-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
Any reason why Australia hasn't gone full solar for all it's energy needs?
If Musk says 100 miles by 100 miles for entire USA, then in theory you should only need 20-25 miles for Australia. Given the amount of sun and arid land, isn't this a straight no brainer? What am I missing?
You are missing the fact that Musk was utterly full of sh1t when he said this, unfortunately.
He understates the area by a factor of 25.
To really power the world, you'd need 1.8 million square km of panels. For perspective, the total built area of the world including all buildings and infrastructure is ~1.5 million square kilometers.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
@MiketheSnow He's telling the truth, but in a typical government hating way. It's very boring, and predictable.
None of the points he raises are unsolvable.
The real issue with Net Zero is electrical production vs electrical storage. Between wind, sun & tidal, I do believe there is sufficient energy to power the UK. But I don't believe there is without storage for peak times.
The dude basically read this Guardian article and put his own Government whinge on top of the existing Guardian government whinge.
Only just found this about wind generation. Completely agree with @MajorRage all solvable and yes those are good alternatives. Storage definitely an issue but again solvable.
The biggest issue is that everyone wants governments to do it in the first place. Macro generation, storage, and distribution is costly and wasteful. The whole system needs to be approached on a micro scale. Governments can play their part with subsidies (we really need to address some of the ways our whole societies operate wrt transport - power or otherwise) but if I stay on topic with power, it is far more efficient done as close to the user site as possible and can also be tailored to the local met conditions. The grid can still be used for surplus distribution where local conditions are over supplying.
I'm considering a 3kw vertical axis turbine to charge my battery because we still have wind at night and there is often a decent breeze on cloudy days to supplement the solar system. I have largely been forced into this as our grid is so unreliable (utter shit actually). If we get a decent breeze a tree somewhere will touch a wire a few times and we great brown or blackout. I could change that from a negative to a positive with a turbine on site. Electricity is getting so expensive that self-production and storage is becoming financially viable with a reasonable payback period.
Disclaimer - I have no idea who funds "statista". They may be vulnerable (bribed) to (by) green lobbyists and "contributions" as much as politicians are from oil and gas companies.
Anything metric that uses LCOE is effectively junk science, unfortunately.
Lazard themselves, who created it, now no longer use it, as to ignore intermittency renders most analysis pointless.
This is the second most annoying thing in the energy debate after Musk's solar panels gaffe above.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@voodoo said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@NTA said in Climate Change:
clean energy,
I hope you don't mean solar or wind. Both seem to be anything but.
My view is the future will include as a big contributor
Clean coal
Gas
Mini nukes (not the big expensive monsters). That can use up so-called nuclear waste. And use 99%+ of Uranium's potential as opposed to under 1%And hopefully dreadful wind and solar will be kicked into touch.
Clean coal
BTW by clean coal, I don't mean storing CO2.
I finished my PhD in this a little over 10yrs ago. The tech works, and has been rolled out at bigger scale in China. Its appealing because the world effectively has infinite amounts of coal (for the Chinese, its the only natural resource they DO have) and even if you ignore climate change, the local pollution effects of burning coal are terrible. The only reason clean coal hasn't caught on faster is the shale oil revolution in the USA effectively gave the world a lot more cheap oil and gas from 2008-today, meaning the economic forcing function for "clean coal" disappeared. Its now reappearing, as post-Ukraine war the idea that wind+solar+(non-existent) batteries+hope can power a modern country is now being rightly called into question.
My own view is that nuclear is the longer term solution, and is mostly expensive due to regulations/legislation since Chernobyl effectively criminalising it. Every other human technology displays a positive "learning function", in that it gets cheaper the more volume is produced. Nuclear since the 1950s has shown a negative learning function - that, to me, has to be a man made distortion caused by external factors, not inherently due to the technology itself.
Nuclear still takes a long time to build, mostly because a lot of the engineering knowledge base has been lost in the past 30yrs. Clean coal is much faster, particularly as it can be augmented to existing plants fairly easily, and will serve as a useful bridging technology in the 2030s/2040s as the "nuclear renaissance" takes off.
