The future of energy generation and storage

[qldfrog]

Guys and girls, problem all sorted with the alp

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/albanese-government-announces-extension-of-energy-bill-relief-as-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-soaring-power-prices/news-story/c0136a728e10978cdf12b07d034e385c

Now we can call elections .
Cynicism?

 

[qldfrog]

Of interest

Why has Australia denied itself energy security?

Global energy analysts Doomberg published a stinging critique of Australia’s energy policy, entitled Power Blunder Down Under. “The country is hurtling toward a pronounced energy crisis, yet its political leaders seem deaf to the warnings and blind to its true causes”, Doomberg reported. “Having...

www.macrobusiness.com.au

And indeed,
why not restrict coal export by the amount we used to burn and so ensure keeping cheap energy and energy security while having the exact same co2 emission cost as our current disastrous policies?
Ohhh you mean less dollars in various interest group lobbies?
From renewables lobbies to fossil fuel lobbies...
Remember, i am the Nazi denier flat earther whereas current government is the enlightened left fighting global warming one bankruptcy after the other.

 

[sptrawler]

Of interest

Why has Australia denied itself energy security?

Global energy analysts Doomberg published a stinging critique of Australia’s energy policy, entitled Power Blunder Down Under. “The country is hurtling toward a pronounced energy crisis, yet its political leaders seem deaf to the warnings and blind to its true causes”, Doomberg reported. “Having...

www.macrobusiness.com.au

And indeed,
why not restrict coal export by the amount we used to burn and so ensure keeping cheap energy and energy security while having the exact same co2 emission cost as our current disastrous policies?
Ohhh you mean less dollars in various interest group lobbies?
From renewables lobbies to fossil fuel lobbies...
Remember, i am the Nazi denier flat earther whereas current government is the enlightened left fighting global warming one bankruptcy after the other.

If the clean dream was a serious objective, legislation would already be in place, to ensure all new builds were equiped with renewables, site plans would require North facing roof space where possible, subdivisions to maximise North facing housing sites.
All Shopping centres applications to include open area parking to be covered and fitted with solar and storage batteries, also all existing shopping centres to be given a date by which the outdoor parking is covered with solar and batteries installed.

But are the building codes changed?
Are the subdivision regulations changed?
Are the shopping centres given upgrade notices?
Are the Governments really serious?

 

[qldfrog]

If the clean dream was a serious objective, legislation would already be in place, to ensure all new builds were equiped with renewables, site plans would require North facing roof space where possible, subdivisions to maximise North facing housing sites.
All Shopping centres applications to include open area parking to be covered and fitted with solar and storage batteries, also all existing shopping centres to be given a date by which the outdoor parking is covered with solar and batteries installed.

But are the building codes changed?
Are the subdivision regulations changed?
Are the shopping centres given upgrade notices?
Are the Governments really serious?

If co2 reduction was worthwhile real government target, we would not export coal...

 

[sptrawler]

If co2 reduction was worthwhile real government target, we would not export coal...

We can't afford not export coal.

 

[qldfrog]

We can't afford not export coal.

Rephrase this as our taxation of coal export: can not do without?
But can we afford net zero?
Are we not told daily that co2 is an issue with no border, regardless where created..
the BS scam being told the world over about co2 creating global Warming?
Not exporting coal could have seven times the effect of us going full net zero.
Let's reduce our export by 1/7th (our own emission equivalent) very affordable and we can save the billions lost on this net zero fantasy
Moreover it can be done whereas net zero can not and will not.no need to be Einstein to know that
And we could keep lights on...
Isn't it simple?
The price of coal regularly varies by more than 1/7th so it would not be an economic shock...
Could even increase coal price so mitigating any loss...
So why not?
Because too much money is made of this scam.....
Potentially some bright gov brain might get to that, but not before we have a couple of grid collapses and our coffers will be run dry to install, replace and decommission solar and wind farms..and still not reach net zero
And no more money to give energy gifts to the populace to quieten it in front of skyrocketing prices

 

[Smurf1976]

Rephrase this as our taxation of coal export: can not do without?

It's the trade balance.

Fossil fuels are collectively by far Australia's largest export.

Economically Australia is a country that sells fossil fuels and metallic ores to balance the import of just about everything else.

It's a ludicrous situation to be in, and I do think we're at a turning point, but it is what it is.

 

[qldfrog]

It's the trade balance.

Fossil fuels are collectively by far Australia's largest export.

Economically Australia is a country that sells fossil fuels and metallic ores to balance the import of just about everything else.

It's a ludicrous situation to be in, and I do think we're at a turning point, but it is what it is.

the real cost of arbitrarily cutting our coal export by 1/7 th would be peanuts vs the actual cost of that netzero target our government is following.
The co2 output would be lower..not that it matters but if this is the aim...
Instead we are closing business forever, adding liabilities with no gain and for example collapsing the whole nickel industry with a green nickel idea...yes sure ask Indonesia.
And adding cost to every SME/ activity in Australia.
It will probably be done at one stage if only to allow us some power to afford lighting and heating/cooling
We are a lost country due to weak interest bribed leadership and lack of knowledge in decision makers

 

[IFocus]

It's the trade balance.

