Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The future of energy generation and storage

Jump to new
Logique2 said:
Read it while you can,
because pretty soon it will be legislated as 'misinformation', and will be hidden from you.
Approved opinions only, you see.

You think electricity is expensive now? ..you ain't seen nothin yet!
Expensive, intermittent electricity is only just beginning.

Chris Bowen's reckless and pointless pursuit of net zero is pushing Australia towards 'economic suicide'
'The renewed push by the Energy Minister for a WA offshore wind farm ignores the inconvenient truth of how renewables are bringing other nations to their knees, writes Rocco Loiacono'
September 7, 2024
Click to expand...

The background of the writer of the above attack piece sums up what's wrong with the attack on renewables.

Dr Rocco Loiacono is a legal academic, writer and translator.

There are plenty of things to complain about the current situation but until we see Electrical engineers write the critiques that look at systems as a whole then we will only get the partisan hyperbole like the above.
 
IFocus said:
The background of the writer of the above attack piece sums up what's wrong with the attack on renewables.

Dr Rocco Loiacono is a legal academic, writer and translator.

There are plenty of things to complain about the current situation but until we see Electrical engineers write the critiques that look at systems as a whole then we will only get the partisan hyperbole like the above.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
IFocus said:
The background of the writer of the above attack piece sums up what's wrong with the attack on renewables.

Dr Rocco Loiacono is a legal academic, writer and translator.

There are plenty of things to complain about the current situation but until we see Electrical engineers write the critiques that look at systems as a whole then we will only get the partisan hyperbole like the above.
Click to expand...
And sadly the same can be said on the supporting articles of the ABC, Guardian and cie.
We all agree there...
 
qldfrog said:
And sadly the same can be said on the supporting articles of the ABC, Guardian and cie.
We all agree there...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't dismiss out of hand reports by the ABC and Guardian. They usually quote credible sources, ones that agree with their views of course. As usual, what they don't say is usually more interesting than what they do.
 
This is intetesting IMO, an article from the ABC on emission targets with this quote. It seems to infer that a lot of targets were based on technologies that aren't yet developed, yet the loonies are quick to criticise SMR technology that isn't yet developed.
It's a weird world ATM, missinformation abounds.

Tanya Plibersek says government needs Climate Change Authority advice before it can release 2035 target - ABC News

amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org

From the article:
Alongside a likely assault on the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — President Joe Biden's flagship climate change and energy transition program — Trump is expected to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement.

If those threats come to pass, Australia may face a very different set of challenges in meeting its own targets.

"To get to a 70 per cent reduction in an IRA world is very different to getting to 70 per cent without an IRA because the technologies that are being underwritten by the US that could become commercially available look like being ripped away," the source said.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
This is intetesting IMO, an article from the ABC on emission targets with this quote. It seems to infer that a lot of targets were based on technologies that aren't yet developed, yet the loonies are quick to criticise SMR technology that isn't yet developed.
It's a weird world ATM, missinformation abounds.

Tanya Plibersek says government needs Climate Change Authority advice before it can release 2035 target - ABC News

amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org

From the article:
Alongside a likely assault on the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — President Joe Biden's flagship climate change and energy transition program — Trump is expected to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement.

If those threats come to pass, Australia may face a very different set of challenges in meeting its own targets.

"To get to a 70 per cent reduction in an IRA world is very different to getting to 70 per cent without an IRA because the technologies that are being underwritten by the US that could become commercially available look like being ripped away," the source said.
Click to expand...

There is a massive amount of money being thrown at this by Biden and the tech would be across all the areas improvement required from batteries to nuclear / hydrogen.

If you develop well you make the returns (US has the runs on the board) Trump will likely cancel much and Musk likely steal the incentives as an insider.

If Trump runs us all back to fossil fuels (they have a limit ) the development gets junked the next generations likely going to a bigger brighter hell in a handbasket than they already are IMHO.

We have reached 1.5 degrees rise already, hoping its an outlier probably isn't going to work.
 
Lets see 'Airbus Albo', and his little mate Chris Bowen, spin their way out of this.
That additional $520 Billion would buy a lot of hospitals, extra police, schools and public transport.
And btw, keep the national budget afloat.

