I agree with you, that would be the most sensible outcome, if renewables are found wanting.I actually think that if worse comes to worse and the renewable conversion stalls, then it makes much more sense to build more coal stations as they have provided cheap power for decades and we have a lot of coal reserves.
Plus the fact that we know how to build coal stations and the supporting infrastructure is already there. No need for nuclear waste disposal facilities and complex legislation.
Our Pacific neighbors won't like it, but giving them a bit more aid might shut them up.
I agree with you, that would be the most sensible outcome, if renewables are found wanting.
The problem we have at the moment, it has all become tribal as usual, one camp says it has to be one thing so the other camp says something polar opposite.
In reality we are better off reducing our emissions by as much as possible as quickly as possible, but that shouldn't mean stuffing up our electrical grid to do so, hopefully this all works out well because if it doesn't things will get very ugly.
Both sides are just as bad, neither side is prepared to sit down with a forum of experts and look at the big picture, this isn't actually about the next 5 years, it is about what is actually realisticly required to not only decarbonise the economy but also allow the economy to grow.Here is an example of petty politics, 5gW of wind power would be scrapped by Dutton, for the sake of the "visual impact" on a few residents.
CSIRO reaffirms nuclear power likely to cost twice as much as renewables
New CSIRO report doubles down on nuclear price and time frames
After heavy criticism, Australia's leading science agency doubles down its findings that the cost of nuclear power for Australia would likely be double that of renewable energy, and it would take at least 15 years for a plant to be built.www.abc.net.au
Both sides of politics are behaving like children IMO,
Yes unfortunately politicians here seem to treat the position as a job, rather than as custodians of the countries future.The reason why private investors don't want to touch this country, even nationalists like Twiggy Forrest are going elsewhere.
Someone tell him he's dreamin'Here it come folks.
Fundamentally what it comes down to is the system rather than any individual consumer.. I think the continuous output of coal stations would be good for supplying industries that need power all the time like steel, aluminium and cement. We can't have blast furnaces shutting down during temporary shortages.
Tell both sides, they're dreaming, if they think they can accurately cost either a renewable and gas, or a renewable and nuclear plan.Someone tell him he's dreamin'
From start to finish with all the environmental studies done, it would be near impossible to have a fully functioning nuclear plant within 13 years at the best, what are we going to do between now and then?Tell both sides, they're dreaming, if they think they can accurately cost either a renewable and gas, or a renewable and nuclear plan.
One just has to look at Snowy 2.0 and Kurri Kurri to realise, both sides talk with a forked tongue, it just depends which tribe you are affiliated with to who you believe and therein lies the problem.
Snowy Hydro expansion hits reset button as costs blow out to $12 billion
The government reveals planned expansions to the Snowy Hydro have suffered an incredible $10 billion blowout over price estimates given by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull six years ago.www.abc.net.au
Kurri Kurri gas folly: Cost blowout, limited operation, not hydrogen-ready
The total cost of Kurri Kurri has blown out to more than $1 billion, it won’t have much storage, and it won’t use hydrogen.reneweconomy.com.au
Also how many hydrogen projects have been shelved, due to expected cost blowouts.
From start to finish with all the environmental studies done, it would be near impossible to have a fully functioning nuclear plant within 13 years at the best, what are we going to do between now and then?
He's kicking the can down the road and wants to delay net zero costs.
From start to finish with all the environmental studies done, it would be near impossible to have a fully functioning nuclear plant within 13 years at the best, what are we going to do between now and then?
He's kicking the can down the road and wants to delay net zero costs.
There are heaps of coal and gas deposits that are still untapped, I worked on an exploration drill rig for a while in central Qld, it's the other problem of displacing agriculture and ruining the land forever.What we are going to do between now and 13years time doesn't alter, whichever model is chosen, what is done in the next 13 years will be exactly the same, renewables with gas/coal firming.
The real issue is what happens in 15 years time if the gas isn't available, the coal is finished and the renewables can't cut it.
That's when it gets really interesting, if it eventuates.
That's the question that really needs answering.
You mean like the Port Stephens offshore wind farm that Dutton says he will cancel?Renewable projects are already in the pipeline and can't be stopped, so they will still go ahead.
What is "off peak" these days ?Eg using off-peak energy for water heating, bulk water pumping, battery charging etc.
You mean like the Port Stephens offshore wind farm that Dutton says he will cancel?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?