Fossil fuels are collectively by far Australia's largest export.

Economically Australia is a country that sells fossil fuels and metallic ores to balance the import of just about everything else.

It's a ludicrous situation to be in, and I do think we're at a turning point, but it is what it is.

I wonder if the international politics is such to maintain the exports of fossil fuels plus minerals (that create more fossil fuels co2) a move to net zero local energy wise is to stave off repercussions from the EU and other nations like a look over here while shipping out fossil fuels.
As a trading nation maintaining the connections image is paramount IMHO

 

[sptrawler]

I wonder if the international politics is such to maintain the exports of fossil fuels plus minerals (that create more fossil fuels co2) a move to net zero local energy wise is to stave off repercussions from the EU and other nations like a look over here while shipping out fossil fuels.
As a trading nation maintaining the connections image is paramount IMHO

Good point, but most of our exports are to Asia, not the EU.

Our drive toward net zero appears to be fanatical, when one actually considers how little we emit on a World scale and how important it is we cultivate a value adding base to support our future.

I think we are doing great on the renewable front, but it has all become a bit obsessive, when you view it objectively from a World scale.

 

[qldfrog]

Good point.

Could be, a pretend face saving, trouble is we are killing the country

 

[sptrawler]

Another one bites the dust.

Trafigura Cancels $750M Green Hydrogen Project at Port Pirie | Market Impacts | Klean Industries

Trafigura has scrapped its $750 million green hydrogen plant in Port Pirie, raising concerns about investment stability, policy alignment, and the future of hydrogen infrastructure in Australia.

kleanindustries.com

In a major setback for Australia’s hydrogen ambitions, Trafigura has canceled its $750 million green hydrogen project at Port Pirie, signaling broader challenges facing renewable energy investment.

A primary $750m green hydrogen plant has been axed in South Australia. It is a fresh setback for the fledgling industry just days after Anthony Albanese pledged the clean-energy source would help underpin its Future Made in Australia plan.

 

[Smurf1976]

We are a lost country due to weak interest bribed leadership and lack of knowledge in decision makers

Fully agree.

On the cost though I'll argue strongly that the real problem isn't just about renewables versus fossils versus nuclear.

There's an awful lot of money disappearing into overheads, built-in inefficiency and other unnecessary things. An awful lot.

 

[qldfrog]

Fully agree.

On the cost though I'll argue strongly that the real problem isn't just about renewables versus fossils versus nuclear.

There's an awful lot of money disappearing into overheads, built-in inefficiency and other unnecessary things. An awful lot.

true but the fact is we currently do not have any safety in power supply, and this would not have been the case if we had not embraced that flat earth idea of co2 creating global warming and run with it hoping to make a difference.
I do not expect common citizens to understand why it is as unscientific as the earth is flat theory but decision makers can obtain true scientific advice if they wish to.
We would have ended with more expensive power sure due to the whole shitshow anything in Australia is becoming but at the very least, coal and gas power plant would be there and providing power to the grid, at the very least until the next cfmeu strike or power line damages.
.So this is political belief with motives I suspect

 

[qldfrog]

Fully agree.

On the cost though I'll argue strongly that the real problem isn't just about renewables versus fossils versus nuclear.

There's an awful lot of money disappearing into overheads, built-in inefficiency and other unnecessary things. An awful lot.

look anything from building a pool, a road, a bridge, or just getting a passport is now among the most expensive in the world here with productivity going backward..That is a unique feat actually...
So yes even without RE, we would be f***ed price wise
Such a shame as with the sun we have , a less religious approach could leverage solar/wind when and where relevant but religious fanatism is black and white and do not care about facts, data, science or reality

 

[sptrawler]

The penny is dropping, even with the left wing media, IMO this is how the Guardian should do articles on renewables, accurate, precise and lacking hype, then maybe they would get more readers.

Green hydrogen has stalled in nearly every corner of Australia. So why is the government still revving it up?

Chris Bowen announced $814m for the clean energy source despite projects in doubt across NSW, Queensland and South Australia

www.theguardian.com

 

[Smurf1976]

The penny is dropping, even with the left wing media, IMO this is how the Guardian should do articles on renewables, accurate, precise and lacking hype, then maybe they would get more readers.

Same with all this more generally. Stick to the facts, avoid politics, and it all gets a lot easier.

The biggest issue of the lot, and I'm sure you're well aware of this but the general public aren't, is that there's no single answer to most questions.

Is solar cheaper than gas? Well that depends, and it varies with scale even at the same site. Odds are adding some solar would save money, but adding more not necessarily.

Is hydro viable? Totally site dependent.