Stuck in the 1970s the ALP energy troglodytes.

'Coalition claims Labor’s energy plan will cost five times more than estimated'
Go to Colin Hay author's page; By : Colin Hay
smallcaps.com.au

Coalition claims Labor's energy plan will cost five times more than estimated

The federal opposition has released a cost estimate of the Labor party’s energy plan, claiming it is hundreds of billions more than the government has
smallcaps.com.au smallcaps.com.au
- November 18, 2024

And I notice they're going after Alan Jones now. But David Marr's alright. Rancid Labor.
 
Logique2 said:
Lets see 'Airbus Albo', and his little mate Chris Bowen, spin their way out of this.
That additional $520 Billion would buy a lot of hospitals, extra police, schools and public transport.
And btw, keep the national budget afloat.

Stuck in the 1970s the ALP energy troglodytes.

'Coalition claims Labor’s energy plan will cost five times more than estimated'
Go to Colin Hay author's page; By : Colin Hay
smallcaps.com.au

Coalition claims Labor's energy plan will cost five times more than estimated

The federal opposition has released a cost estimate of the Labor party’s energy plan, claiming it is hundreds of billions more than the government has
smallcaps.com.au smallcaps.com.au
- November 18, 2024

And I notice they're going after Alan Jones now. But David Marr's alright. Rancid Labor.
Click to expand...

Colin Hay​

Colin Sandell-Hay is a multi-award winning resources, energy and business journalist. He has 50 years experience as an editor and journalist, with more than 30 of those years as a magazine editor in the business and resources sector.

Nothing about an engineering degree that I can see.

Into resources apparently, his sector will be adversely affected if we go to renewables.

That article just parrots "Coalition claims", of course they would say stuff like that but they have'nt released their nuclear costings. Maybe they will do it a week before( or after) the election. haha

And I notice they're going after Alan Jones now. But David Marr's alright. Rancid Labor.

The police are going after him, what's that got to do with Labor?

What about David Marr? Do you have any evidence about him? If so let's hear it.
 
Last edited:
SirRumpole said:

Colin Hay​

Colin Sandell-Hay is a multi-award winning resources, energy and business journalist. He has 50 years experience as an editor and journalist, with more than 30 of those years as a magazine editor in the business and resources sector.

Nothing about an engineering degree that I can see.

Into resources apparently, his sector will be adversely affected if we go to renewables.

That article just parrots "Coalition claims", of course they would say stuff like that but they have'nt released their nuclear costings. Maybe they will do it a week before( or after) the election. haha

And I notice they're going after Alan Jones now. But David Marr's alright. Rancid Labor.

The police are going after him, what's that got to do with Labor?

What about David Marr? Do you have any evidence about him? Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
Seriously:
"Into resources apparently, his sector will be adversely affected if we go to renewables"
This so called renewable push is the biggest consumption of minerals of all sort we have ever seen...
Rare earth iron copper not to mention lithium or even coal and oil being used now to build these solar panels and wind farms.
Remember how cheap our power was to be using free wind and sun.
He is a right wing journo, that's all.
 
qldfrog said:
Seriously:
"Into resources apparently, his sector will be adversely affected if we go to renewables"
This so called renewable push is the biggest consumption of minerals of all sort we have ever seen...
Rare earth iron copper not to mention lithium or even coal and oil being used now to build these solar panels and wind farms.
Remember how cheap our power was to be using free wind and sun.
He is a right wing journo, that's all.
Click to expand...

So you think $380billion on nuclear for 4% of national consumption will solve the problem?
 
qldfrog said:
But isn't it a given that we have no clue in term of hundreds of billions, as ho what thd cost of net zero will be.
Imho, it is the actual collapse of the country but i could be wrong sure yet ...
Click to expand...
In a way I agree. I think the priority should be reliable and affordable energy. The engineers and scientists should decide what approach is best, not the politicians.
 
