thousands of pumped hydro sites available. Convert a small percentage with appropriate wind/solar tech, and bam: renewables grid.
https://arena.gov.au/blog/the-energy-innovators-andrew-blakers/

I wouldn't countenance for a moment ditching existing coal stations until we've got a plan for replacing them - and I've said that before. Why waste the capital cost of their construction?

The issue is a lack of policy direction and surety for investors on the way forward.

EDIT: but some aren't waiting, and large scale solar and wind are moving even in Australia.

The latest international development is a 10MW offshore wind turbine. Fark!

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/mhi-vestas-launches-first-ever-10-mw-wind-turbine/

@taniwharugby think my work PC is blocking certain things because my phone has the ads, but work PC doesn't.

@No-Quarter first thing to point out that its a very old article (2014) in the scheme of the energy markets, so it stops at certain assumptions made at the end of 2013 - particularly with regard to the rate at which energy consumption is increasing.

All the assumptions are also very Yank-centric, which is not a bad metric to use as they're the big economy. However, it fails to understand the scale of China's efforts to address efficiency in energy generation - particularly as it relates to public health.

China spent more on energy efficiency than everyone in the world spent on renewables in 2015, which makes economic sense over everything else. Don't use it, you save money all the way up the chain.

While wind and solar are the big targets, the mention of biofuels shows the article's age more than anything. It is barely a blip on the radar of vehicle manufacturers who are now looking to battery technologies and electrification of fleet to help with emissions standards.

Biofuels were always a pipe dream - consume too much productive land in terms of bang for buck, diverting valuable food production areas into a pointless exercise IMHO.

The article doesn't even reference the big player in renewables - hydro. This is a massive oversight as it is far and away the biggest piece in the puzzle, delivering as it does the storage component for excess wind and solar, as well as high-availability demand response when the other resources on the grid are low.

Add in the emergence of grid-scale battery storage - also barely conceivable in 2014 - and the change in grid demand patterns, and you're looking at a very different grid in 2025 than you did in 2013-2014.

And that is the key point: renewables won't replicate what fossil fuels do, because what fossil fuels provide is increasingly irrelevant. The role of "baseload" is diminishing.

Yes there will always be a need for a certain level of power to flow around any grid, and that can be filled by fairly static sources like Coal and Oil do today (still well over 30% of world energy usage each).

But the way in which we consume power is changing, and the cost of relying on older technologies - and the environmental issues they're creating - is rising.

Financial institutions are starting to consider other impacts of fossil fuels when money needs to go down, because profits are slim to start with. Add in the possibility that your local coal fired power company might have to foot the bill for reparations across a range of health sectors, and you make risk assessors very nervous about handing out 50-year loans.

Nuclear is even more expensive than that (double or more), and more heavily subsidised than coal in some nations.

Meanwhile renewables are getting so cheap that their subsidies are having limited time frames put on them. The challenge is to build a grid that will integrate new tech as coal stations start to die, because not a lot of them are going to be built in future.

Anyone who works in energy will tell you that.

EDIT: I should add that we're going to have coal for a while yet, and that time would best be used to figure out the integration piece for newer technologies.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of small-scale nuclear is eventually considered even considering the cost, because if you distribute it right then it provides genuine benefit.

It's the new reply box. Ad is below that

JK said:

Paekakboyz said:

@jk

I bet I can provide a emoji summary of the ads!!

Yeah that and pc security!!

There was one on here the other day for Arab Singles

@antipodean first split was about 5:30 then it was going poorly as I dropped rhythm. I'm never as comfortable doing runs in the afternoon/evening as I am at dawn, but maybe I needed the struggle to achieve the goal yesterday.

Plus I slept in Monday and Tuesday mornings so had to kick myself up the arse

Only thing is the aura/vision was pretty fucked when I was chasing that figure so it isn't going to be the new benchmark.

5km in 28:30 last night

Chased the last km hard after splits were creeping up. Wanted under 29 minutes and got it

NTA said:

@nta said in Back for more!:
Today: 96.7kg - Chest 114 - Waist 107 - Hips 107

Today: 96.1kg - Chest 113 - Waist 107 - Hips 107

Last night was a steak and chips with a pint of some local Kolsch, so it wasn't the sub-96 I wanted, but it was a fucking tasty dinner.