Wind/solar are fine in places they make sense, but can't really be more than 5% or 10% of a grid without drowning it. Solar in particular is artificially cheap as its mostly made in China using coal fired energy and slave labor as inputs; it never has to earn its cost of capital in actual markets like other technologies. The mining ethics and supply issues with battery materials are well-documented, and imagining they can scale up to be most of the vehicles AND balance a mostly wind-and-solar grid is fanciful, to say the least.
-
@TeWaio said in Climate Change:
Solar in particular is artificially cheap as its mostly made in China using coal fired energy and slave labor as inputs; it never has to earn its cost of capital in actual markets like other technologies.
Nothing appears out of thin air, though, right? If using coal to make renewables allows renewables to make renewables, that's progress.
We're still ultimately going to have to dig stuff up and turn it into stuff that emits less carbon, to offset the stuff we can never decarbonise.
While clean coal is absolutely possible and should be implemented on existing plants, you're not going to find the operators racing to do so, at least in places like Australia, without massive incentives from the government.
Which is the common thread:
- Renewables need(ed) subsidies
- Fossil fuels have subsidies - massive subsidies
- Nuclear needs subsidies
So why the fuck did we ever privatise our energy networks?
-
In a fair world nothing would have subsidies then the the technology would be able to stand on it's merits.
Agree that privatizing our energy networks makes them totally risk adverse to doing the required capital investments to reform the energy sector, whatever that type of investment is.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
In a fair world nothing would have subsidies then the the technology would be able to stand on it's merits.
Agree that privatizing our energy networks makes them totally risk adverse to doing the required capital investments to reform the energy sector, whatever that type of investment is.
Subsidies clearly work in providing incentives while new tech is developing - no new tech stands on it's merits from the outset. Govt absolutely must play an important role early on. The key is Govt stepping out at the right time, not supporting the wrong tech, or even the "right tech" for too long.
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
In a fair world nothing would have subsidies then the the technology would be able to stand on it's merits.
in fairness, that would take anyone evaluating those merits to be completely unbiased, no personal interest....which is almost impossible, just look at home many comments around different options being ugly which is completely subjective
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
In a fair world nothing would have subsidies then the the technology would be able to stand on it's merits.
in fairness, that would take anyone evaluating those merits to be completely unbiased, no personal interest....which is almost impossible, just look at home many comments around different options being ugly which is completely subjective
I dream of a mythical unicorn world of fairness without bias
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
Which is the common thread:
Renewables need(ed) subsidies
Fossil fuels have subsidies - massive subsidies
Nuclear needs subsidiesNo, they don't. But the only thing that keeps
global warmingclimate change and green energy afloat is untruths. These untruths, and the ugliness behind them (like slave labor), is becoming more and more obvious now.Here's an old article on this subject
The fact that the ODI have resorted to including items which plainly are not subsidies in any shape or form is an indication that their report has more to do with a political agenda, rather than a genuine attempt to assess fossil fuel subsidies.
Evidence of this lies in the fact that they have completely failed to mention the very real tax revenue which fossil fuels generate for the government.
I have already touched on North Sea oil revenue. But by far the biggest contribution comes from fuel duties, which generated £28bn last year.
The reality is that the ODI is yet another part of the green blob, funded largely by the UN, EU and taxpayer funded foreign aid money. (Last year, for instance, the DFID contributed an astonishing £16.8m).
Given their background, this grossly dishonest report is probably what you would expect to see. But why UK taxpayers have to pay millions to such a disreputable outfit is a mystery.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
It is great for the sceptics that the charts finish in 2022 - wonder what was happening in Europe around that time? And whether it affects the price of... say... gas?
The tweet could have easily stopped at "phase out nuclear" but of course goes on to say wind/solar is the problem.
Which, of course, is too binary. I'm not clear on whether this is retail or wholesale, but questions must be asked:
Is the chart adjusted for inflation?
It is a price index, which are typically adjusted.
Does the relatively flat period between 2013 and 2019 help the nuclear argument, or hurt it?