SirRumpole said:
So you think $380billion on nuclear for 4% of national consumption will solve the problem?
Click to expand...
No i do not like nuke option, unless for weapon and you know it, but your response was at the least as low and outrageous as the claims.
What's happening?Not your character Sir, i expected better
Believe me , Trump is not that bad vs the other jokes.You should relax, at least once he is in power, not before, and this is in the state.
Labour is in charge here..still☹️
What we do know all is the way coal is closed is heading us into the wall, slowly surely
Probably saying that because i once worked in coal, and in China Japan nonetheless?
 
I'll simply say BOTH sides have huge holes in their approach and are out of their depth.

I'll explain that by saying that if you ask an engineer a question then they'll seek to calculate a specific answer, knowing their professional reputation and potential legal liability rests upon it.

Ask a tradesperson and they'll get the relevant Australian Standard out and see what it says is required to be done under this circumstance, fully aware that non-compliant work will get them in serious trouble legally if it leads to a bad outcome.

Now try and get a firm guarantee from a market economist, journalist or politician accepting liability if they're wrong.

The NEM has fundamental inefficiencies in its design simply because it doesn't prioritise use of the cheapest generation and it separately incurs extremely large administrative overheads. One practical effect of that being even if a nuclear plant were built, that doesn't mean the market would necessarily use it, just as it routinely chooses to not use the lowest cost generation today.

Only when that problem is understood is there any chance of fixing this mess.

Politically that cuts across the spectrum in terms of its history. Both sides are to blame there. :2twocents
 
SirRumpole said:
In a way I agree. I think the priority should be reliable and affordable energy. The engineers and scientists should decide what approach is best, not the politicians.
Click to expand...
On that there's one certainty.

The answer will be a mix.

With very few exceptions, which are not relevant to Australia, the cheapest way to supply electricity invariably ends up being a mix of different plant types for different purposes. High capital cost / low marginal cost plant for high capacity factor operation. Low capital cost / higher marginal cost plant for low capacity factor operation.

Do the maths and that's the result you'll get.

Only situations where a single technology approach wins is if you've got enough hydro to use it for the entire supply, or if you've got cheap gas and no hydro. In any other situation, a mixed approach ends up being cheapest simply due to the very different ratio of capital to marginal costs of the various technologies.

Hence the vast majority of power systems worldwide have a mix of generation sources. Of the few that don't they're either all hydro, all gas, or they're small systems without any real practical option other than diesel. Even somewhere difficult such as Alaska has a mix of technologies - for the record it's 13.7% coal, 41.0% gas, 14.9% oil, 27.7% hydro, 2.1% wind, 0.6% biomass and waste.

For the record the cheapest US state in terms of electricity, North Dakota, has the following supply mix:

Nuclear = zero
Coal = 57.1%
Gas = 3.4%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 5.2%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = zero
Wind = 34.1%
Biomass = 0.2%

Second cheapest, Louisiana, it's:
Nuclear = 17.6%
Coal = 8.0%
Gas = 64.8%
Oil = 4.0%
Hydro = 1.2%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.2%
Wind = zero
Biomass = 4.2%

Third cheapest, Utah:
Nuclear = zero
Coal = 61.8%
Gas = 24.7%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 1.8%
Geothermal = 0.8%
Solar = 8.1%
Wind = 1.9%
Biomass = 0.6%

Fourth cheapest, Nebraska:
Nuclear = 17.8%
Coal = 49.2%
Gas = 4.1%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 3.3%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.1%
Wind = 25.2%
Biomass = 0.2%

Fifth cheapest, Wyoming:
Nuclear = zero
Coal = 73.3%
Gas = 3.5%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 2.3%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 19.4%
Biomass = 1.0%

Sixth cheapest, Arkansas:
Nuclear = 22.5%
Coal = 35.6%
Gas = 32.1%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 7.3%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.8%
Wind = zero
Biomass = 1.7%

Seventh cheapest, Washington state:
Nuclear = zero
Coal = 0.1%
Gas = 26.0%
Oil = zero
Hydro = 51.0%
Geothermal = 0.5%
Solar = 3.3%
Wind = 15.7%
Biomass = 3.3%

Data's from 2021 calendar year and is for actual generated output.

