Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
Have I got it half right?
Yep, that's a pretty good 3-point summary, although I'd restate your first point like this..... Renewable generation can generate cheaper than coal once it has been installed. (I won't try to prove which is more economical from a total capital investment perspective. 
)
So, once the renewables are installed, they trigger a death spiral for the coal. We'll find out what that does to electricity prices over the next few years.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
FN, it's not the ability or inability to be able to ramp up and down quickly that is killing the coal, it is the fact that they need to run at high output for most of the day to get enough return on the capital investment. Once enough renewables are built, coal will get pushed off the bid stack most days, and they'll only run at night when there is no wind. That's just not enough sales to make a profit, and it's why people are building gas turbines. The fuel is expensive, but much less capital, so it's worth it just to supply the peaking power when the price spikes.
Exactly right and the implication of this is that the marginal cost of energy will be determined by the all in sustaining cost of those marginal units. Ie as the generation mix changes over time the type of fuel used at the margin changes.
As we have moved from a coal baseload with all in costs of around 22 to 35 dollars depending on type to more and more combined cycle gas at 40 to 50 the cost of power had risen to the cost of gas. Then the cost of gas rises too. No surprise there.
Guess what the unsubsidized cost of renewables is between 80 and 120 dollars. We use subsidies ie taxpayer and energy user money to get that to 45 dollars ie competitive to c.c gas and bingo we have an explosion of renewables in our energy mix.
This is how the market has been tweaked to get the renewables to explode and the increase in the marginal cost of power is the true hidden cost of renewables plus of course the subsidies.
Over time the mix will tilt further to renewables as that is what the market has been tweaked to do and the marginal cost will rise further as subsidies are removed
Studies I've seen have this settling at around triple what it is now but alot can change before then.
That said this is just the economics of our market with all it's tweaks and quick fixes from different jurisdictions both state and federal. In China for example where it actually matters to the environment the "market" sends a completely different signal and thats why they get coal fired generation as their most economic new build and they continue to do it by the gigawatt.
Be careful generalizing our unique market outcomes elsewhere and saying things like coal is uneconomic and renewables are cost competitive. Thats just here.
The way we get billed will also change meaning the free ride to small solar installs will end so don't think you can hide there for long.
Like I said before rolling this forward the economic thing for many to do will be solar and battery fully disconnected from the grid. That's tremendously expensive and innefficient both for the individual household and for the rest of the grid as those left on it will see even larger price increases due to less users over fixed costs.
Business in particular will suffer here making us uncompetitive internationally and with additional increases to our cost if living on pretty much anything made locally.
This is the stuff not discussed and that's what gets my beef. We are not getting the big picture on what this all means for us down the track. Oh and of course like I said all for no measurable impact on the environment. That's the frustrating bit. A wrecked economy and huge increases in cost of living just for a bit of virtue signalling.
So ??? Should we keep burning fossil fuels and dam the evidence from the majority of climate scientists.
Select to expand quotekato said..
So ??? Should we keep burning fossil fuels and dam the evidence from the majority of climate scientists.
Lol here's an idea read the whole thread for starters ...
We have wasted billions and achieved little other than feeling a bit smug.
Select to expand quoteBara said..kato said..
So ??? Should we keep burning fossil fuels and dam the evidence from the majority of climate scientists.
Lol here's an idea read the whole thread for starters ...
We have wasted billions and achieved little other than feeling a bit smug.
Do we just calculate it on the cost per gigawatt, or do we add some value to not creating more carbon in the atmosphere?
A pessimist would say 'well, I don't know if its human induced climate change, but lets try and limit our impact anyway just in case'.
An optimist would say 'to hell with it, it will be okay, we can just burn the cheap stuff'.
The pessimistic approach is okay for all of us, so why not go that way. As renewables come down in price, surely it becomes more economic?
I thought China was also using a lot of renewables? With a huge population approaching a middle class lifestyle, consumption will go up, and I think the Chinese government are using renewables where they can, and no doubt using coal as well.
There is a case for burning all the coal, as Bara advocates. It just means that the planet will be a very different place and won't support the same life forms that it does now.
I guess I do feel a bit smug sitting in my solar PV powered a/c on a hot day. Maybe we should all make ourselves feel a bit smug in other ways....say by jetting off to tourist hotspots and uploading video of ourselves to Instagram
Well with the invention of a no moving parts jet engine that burns hydrogen in the future you will be able to jet off & only have water vapour emissions
^^^ lol where did I say burn all the coal???