Well if my data is correct, then only Grafenrheinfeld (2015) and Philippsburg 2 (2019) closed during that period, which leaves Brokdorf, Emsland, Grohnde, Gundremmingen B and C, Isar 1 and Isar 2, Neckarwestheim 1 and 2, and Philippsburg 1 were still operational.
Do we ignore the fact Germany still predominantly had fossil fuel in its system over that period?
Not really, because the electricity generated from renewable sources has priority access to the grid and the effect of the feed-in tariffs and grid access means consumers pay the price.
What are the market levers that privatised energy can pull to maximise their profits?
Pray for less wind and more clouds so as to require additional firming capacity from the bidder of last resort (typically gas)?
What other tariffs have governments imposed in that time?
Other than those determined by the EEG? I don't know, you tell me.
Germany is not an isolated grid, so what else was happening in Europe at that time?
Germany exports energy and yet still has the higher prices. Riddle me that.
-
@Winger https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/
i mean, google gives different answers
-
@Windows97 said in Climate Change:
In a fair world nothing would have subsidies then the the technology would be able to stand on it's merits.
Agree that privatizing our energy networks makes them totally risk adverse to doing the required capital investments to reform the energy sector, whatever that type of investment is.
The problem is incentivizing owners to rent seek. Queensland's grid suffered because politicians wanted cheap energy for consumers and also to prop up the State's finances by forcing the State owned corporation to provide a mandated dividend to the owner. Net effect of which was to ensure there wasn't the required capital investment.
On the flip side, you have the moronic effect of paying a guaranteed return to (privatised) transmission companies. No prizes for guessing what the impact of that policy is.
The problem generally speaking with introducing subsidies is someone's picking winners, distorting the market. And often that person isn't the brightest bulb in the room, is making ideological decisions, and or beholden to vested interests.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@Winger https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/
i mean, google gives different answers
If your source is the Australia Institute, you're better off not posting it. This is the same bunch of clowns that can't come to grips with what a subsidy actually is.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@Winger https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/
i mean, google gives different answers
If your source is the Australia Institute, you're better off not posting it. This is the same bunch of clowns that can't come to grips with what a subsidy actually is.
i mean, there are pages or results from a variety of sources but without know which ones are going to be respected and which aren't i'll step back
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@Winger https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/57-1b-record-breaking-fossil-fuel-subsides-following-climate-election/
i mean, google gives different answers
If your source is the Australia Institute, you're better off not posting it. This is the same bunch of clowns that can't come to grips with what a subsidy actually is.
i mean, there are pages or results from a variety of sources but without know which ones are going to be respected and which aren't i'll step back
I'm not adverse to sufficiently motivated organisations doing research pointing out issues etc. (as per my point in https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/912464). To my mind you need to establish credibility and when discussing subsidies, at least adopt a common sense (if not the WTO definition) of a transfer of funds, i.e. a payment or foregone revenue.
Choosing not to impose a tax does not equate to offering a financial contribution; it essentially involves forgoing potential revenue. A subsidy, in contrast, involves allocating funds from a different source, such as general revenue or specific taxes/levies, which are then redistributed to recipients. This distinction is crucial, as it does not align with the nature of fuel excise which was hypothecated as a road user levy (construction and maintenance) at its introduction back in 1957. So if you don't use roads, you don't pay the excise. And this holds true for any sector, not just fossil fuels.
I find it an odd argument too considering that it's used as an attempt to beat on mining, when in 2021 over 72% of our exports were minerals and metals.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
Not really, because the electricity generated from renewable sources has priority access to the grid and the effect of the feed-in tariffs and grid access means consumers pay the price.
Priority? Generators bid in based on their forecast generation - Germany and Austria use day-ahead. Renewables bid what they're sure they'll dispatch, and set their price to cover their margins. Only option when your generation is reliant on environmental factors.
Worth noting that feed in tariff in Germany is something below average wholesale last I checked. Varies depending on size of generation source.
Similar to the NEM, renewables bid in first, cover their margins, then wait on the market for the last MW. This determines the price for the whole market, which is where gas/batteries can hold the market to ransom.