Point being it's not about a specific technology but it's about the fact that combining them in terms of what's built, then operating the lowest marginal cost generation as highest merit, is the cheapest way to go about it. That's been proven in countless examples around the world. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
On that there's one certainty.

The answer will be a mix.

With very few exceptions, which are not relevant to Australia, the cheapest way to supply electricity invariably ends up being a mix of different plant types for different purposes. High capital cost / low marginal cost plant for high capacity factor operation. Low capital cost / higher marginal cost plant for low capacity factor operation.

Do the maths and that's the result you'll get.

Only situations where a single technology approach wins is if you've got enough hydro to use it for the entire supply, or if you've got cheap gas and no hydro. In any other situation, a mixed approach ends up being cheapest simply due to the very different ratio of capital to marginal costs of the various technologies.

Hence the vast majority of power systems worldwide have a mix of generation sources. Of the few that don't they're either all hydro, all gas, or they're small systems without any real practical option other than diesel. Even somewhere difficult such as Alaska has a mix of technologies - for the record it's 13.7% coal, 41.0% gas, 14.9% oil, 27.7% hydro, 2.1% wind, 0.6% biomass and waste.

For the record the cheapest US state in terms of electricity, North Dakota, has the following supply mix:

Nuclear = zero
Coal = 57.1%
Gas = 3.4%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 5.2%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = zero
Wind = 34.1%
Biomass = 0.2%

Second cheapest, Louisiana, it's:
Nuclear = 17.6%
Coal = 8.0%
Gas = 64.8%
Oil = 4.0%
Hydro = 1.2%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.2%
Wind = zero
Biomass = 4.2%

Third cheapest, Utah:
Nuclear = zero
Coal = 61.8%
Gas = 24.7%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 1.8%
Geothermal = 0.8%
Solar = 8.1%
Wind = 1.9%
Biomass = 0.6%

Fourth cheapest, Nebraska:
Nuclear = 17.8%
Coal = 49.2%
Gas = 4.1%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 3.3%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.1%
Wind = 25.2%
Biomass = 0.2%

Fifth cheapest, Wyoming:
Nuclear = zero
Coal = 73.3%
Gas = 3.5%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 2.3%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 19.4%
Biomass = 1.0%

Sixth cheapest, Arkansas:
Nuclear = 22.5%
Coal = 35.6%
Gas = 32.1%
Oil = 0.1%
Hydro = 7.3%
Geothermal = zero
Solar = 0.8%
Wind = zero
Biomass = 1.7%

Seventh cheapest, Washington state:
Nuclear = zero
Coal = 0.1%
Gas = 26.0%
Oil = zero
Hydro = 51.0%
Geothermal = 0.5%
Solar = 3.3%
Wind = 15.7%
Biomass = 3.3%

Data's from 2021 calendar year and is for actual generated output.

Point being it's not about a specific technology but it's about the fact that combining them in terms of what's built, then operating the lowest marginal cost generation as highest merit, is the cheapest way to go about it. That's been proven in countless examples around the world. :2twocents
Click to expand...
True👍
But where is the solar and the wind in any if the cheapest power places on earth?
The above says it all no?
I run 100% on solar but i do not pretend i am a country or have any industry ...
 
I think the claims by the Coalition on cost over looks the reality gas will be a big player.

It also fails to mention renewables is a major part of their nuclear plans (yep at least 3/4 of Labors FFS) and guess what gas makes up a very large portion of their policy.

Chris Uhlmanns telling everyone how much we need gas is about 15 years behind what was declared back before JC ply fullback for....

Anyway can we have some engineering input.... oh we already have.... sigh.
 

Similar threads

Dona Ferentes
Gen Alpha
Replies
13
Views
746
moXJO
M
JohnDe
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
494
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
Garpal Gumnut
The Effect of Deepseek on Australian Stocks
Replies
7
Views
585
Smurf1976
Smurf1976
System
SS1 - Sun Silver
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
Sean K
Sean K
Dona Ferentes
PGTX - Platinum Global Transition Fund
Replies
1
Views
626
Dona Ferentes
Dona Ferentes
Top