Useless Labor Party

[Tisme]

Says you sonny....You might consider yourself a "KNOW ALL" but you have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

You still cannot give me a straight answer about Phibersek and her outrages cost of a coal fired power station. $28 billion.

You cannot be open and say whether you agree with the cost 0f $48 billion to fund Labor's RET.

So you revert to your usual mountainous rhetoric about being a "STUPID NONSENSE ARGUMENT" .

And you say I lack credibility....I think you should look at yourself in the mirror first.

It these abusive posts that have become the hallmark of the pattern abuse you inflict on members if they won't lower their IQs and lay down with fleas. Wilson Tuckey of ASF lol

I really don't know why you have to tirade against sensible debate and start injecting wildly concocted and fanciful stories in the hope someone, anyone will believe them. Anger management is a good place to start if suffering hissy fits and it's probably free under the NDIS... oh hang on that's another Labor prank, bundling it into an omnibus legislation.

 

[Tisme]

Not necessarily if the coal miners pay off enough politicians who then raid the clean energy fund and give the cash back to the coal miners to make the dirty stuff a bit cleaner .

That's a thinly veiled swipe at the current donor/receiver arrangement I suspect.

Maybe Credlin's admission the other day, that when she was Prime Minister the whole carbon tax et al was, as we all suspected, a ruse and perhaps voters will be more introspective before throwing their preferences around like a mad women's underpants.

 

[Tisme]

Not disputing any figures here but there is an article that says it would cost beyond $27b in government-guaranteed subsidies to build a new coal plant and I suspect this includes the building, operation, adherence to Co2 targets, decommissioning and finally pricing to the end consumer. It looks like there's more than one correct answer
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/...ase-for-new-coal-doesnt-stack-up-04022017.pdf

I seem to recall we built Callide B for a lot less than that

 

[PZ99]

LOL. I reckon they built Rome for less as well

 

[noco]

It these abusive posts that have become the hallmark of the pattern abuse you inflict on members if they won't lower their IQs and lay down with fleas. Wilson Tuckey of ASF lol

I really don't know why you have to tirade against sensible debate and start injecting wildly concocted and fanciful stories in the hope someone, anyone will believe them. Anger management is a good place to start if suffering hissy fits and it's probably free under the NDIS... oh hang on that's another Labor prank, bundling it into an omnibus legislation.

ROFL.......I am still waiting for some sensible answer from you instead of insults...You either agree...disagree....or admit you don't know.

I have told you before, I don't get angry.

When anger rises, think of the consequences.

Sensible people like me are more apt to reason.......Some people prefer to divert attention away from their own anger and change the subject to get them out of trouble and embarrassment....You whistle and I will point.

Tisme, you like to dish it out but you just can't take your own medicine.

 

[noco]

I agree.

However given the vast disparity of the figures I also have reservations about a claim from someone who couldn't find any reference on the internet about Tanya Plibersek's $28b claim. I found that article on page 1 of a google search. But my original point is how these figures are collected. Whatever department that $28b claim came from might be quoting the entire life of the station starting with the obligatory PM shovel shot for the media and ending with the site rehab. The other claim of $5b appears to be just the start up and running costs based on subcritical brown coal (cheapest). I just take the view they are 2 different claims.

It was an interview by Andrew Bolt with Tanya Plibersek...When she mentioned about a new coal fired power station, she stated $28 billion and then finished up by saying "Nobody thinks it will work".
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...w/news-story/6b7694533e340bedd5943c2004028575

 

[PZ99]

It was an interview by Andrew Bolt with Tanya Plibersek...When she mentioned about a new coal fired power station, she stated $28 billion and then finished up by saying "Nobody thinks it will work".
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...w/news-story/6b7694533e340bedd5943c2004028575

I don't agree with her $28b claim either.

But the reservations I was talking about is this comment from Peter Rees: "You said to build another coal station would cost $28 billion but I can’t find anything on the internet that supports that claim." ; Like I said, I had no trouble finding it on google.

And then he goes on to say: Let’s look at replacement for the giant coal 1600MW Hazlewood station which is closing soon. So it’s $3100 x 1000000 x 1.6 = $4.96 billion.

Well we already know Hazelwood was loosing money so it must be more than $4.96 billion
We also know any new station won't be burning Lignite because it's being phased out in favour of cleaner and more expensive fuel. So building a new coal power station will be more expensive than in the past because of present and future regulatory requirements.