-
@NTA said in Climate Change:
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
Not really, because the electricity generated from renewable sources has priority access to the grid and the effect of the feed-in tariffs and grid access means consumers pay the price.
Priority? Generators bid in based on their forecast generation - Germany and Austria use day-ahead. Renewables bid what they're sure they'll dispatch, and set their price to cover their margins. Only option when your generation is reliant on environmental factors.
Worth noting that feed in tariff in Germany is something below average wholesale last I checked. Varies depending on size of generation source.
Similar to the NEM, renewables bid in first, cover their margins, then wait on the market for the last MW. This determines the price for the whole market, which is where gas/batteries can hold the market to ransom.
So you agree they get priority. And you agree that the impact of such a policy ensures high prices for consumers where the intermittency can't meet demand.
-
@antipodean said in Climate Change:
So you agree they get priority. And you agree that the impact of such a policy ensures high prices for consumers where the intermittency can't meet demand.
Actually I never said that.
A summary of how the NEM works is here: https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2018/08/beginners-guide-to-how-dispatch-works-in-the-nem-and-hence-how-prices-are-set/
-
Using the NEM, talking dollars.
First thing to note: Supply and Demand is the key pillar. When Supply exceeds Demand, prices can go negative because that's how the energy market works (e.g. generators are paid to go offline).
Second: The market forecasts Demand, and generators forecast their Supply. This has a lot to do with what pricing will happen. Day-ahead wind and solar forecasting is more accurate than Demand forecasting.
Third: The longer term NEM spot price averages around $90-$100/MWh
Solar and Wind bid in first for the intervals they know they'll have capacity online - there is zero advantage to withholding capacity when the sun is out and the blades spinning; it is the only way to generate income and meet your obligations. The price varies, but generally they average below $50/MWh because this will still give them profit and meet their
Coal stations might put in most of their bids at operating cost e.g. $40/MWh, and push a few up intervals for a bit more margin over the day/week/month/year.
Gas is, generally speaking, a whore, and will only come online when there is serious profit to be made - they call it "Helping the market meet demand" They will look to engage in periods of supply challenge, seeking numbers into the hundreds if not thousands per MWh. Which is ironic in that most gas plants operating today are Big Spinning Things and being stopped and started increases their maintenance cycles.
Battery is also whorish... When they're not making money off ancillary services or assisting colocated wind and solar, they might have a couple of MW to spare and bid in with gas at big margins.
The way the NEM bidding process is built, last in wins in terms of setting the price, so let's assume we have the following bids on the table and for simplicity, use one hour as the interval:
Solar 400MW at $30/MWh | Wind 500MW at $40/MWh | Coal 1000MW at $45/MWh | Gas 200MW at $1000/MWh
Demand = 300MW, price sets at $30/MWh (300MW of Solar)
Demand = 500MW, price sets at $40/MWh (all Solar, 100MW Wind)
Demand = 1000MW, price sets at $45/MWh (all Solar & Wind, 100MW Coal)
Demand = 2000MW, price sets at $1000/MWh (all Solar, Wind, and Coal, with 100MW of Gas on top)Note that price nominated goes to ALL bidders, so everyone benefit from gas trying to generate ridiculous profits.
And if Demand goes to 2101MW in this scenario, and all the above bids are exhausted, maybe Hornsdale chimes in at the market cap and everyone chuckles while swimming in their pool of money @ $15,000/MWh
So, does the practice of renewables bidding first at a low price screw the market?
Not at all.
The market determines pricing. It is this way because competition from multiple private entities was meant to keep prices low once privatisation was entrenched. It didn't, to the point where QLD stepped in and issued instructions at one point last year.
Under the current rules, if there were NO renewables, gas plants would still be racing to screw the market, and you'd probably find a fair bit of collusion going on as only a couple of large gentailers have the capability to install and operate gas.
If the market was ALL renewables - say in a situation where overbuild was a possibility and we had ~20GW of wind/solar/hydro on board - the bidding process for them would probably end up in price stability, because the contracts they'd need to sign to get into a congested market are the instruments determining their profitability. That said, we would still have some generators paid to go offline due to excess supply.
Climate Change