Etc.

Biggest thing of the lot in my view the general public and media doesn't grasp is the issue of scale and that it runs in both directions, often at the same time. All other things being equal, larger scale reduces unit cost but that said, increasing penetration beyond a tipping point increases it.

Or in other words if the starting point is an entirely gas-based system for example, and we've got a number of systems nationally that are basically that (north-west WA, Mt Isa and western Qld, everywhere in the NT) then there's an economically optimal answer to the question of how much solar is sensible. Up to a point adding solar will lead to lower overall cost, beyond that point it leads to higher cost, so there's a "correct" answer.

With the added complexity that what that answer is will itself depend on the engineering of it. North facing panels will lead to a lower overall use of solar being optimal than will east - west facing panels on a tracker. With the trade off that the latter will cost more to install and requires more maintenance.

So in other words it's a number crunching exercise. There's no universal answer, it's not a belief or religion, it's just engineering plus finance, the latter being relevant primarily in the context of the cost of capital noting the answer to that, the cost of capital, will itself change the optimum design indeed in some cases it'll do so radically. What makes sense at a rate of 5% is very different to what makes sense at 10%.

Now the trouble is, pretty much everyone running the public debate wouldn't understand a word of what I've just written.

 

[SirRumpole]

Same with all this more generally. Stick to the facts, avoid politics, and it all gets a lot easier.

The biggest issue of the lot, and I'm sure you're well aware of this but the general public aren't, is that there's no single answer to most questions.

Is solar cheaper than gas? Well that depends, and it varies with scale even at the same site. Odds are adding some solar would save money, but adding more not necessarily.

Is hydro viable? Totally site dependent.

Etc.

Biggest thing of the lot in my view the general public and media doesn't grasp is the issue of scale and that it runs in both directions, often at the same time. All other things being equal, larger scale reduces unit cost but that said, increasing penetration beyond a tipping point increases it.

Or in other words if the starting point is an entirely gas-based system for example, and we've got a number of systems nationally that are basically that (north-west WA, Mt Isa and western Qld, everywhere in the NT) then there's an economically optimal answer to the question of how much solar is sensible. Up to a point adding solar will lead to lower overall cost, beyond that point it leads to higher cost, so there's a "correct" answer.

With the added complexity that what that answer is will itself depend on the engineering of it. North facing panels will lead to a lower overall use of solar being optimal than will east - west facing panels on a tracker. With the trade off that the latter will cost more to install and requires more maintenance.

So in other words it's a number crunching exercise. There's no universal answer, it's not a belief or religion, it's just engineering plus finance, the latter being relevant primarily in the context of the cost of capital noting the answer to that, the cost of capital, will itself change the optimum design indeed in some cases it'll do so radically. What makes sense at a rate of 5% is very different to what makes sense at 10%.

Now the trouble is, pretty much everyone running the public debate wouldn't understand a word of what I've just written.

Are you willing to say what public commentators are reliable? I'm thinking of Tony Wood and Bruce Mountain, they seem to be of a few willing to talk in public.

 

[sptrawler]

Are you willing to say what public commentators are reliable? I'm thinking of Tony Wood and Bruce Mountain, they seem to be of a few willing to talk in public.

I don't know either of them, but a quick google Tony Woods renewable consultant, brought up a lot of hits. Try it.

 

[sptrawler]

Getting back to energy, are we painting ourselves into a corner? One hopes not.

Decision on major gas project in WA's north-west delayed again

Woodside says a decision to further delay approval for its major gas project in WA's north west until after the federal election is "extremely disappointing".

www.abc.net.au

The federal government has again delayed a decision to extend the life of a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in WA's north west.

Oil and gas giant Woodside Energy is looking to continue LNG production in Karratha, 1,500 kilometres north of Perth, until 2070.

It would be a major step in the company's plans to develop the Browse LNG project off WA's north coast.

After an initial delay until the end of March, federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek has delayed the decision for a second time until May 31, which will be after the federal election.

The extension is strongly opposed by climate and environment groups who say it will emit billions of tonnes of climate pollution across its lifetime and jeopardise global efforts to reach net zero.

The area is also home to a 50,000-year-old natural rock art gallery of more than 1 million petroglyphs spread across 37,000 hectares at Murujuga, also known as the Burrup Peninsula.

The project has drawn ire from environmentalists, with 770 appeals subsequently lodged with the state Environmental Protection Authority.

The WA government gave the project the green light in December by then-state environment minister Reece Whitby, after a six-year approval process.

Gavin McFadzean, who runs the Climate and Energy program at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said he believed Ms Plibersek had more information to consider and called out the WA government's approval as "deeply flawed".

"We would argue the federal government should not make a decision before the election and needs more time to consider the environmental impact of this project before it goes ahead," Mr McFadzean said.

"The federal government has, quite rightly, several more questions to ask of the West Australian government in order to consider further information."