I've been on the climate change band wagon for longer than you have I'll wager mate. Being in the energy market weather driven demand equations are bread and butter. Our modelling started incorporating climate change over a decade ago. It's real and more importantly the experts i've spoken too believe we are past the point of no return already. Not much point officially admitting that though.
What I seem to have trouble getting through to some of you is We wave wasted more than a decade of precious time and a tremendous amount of resources doing nothing measurable on a global scale and sadly that's all we will continue doing because our efforts have been hijacked and distorted like I've tried to explain in part.
Anyway too hard for most so let's just go back to the good ol 4 legs good 2 legs baaaaad mantra eh.
Bara, I fully understand your point of view but I think we've achieved a lot more than being "a bit smug" and I don't think the money has been wasted. Even though you are right and we have not made an impact on world emissions yet, the change in people's mindsets to look for reduced emission electricity generation has to start somewhere and it is starting in the developed world in countries like Australia. Like you say, it is an economic disadvantage for the developed world vs the developing world but I guess we are hoping that we can afford the short term economic pain and eventually the world will change when it can afford to.
Select to expand quoteBara said..kato said..
So ??? Should we keep burning fossil fuels and dam the evidence from the majority of climate scientists.
Lol here's an idea read the whole thread for starters ...
We have wasted billions and achieved little other than feeling a bit smug.
Yep, done that. BUT What's your solution? If you're argument is that current "Green Power"battery is a con and that Aus generates 1% emissions and that nothing that we do will have any affect on a global scale. What is the alternative?
For me , and I've been here awhile im practicing what I believe. Being sustainable as I can ,without living in a cave eating cold tofu.
Aus could be the country to lead the way and reap the rewards. Or it could be the last dinosaur . With our current Gov leading the way, it looks like coal is king.
Hi...Problem is that VIC and SA manage to peak at the same time often enough for it to be a problem. The new interconnector planned between SA and NSW is going to be a big help in this regard, but following the recent retirement of Hazelwood in VIC and with the upcoming retirement of Liddell in NSW, it's all gonna have to trickle down from QLD where they still have a relatively young fleet of coal power stations.
Select to expand quoteGanLieber said..
Hi...Problem is that VIC and SA manage to peak at the same time often enough for it to be a problem. The new interconnector planned between SA and NSW is going to be a big help in this regard, but following the recent retirement of Hazelwood in VIC and with the upcoming retirement of Liddell in NSW, it's all gonna have to trickle down from QLD where they still have a relatively young fleet of coal power stations.
Wise words indeed! 
Who is this great sage?
Select to expand quotekato said..Bara said..kato said..
So ??? Should we keep burning fossil fuels and dam the evidence from the majority of climate scientists.
Lol here's an idea read the whole thread for starters ...
We have wasted billions and achieved little other than feeling a bit smug.
Yep, done that. BUT What's your solution? If you're argument is that current "Green Power"battery is a con and that Aus generates 1% emissions and that nothing that we do will have any affect on a global scale. What is the alternative?
For me , and I've been here awhile im practicing what I believe. Being sustainable as I can ,without living in a cave eating cold tofu.
Aus could be the country to lead the way and reap the rewards. Or it could be the last dinosaur . With our current Gov leading the way, it looks like coal is king.
My solution would have been simply to keep our economy competitive using our natural advantages - we used to have the cheapest energy in the developed world - and use the dividend we get from that economic growth to invest in places like china india and the ticking time bomb of emissions later this century that is africa.
Help them bypass the fossil fuel stage basically.
It could have been done via a sovereign fund that invested what we have wasted on nothing more than virtue signalling. It might even have turned a profit by investing in new technologies and rolling them out. that profit could have been used to help our economy slowly remove its dependence on coal royalties for starters.
it would have required our politicians and lobbyists to be honest about the real cost of a transition to a renewable economy and thus allowed the money to be spent more efficiently where it would have actually made a difference. ie in economies that actually make a material difference to emissions
Now that would have been a mother farking good virtue signal. we could have been smug for good reason! instead we delude ourselves.
