Jump to content

Australia's ruling coalition loses 50th straight Newspoll


webfact

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Another fact for the denialists.

 

New coal fired generators.jpg

In India banks are refusing to lend money to privately owned power generator who want to build or upgrade their power plants.  They see the handwriting on the wall. It's only the Indian government that's now building plants. And that's because of who their political supporters are:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/banks-refuse-lending-to-private-power-companies-for-parts-upgrade/articleshow/65466758.cms

Solar energy is killing coal:

India’s renewable rush puts coal on the back burner

The renewable push attracted major investors such as Japan’s SoftBank, whose consortium last year sealed a deal that stunned the industry. It agreed to sell power from a northern Indian solar park for Rs2.44 per unit — well below the cost of coal power, which typically costs well over Rs3.This shift in the industry’s economics means that coal power — once one of the hottest prospects for Indian industrialists — is now a space where most fear to tread. 

https://www.ft.com/content/b8d24c94-fde7-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

First off, thanks for graciously acknowledging that fact that your claims about transmission costs being tied to the shutting down of coal fired plants was complete and utter BS.

Thanks also for acknowleding that most of the reason for the rise in costs for power in Australia has nothing to do with environmental rules and the cost of coal fired plants.

I can only assume you are not Australian. Right? As of December 2018, about 2 million homes in Australia had solar panels on the roof. Most of those homes are connected to the grid, or the Transmission Networks, which cost money to build and maintain, and were built for the purpose of delivering electricity to the homes from mostly coal-fired power stations.

 

The billing companies also have to employ people to drive around taking readings from the meter boxes every 3 months, to submit the quarterly bill to the customer.

 

Can you imagine how small those electricity bills will be for the average home that has solar panels. Often it will be close to zero or even a credit to the customer. That wouldn't even pay for the cost of taking a reading from the meter box.

 

Is it surprising that electricity costs have to rise, in order to pay for the running of the coal plants and the maintenance of the transmission networks? Why are you having difficulty understanding this?

 

Of course, there are other issues involved, such as the inflated gas prices within Australia because of the domination of the gas export market, which is making it more expensive than it could be to provide back-up power for solar and wind. Coal plants are not ideal for back-up purposes because they take too long to start up and shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I can only assume you are not Australian. Right? As of December 2018, about 2 million homes in Australia had solar panels on the roof. Most of those homes are connected to the grid, or the Transmission Networks, which cost money to build and maintain, and were built for the purpose of delivering electricity to the homes from mostly coal-fired power stations.

 

The billing companies also have to employ people to drive around taking readings from the meter boxes every 3 months, to submit the quarterly bill to the customer.

 

Can you imagine how small those electricity bills will be for the average home that has solar panels. Often it will be close to zero or even a credit to the customer. That wouldn't even pay for the cost of taking a reading from the meter box.

 

Is it surprising that electricity costs have to rise, in order to pay for the running of the coal plants and the maintenance of the transmission networks? Why are you having difficulty understanding this?

 

Of course, there are other issues involved, such as the inflated gas prices within Australia because of the domination of the gas export market, which is making it more expensive than it could be to provide back-up power for solar and wind. Coal plants are not ideal for back-up purposes because they take too long to start up and shut down.

As noted in that article, environmental laws and regulations played a much smaller part in rate rises then transmission costs thanks to overbuilding and too stringent buidling standard,  and the introduction of market forces through retail competition.  Together alone they accounted for 65 percent of the increase in costs. Why do you have trouble understanding that hard number?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, car720 said:

I use it as an expression to encompass the selling of everything on the farm as well as in the ground etc..

Your right there plus every public utility government could get a quid for..not the ATO tho!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As noted in that article, environmental laws and regulations played a much smaller part in rate rises then transmission costs thanks to overbuilding and too stringent buidling standard,  and the introduction of market forces through retail competition.  Together alone they accounted for 65 percent of the increase in costs. Why do you have trouble understanding that hard number?

 

I have no trouble understanding the number, and I have no alternative numbers that I can offer to question the accuracy of the 65%.

 

The issue I am questioning is the reason for the transmission costs and the stringent building standards. The purpose was to provide cheap and reliable power with minimum outages, and that would have occurred, also providing a good return on investment, if the process had not be 'hijacked' by the burgeoning, heavily subsidized, solar PV panel and wind industry.

 

In other words, the main cause of the rapid electricity rise in Australia (around 65%) is the heavily subsidized move towards solar and wind sources of power, which began to disrupt the economic plan of the coal companies over a decade ago. As a result, there is no longer any confidence to build new coal-fired power plants, because no-one knows what the future government policy will be regarding coal power. Got it?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, car720 said:

The problem with compulsory voting is the preferential system.  Even if one was to be stupid enough to believe any of these liars and vote for one of them, we would still not know if our vote ended up with them or someone even worse. As for the donkey vote, who would want to waste the time and gasoline going to a polling booth.

You do not need to be part preferential system.

Everyone has the opportunity to fill in each square to number from 1. to the end of the candidate selection to ensure that you 

get all of your preferences counted. So there is nothing wrong at all with compulsory voting.

For me, it should be first past the post. For me, you should not be able to gerrymander the electoral boundaries.

But the system as it is can still produce "fairness"

Unlike other democracies that have been totally immersed in corrupt electoral practices, and others that refuse to accept the result.

 Australia maintains one of the best electoral processes in the world. It does not have a circus as in the US.

It does not have uprisings and mayhem after the vote is completed.

For this the electoral process should take a bow.  And Australian version of democracy should take a bow. Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I have no trouble understanding the number, and I have no alternative numbers that I can offer to question the accuracy of the 65%.