 

[Tisme]

It was an interview by Andrew Bolt with Tanya Plibersek...

Both of them are jokes.

 

[noco]

I don't agree with her $28b claim either.

But the reservations I was talking about is this comment from Peter Rees: "You said to build another coal station would cost $28 billion but I can’t find anything on the internet that supports that claim." ; Like I said, I had no trouble finding it on google.

And then he goes on to say: Let’s look at replacement for the giant coal 1600MW Hazlewood station which is closing soon. So it’s $3100 x 1000000 x 1.6 = $4.96 billion.

Well we already know Hazelwood was loosing money so it must be more than $4.96 billion
We also know any new station won't be burning Lignite because it's being phased out in favour of cleaner and more expensive fuel. So building a new coal power station will be more expensive than in the past because of present and future regulatory requirements.

Of course they will cost more than the last one lets not kid ourselves...It is called inflation...Higher wages ...higher cost of steel.
How long is it since the last coal fired power station was built?

 

[PZ99]

Of course they will cost more than the last one lets not kid ourselves...It is called inflation...Higher wages ...higher cost of steel.
How long is it since the last coal fired power station was built?

The claim of $4.96b was in todays money. What Peter Rees has done is simply use the Hazelwood operating costs as a formula to building a new station. But that scenario doesn't work for the reasons previously stated.

I noticed on Q/A today that Tanya Plibersek's claim of $28b has now increased to $60b.

Obviously both claims are wrong because they are over simplistically calculated.

$28b to $60b in a few days? Now that's inflation LOL

 

[noco]

Both of them are jokes.

I will back Andrew against Tanya any day when it comes to the truth and facts....Tanya could not li

I don't agree with her $28b claim either.

But the reservations I was talking about is this comment from Peter Rees: "You said to build another coal station would cost $28 billion but I can’t find anything on the internet that supports that claim." ; Like I said, I had no trouble finding it on google.

And then he goes on to say: Let’s look at replacement for the giant coal 1600MW Hazlewood station which is closing soon. So it’s $3100 x 1000000 x 1.6 = $4.96 billion.

Well we already know Hazelwood was loosing money so it must be more than $4.96 billion
We also know any new station won't be burning Lignite because it's being phased out in favour of cleaner and more expensive fuel. So building a new coal power station will be more expensive than in the past because of present and future regulatory requirements.

I think if you read into the link a little further, those estimates came from the CSIRO and not Peter Rees.

The claim of $4.96b was in todays money. What Peter Rees has done is simply use the Hazelwood operating costs as a formula to building a new station. But that scenario doesn't work for the reasons previously stated.

I noticed on Q/A today that Tanya Plibersek's claim of $28b has now increased to $60b.

Obviously both claims are wrong because they are over simplistically calculated.

$28b to $60b in a few days? Now that's inflation LOL

As I have just stated on another thread, the estimates were carried out by the CSIRO and not Peter Rees.

 

[PZ99]

I didn't say Peter Rees made the estimates. But he substituted that estimate into the Hazelwood costs to arrive at a false conclusion. The $3,100 per kW is the cost to build more capacity, not to build a power station outright.

The cost of a new ultra-supercritical coal-fired power station is $134-203/MWh

This is the actual CSIRO document...

http://www.co2crc.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_Report_final_web.pdf

And this is the article leading to it > https://www.theguardian.com/environ...es-route-emissions-reduction?CMP=share_btn_tw

Presumably it's this article where Tanya Plibersek got her numbers from as well.

Australia's coal power plan twice as costly as renewables route, report finds

Researcher says new coal plants aimed at reducing emissions would cost $62b, while the cost using renewables would be $24-$34bn

Resources minister Matthew Canavan and energy and environment minister Josh Frydenberg want new coal power plants to be built in Australia.

A plan for new coal power plants, which government ministers say could reduce emissions from coal-generated electricity by 27%, would cost more than $60bn, a new analysis has found.

Achieving the same reduction using only renewable energy would cost just half as much – between $24bn and $34bn – the report found.

The resources minister, Matthew Canavan, and the energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, have been arguing for new coal power plants to be built in Australia.


Last week, Canavan released analysis he commissioned from the industry department, which found replacing all Australia’s coal power stations with the latest “ultra super-critical” coal-fired power stations would reduce emissions in that sector by 27%.