Early on this was the path the EU began down, investing in eastern europe and china and curbing their emissions there but that all has fallen by the wayside as lobbyists seeking a profit for their clients became involved (and more recently international assistance got rolled up into the bureaucracy surrounding the paris agreement) . Like us the EU had good intentions but those intentions have been hijacked by those with ulterior motives and they have been clever enough to hoodwink the green cult into blindly supporting such stuff.
(I know this btw cos i used to work for one of those rent seekers with a staff of 130 lobbyists - easily the most profitable department in the whole multibillion dollar enterprise)
Instead we have loaded our economy up with ever increasing transition costs and are not honest with how much more there is yet to come. it has already seriously dented our economic growth and will get much worse trust me.
labor or the greens arent gonna save this mess mate. dont kid yourself they are gonna make it worse. what we need is a paradigm shift and like i said that has to start with honesty about where this is all leading for us economically.
Select to expand quoteBara said..
..that has to start with honesty about where this is all leading for us economically.
Aaaaaannnddddd we're f***ed at the first hurdle. 
Govts of any persuasion aint going let something like honesty get in their way of the trough.
Again, I understand your points Bara. However, I have doubt whether cheap electricity would have allowed Australia to gain comparative advantage over offshore low cost centres for many industries (especially manufacturing) because one of the largest factors of production is labour and we will always struggle to compete with low cost centres on labour costs. For sure, technology (powered by cheap electricity) can be used to offset labour but as you no doubt know, it's not a one for one tradeoff, it's a cube factor if I've remembered it right.
Another thought that I ponder is; just how elastic is the demand for electricity? Is it quite inelastic like fuel, bourbon and cigarettes? (ie you growl about the price but buy it anyway). Would a low electricity price make people's lives better or just let them consume more electricity without a worry in the world? I've seen demand curves for other necessities like water where there is quite a "knee" in the curve (ie it's inelastic to a certain price and people don't regulate their consumption when pricing is below this point, but when it hits a price marker they start to limit consumption to, I assume, suit their budget).
But I certainly agree that not all developed countries are singing off the same songsheet. I mean FFS those wacky UAE folk are happy to build an indoor ski slope that seems just batsh!t crazy from a sustainability point of view, yet they've got heaps of oil to power their generators so they couldn't care less.
Select to expand quoteCrusoe said..
...........................Well the performance of the ''world's largest battery'' last Thursday exposed what a complete con job it's been - and delusion that we can power our economy on solar panels, wind turbines and big batteries is as dangerous to the economy as rabies is in a dog. Let's look at the evidence from 24th Jan ...As wind power collapsed into the afternoon, prices in South Australia surged to $14,500 Mwh (they averaged around $40 Mwh before all these 'cheap' renewables flooded into the grid) at around 4.30pm ''the world's biggest battery'' started to dribble in 30MW to the grid.
The 30MW was less than 1% of South Australia's total demand, and less than 0.1% of the National grid's demand. The world's biggest battery continued to dribble out around 30MW until 7.30pm, then it ran flat, rendering it completely useless as peak demand hit at 7.30pm.
Meanwhile the emergency diesel generators (chewing through a reported 80,000 litres of diesel an hour) were doing the real work in SA, pumping out over 400MW at a time on demand - and they continued to so as demand peaked at 7.30pm, when the world's largest battery had given up the ghost. So at peak demand, in the renewables paradise of South Australia, 97% of their electricity was coming from fossil fuels.
Over the afternoon, I estimate the ''world's biggest battery'' delivered only around 100 Mwh of electricity - compared to 2000Mwh by the diesel generators. The facts should be clear from the evidence that it's a dangerous delusion that Australia can run the economy with solar/wind backed up by big batteries. But sadly once leftists have been radicalised by green propaganda - evidence, engineering & economics no longer matter, because their belief is a semi-religious one based on feelings and emotions and their minds are closed to rational thoughts and logic.
First, your propagandized pessimism sounds that of what the government itself wants people to think of wind and solar for reasons difficult to explain in political terms but is basically monarchy / dictatorship and control , and also economic control that does not come from 1 in 2 or 3 household;s being off grid, the governments are very frightened of off grid because simply solar works OK but wind-solar hybrid operates better and half the cost for twice the electricity over 12 - 15 years when setup properly!
Failure of green energy is what all the government economists want people to see in it and was probably set up as a special lose case example to display to the country and world as other countries developing may choose to make it their method and that leaves from proper monarchist and dictatorial doctrine of controlling the people and their money (for individuals to choose or have independence).
In Britain, their problem is other countries have high commitment to green energy schemes and UK needs to paint its' own facade, along with weather that matches such a scheme in terms of wind turbines.
The very place the Australian government sunk billions into wind turbines is PROOF they are falsifying wind energy to the people in that the wind farm outside of Yass NSW is a very low level wind area and only has PBL (Planetary Boundary Layer) theory science to backup such a location for something that should be successful!
Take a look at WHERE to locate wind turbines for constant effective wind (pics) below .... RIGHT, YOU GUESSED IT ... any ocean shore-line !
NOT somewhere that has inland airports in the region (inland NSW) because wind speeds are half that of the coast all year round !
Only in 2017 has the first seed of a known compulsory thought occurred in Australia !
www.smh.com.au/business/companies/australia-s-first-offshore-wind-farm-international-funding-20171206-p4yxfb.html
Liverpool UK docks
Select to expand quotenicephotog said..
The very place the Australian government sunk billions into wind turbines is PROOF they are falsifying wind energy to the people in that the wind farm outside of Yass NSW is a very low level wind area and only has PBL (Planetary Boundary Layer) theory science to backup such a location for something that should be successful!
Take a look at WHERE to locate wind turbines for constant effective wind (pics) below .... RIGHT, YOU GUESSED IT ... any ocean shore-line !
NOT somewhere that has inland airports in the region (inland NSW) because wind speeds are half that of the coast all year round !
Nah. Have you actually looked at the wind data for these areas? Years ago when I first started to get into windsurfing, the NSW government had a 'wind atlas' that it would send out to you if you asked, as well as an online version. It showed every area of NSW and the typical wind speeds in those locations. I can't recall if it was average, or peak, or something else, but I think it was average.
The surprising thing is that there are areas on the coast with really poor wind, and there are areas inland that have exception wind in comparison.
Not surprisingly, they seem to have stuck the wind farms in the good inland areas. These areas also have the benefit of not requiring a thousand residents to deal with, and the HV lines to carry the electricity is easier to deliver.
So, not conspiracy there. Its all science and economics.
Next.
Here you go:
www.aginnovators.org.au/initiatives/energy/information-papers/farm-scale-wind-power
Its not as easy to read as the version I have seen in the past but it shows enough.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
So, not conspiracy there. Its all science and economics.
Next. I guess if you're looking for conspiracies you'll find them everywhere.
Problem solved....
www.snowyhydro.com.au/news/snowy-hydro-welcomes-planning-approval-for-snowy-2-0-exploratory-works/
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..nicephotog said..
The very place the Australian government sunk billions into wind turbines is PROOF they are falsifying wind energy to the people in that the wind farm outside of Yass NSW is a very low level wind area and only has PBL (Planetary Boundary Layer) theory science to backup such a location for something that should be successful!
Take a look at WHERE to locate wind turbines for constant effective wind (pics) below .... RIGHT, YOU GUESSED IT ... any ocean shore-line !
NOT somewhere that has inland airports in the region (inland NSW) because wind speeds are half that of the coast all year round !
Nah. Have you actually looked at the wind data for these areas? Years ago when I first started to get into windsurfing, the NSW government had a 'wind atlas' that it would send out to you if you asked, as well as an online version. It showed every area of NSW and the typical wind speeds in those locations. I can't recall if it was average, or peak, or something else, but I think it was average.
The surprising thing is that there are areas on the coast with really poor wind, and there are areas inland that have exception wind in comparison.
Not surprisingly, they seem to have stuck the wind farms in the good inland areas. These areas also have the benefit of not requiring a thousand residents to deal with, and the HV lines to carry the electricity is easier to deliver.
So, not conspiracy there. Its all science and economics.
Next.
..."The surprising thing is that there are areas on the coast with really poor wind, and there are areas inland that have exception wind in comparison. "...
A bit true (but not actually), and where the wind farm is near Yass there is some wind but even then , they may be judging AVERAGE wind speed, and that has a bad FLAW with evaluators !