Frydenberg has also raised the conclusions in interviews, and promoted the benefits of coal power.

Neither has responded to questions about the cost of reducing coal-fired power emissions by 27% using the latest technology.

So Dylan McConnell from the Climate and Energy College at the University of Melbourne crunched the numbers, and found that the 27% reduction in the coal sector could be achieved, but it would cost $62bn.

McConnell said at a conservative estimate, achieving the reduction would require 20GW of new capacity. According to the latest estimates from the CSIRO, new ultra super-critical black coal costs $3,100 per kW to build.

“No wonder no one wants to talk about the costs,” McConnell said.

He said $62bn would be enough to build between 35GW and 39GW of wind and solar energy. Because that would produce less electricity than 20GW of coal power, it would not completely replace coal power, but it would reduce its emissions by up to 65%.

And that would amount to an emissions reduction of between 50% and 60% in the electricity sector as a whole.

McConnell found that if the 27% reduction in emissions from the coal generation sector were to be achieved with renewables, rather than with new coal, about 13-19GW of renewable energy would be needed, which would cost between $24bn and $34bn.

He said the scenario proposed by Canavan and Frydenberg would end up with 20GW of highly polluting coal power stations that were unlikely to be retired for decades.

On the other hand, McConnell said, if that money were spent on renewables, it would leave some coal and gas in place, which ultimately would still need to be removed to meet long-term emissions reduction targets.

Neither Canavan nor Frydenberg responded to questions about the costs of building new coal power stations. In a statement, Frydenberg said only that the government was committed to a “technology neutral” approach to meeting emissions targets.

“Arbitrarily excluding certain technologies for ideological reasons will lead to higher cost outcomes,” the statement said.

The Opposition spokesman for climate change and energy, Mark Butler, said: “This analysis clearly shows the government is off on an economically and environmentally irresponsible frolic with their trumpeting of ‘clean coal’.

“As the Australian Industry Group and many others have made clear, replacing our existing coal power with more coal power just doesn’t stack up; either on environmental or economic grounds.

“This is just the latest effort of a weak government to appease its irrational extreme right wing and distract from the fact they’re simply incapable of delivering real policy solutions to our significant energy challenges,” Butler said.

McConnell pointed out that the latest coal-powered fire stations were not at all “clean”. They produced about 700 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt hour of electricity – much more than the 400 grams from new combined cycle gas turbines, and much more than the average produced by OECD countries, 420 grams per kilowatt hour in 2014, according to the International Energy Agency.

OECD countries will need to reduce that figure to just 15 grams per kilowatt hour if the world is to keep global temperature increases below 2C, the agency has said.

 

[Tisme]

The claim of $4.96b was in todays money. What Peter Rees has done is simply use the Hazelwood operating costs as a formula to building a new station. But that scenario doesn't work for the reasons previously stated.

I noticed on Q/A today that Tanya Plibersek's claim of $28b has now increased to $60b.

Obviously both claims are wrong because they are over simplistically calculated.

$28b to $60b in a few days? Now that's inflation LOL

Did Tanya claim $28bn cost as her own guess? Do you have a transcript of what she actually said?

After watching QANDA last night and reading the selective piece by Simone Koob this morning I'm wondering if we aren't witnessing another Murdoch Liberal Party campaign against information.

 

[Tisme]

How long is it since the last coal fired power station was built?

Probably one I was involved in

 

[PZ99]

I think it was Kogan Creek around 10 years ago?

Not sure where Tanya got the $28b figure from on the Bolt report.

I'm going off what that viewer said.

 

[Tisme]

Y

I think it was Kogan Creek around 10 years ago?

Not sure where Tanya got the $28b figure from on the Bolt report.

I'm going off what that viewer said.

Yeah I must admit, I did call BS on our man north of the Gympie line before actually checking on my gut feel it was the usual anti ALP gutter tripe Bolt trots out, for the small thinkers who hide in plain sight.

 

[Tisme]

Still can't easily find the video interview nor can I find out who is and what qualifications the fact checker Peter Rees has.

 

[PZ99]

Neither can I. lol

 

[Tisme]

Neither can I. lol

Well I guess that's been fact checked by ASF and found wanting.

 

[noco]

I think it was Kogan Creek around 10 years ago?

Not sure where Tanya got the $28b figure from on the Bolt report.

I'm going off what that viewer said.

The last coal fired power station built was in 2001.