EXAMPLE If the wind blew 100 kmh 10 times(days) a year and every other day it was 1 kmh what would the AVERAGE MAXIMUM be !
cut a long story short
MEAN AVERAGE = 3.7 kmh
MODE AVERAGE 1 Kmh
Dependant what the report publishes the average is 1 Kmh OR as some choice of the writer 3.7 Kmh maximum every day.
So if i expected each day to contain approximately 4Kmh i will only be getting 1/4 of that in absolute reality ! with absurd sudden maintenance issues !
Yass does have wind and it has sudden immense gusts a little alike i am explaining there.
Coastal wind is very reliable and likely to be an absolute truth in KWH generation capacity as temperature and convection patterns are almost invariably the same year in year out (for expected operative purposes)
Although Yass has wind in its' inland location , it is not reliably predictable as coastal wind pattern that can be prospectivised the number of KWH made within 1000's for a year period ('though production is in 1000's of MWH) , unlike Yass that only has some type of constant recurring wind !
* note: wind inland often is much less and constantly less !!!
Take a better look at the wind data !!!
Be certain that the wind developers are not just using some average wind speed from an old book. They install wind monitoring in many locations, and measure it 24 hours/day for months. There's a lot of effort put into choosing the right locations.
Problem is that climate change affects wind patterns. Those winter SW fronts don't reach as far north as they used to.
And, back to the battery...it seems to be making money for its owner....and it prevented load shedding in SA when NSW suffered lightning strikes that affected the rest of the grid
www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/18/tesla-big-battery-is-holding-its-own-in-a-burgeoning-energy-storage-market
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
There is a case for burning all the coal, as Bara advocates. It just means that the planet will be a very different place and won't support the same life forms that it does now.
I guess I do feel a bit smug sitting in my solar PV powered a/c on a hot day. Maybe we should all make ourselves feel a bit smug in other ways....say by jetting off to tourist hotspots and uploading video of ourselves to Instagram
Jets are actually very energy efficient, when you consider the distance and number of people. And the longer the distance the more efficient they become; cruising altitude is where they are most efficient. random link: www.boell.de/en/2016/06/17/air-travel-versus
We all know how efficient they have become as we've all seen the cheap airfares advertised. I think it's amazing how far and fast we can travel for how little.
Also, they can spray chem-trails as they go, so you need to figure that into your calculations.
Select to expand quote
Interesting graph in that reference by evipanda.
It looks like the biggest hidden cost of driving a car are the medical and lost time costs of the car crash. Drive carefully. Stick within the speed limit and drop 5 kph it makes a huge difference. One of the most effective things an individual can do for the planet.
Are you sure you're interpreting the diagram correctly Ian? They appear to be all economic costs. ie the cost of a car accident is an economic cost and not an environmental cost as it is listed seperately to the economic cost of environmental considerations and fuel use. I have personally always maintained that consumers are unaware of the real cost of most items as we very rarely pay "full price" ie all the costs of a product (to the community) from the cradle to the grave should be included in the purchase price, but generally they're not.
Maybe I'm not. But a euro value is put on environmental impact. If we all drove carefully at lower speeds we could divert the car crash savings to expenditure on reversing environmental impacts. But then again there could be hysteresis in the environmental costings. Can spending a $1 on the environment undo $1 worth of damage done elsewhere on the planet?
Agreed, driving safely could create economic gains that could be spent on other things.
I believe the intent of the diagram is to inform the reader of the costs that people are not aware of, the eye opener is the hidden climate change cost associated with air travel. I wonder when aircraft operators will be taxed on their emissions like power station operators or motor vehicle operators?????? The big push in aircraft design is to cut fuel consumption, but this is purely to boost profit and increase range and not benefit the environment. I put it out there that maybe the economic "price" of a plane ticket does not reflect the "actual economic cost" of the flight to the community
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Interesting graph in that reference by evipanda.
It looks like the biggest hidden cost of driving a car are the medical and lost time costs of the car crash. Drive carefully. Stick within the speed limit and drop 5 kph it makes a huge difference. One of the most effective things an individual can do for the planet.
Drop the speed and drivers start playing with their phones while at the wheel..
Never seen an accident around 6 am when everyone is at 5-10 ks above the speed limit trying to beat rush hour....traffic just flows smoothly.
Forget the battery con job, the real con job we're about to be sold is that mitigation technologies to fix the symptoms of climate change will allow us to keep burning fossil fuels and persisting with high CO2 footprint industries.