 

The issue I am questioning is the reason for the transmission costs and the stringent building standards. The purpose was to provide cheap and reliable power with minimum outages, and that would have occurred, also providing a good return on investment, if the process had not be 'hijacked' by the burgeoning, heavily subsidized, solar PV panel and wind industry.

 

In other words, the main cause of the rapid electricity rise in Australia (around 65%) is the heavily subsidized move towards solar and wind sources of power, which began to disrupt the economic plan of the coal companies over a decade ago. As a result, there is no longer any confidence to build new coal-fired power plants, because no-one knows what the future government policy will be regarding coal power. Got it?
 

Nice try, but no cigar.

 

This is an area I’ve been following a little from a distance. The key reason for the high prices is the gold plated transmission which was installed (based on incentives from the regulator) to minimise power disruption - basically so there wouldn’t be black outs in Sydney and Brisbane on the handful of days in summer where everyone had their aircon on. 

 

But the capital investment in the transmission was arguably more than really needed and the higher prices are basically as a result on the industry seeking a return in that capital. 

 

Fuel mix, as you are trying to argue, doesn’t seem to figure. 

 

Heres the AFR for the pro business view of it all...

 

https://www.afr.com/news/economy/cut-energy-bills-by-ending-goldplated-investment-20180325-h0xxb1

 

On top of that, because of the huge uptake in rooftop solar, the over investment in transmission looks increasingly worse given that the need for the transmission has decreased as supply has become more localised.

 

Someone i know, who knows a bit about energy policy, and is a concervative, says huge transmission systems are becoming increasingly irrelevant and at some point there will be a wholesale change in the way we produce and distribute electricity in Australia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2019 at 1:13 AM, samran said:

But the capital investment in the transmission was arguably more than really needed and the higher prices are basically as a result on the industry seeking a return in that capital. 

 

The key point is 'arguably more than really needed'. I recall in my part of Australia, around 20 years ago, there were frequent power outages. Just about every time there was a bit of thunder and lightning, and a few moderate gusts of wind, there was a power outage.

 

However, during recent years there have been noticeably much fewer power outages, and that's a welcome situation in my view, even though I'm not running a business. For those who are running a business, power outages can have a significant economic impact.

 

On top of that, because of the huge uptake in rooftop solar, the over investment in transmission looks increasingly worse given that the need for the transmission has decreased as supply has become more localised.

 

Exactly. That's my point. The government has privatized the electricity companies, encouraging them to invested money to provide a better product, in the sense of a more reliable product, whilst simultaneously reducing the demand for those companies' products, by subsidizing alternative sources of electricity, such as solar panels. How sensible, or fair, is that?

 

Someone i know, who knows a bit about energy policy, and is a concervative, says huge transmission systems are becoming increasingly irrelevant and at some point there will be a wholesale change in the way we produce and distribute electricity in Australia.



 

The holy grail is efficient, lightweight, durable and cheap battery storage, which doesn't rely upon the limited supply of lithium or rare earth metals. With such batteries, the electric car will take off, but I have no idea when or if such batteries will become available.

 

A future scenario where the average householder has his roof covered with cheap, durable, and unsubsidised solar panels, and has a small room in the house for battery storage, which results in a reliable electricity supply which is cheaper than coal-generated power ever was, is an ideal situation.

 

Also ideal would be an affordable electric car with similar batteries which could be recharged from the solar-generated electricity in the average home.

 

If technology ever reaches that stage, I'll admit that the big con about the harmful effects of CO2 emissions has been justified, unless of course we go into a severe Little Ice Age, even worse than the last one, and worse than it could have been if we had not reduced our CO2 emissions. ????
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2019 at 10:13 PM, samran said:

 

Someone i know, who knows a bit about energy policy, and is a concervative, says huge transmission systems are becoming increasingly irrelevant and at some point there will be a wholesale change in the way we produce and distribute electricity in Australia. 

The real game changer is going to be when the cost of a home Powerwall or similar battery storage comes down to a level where the average household can capture and store electricity independently of the grid. That's when large electricity generators and transmission infrastructure go the way of the dinosaurs, unless they can adapt and develop new markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, VincentRJ said:

I have no trouble understanding the number, and I have no alternative numbers that I can offer to question the accuracy of the 65%.

 

The issue I am questioning is the reason for the transmission costs and the stringent building standards. The purpose was to provide cheap and reliable power with minimum outages, and that would have occurred, also providing a good return on investment, if the process had not be 'hijacked' by the burgeoning, heavily subsidized, solar PV panel and wind industry.

 

In other words, the main cause of the rapid electricity rise in Australia (around 65%) is the heavily subsidized move towards solar and wind sources of power, which began to disrupt the economic plan of the coal companies over a decade ago. As a result, there is no longer any confidence to build new coal-fired power plants, because no-one knows what the future government policy will be regarding coal power. Got it?
 

As anybody who actually knows anything about renewable energy can tell you, solar energy has already made coal power economically uncompetetive. And it's not just by a small margin either:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/11/new-year-same-story-cost-of-wind-and-solar-fall-below-cost-of-coal-and-gas/

 

And the cost of solar keeps plunging.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#1bf5ddae31f3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As anybody who actually knows anything about renewable energy can tell you, solar energy has already made coal power economically uncompetetive. And it's not just by a small margin either:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/11/new-year-same-story-cost-of-wind-and-solar-fall-below-cost-of-coal-and-gas/

 

And the cost of solar keeps plunging.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#1bf5ddae31f3

Really! You'd better inform China about this fact. ????

 

The Chinese are very wise regarding economic matters and have been producing lots of cheap solar panels for many years, exporting some of them to Australia.

 

Why is China still currently building, and approving the future construction of, new coal-fired power plants in their own country, if solar is more economic? Very puzzling!

 

"Carbon Brief reported last summer that China quietly has 210,000 MW of new coal capacity in the works, or nearly a 25% expansion.
The good news is that these plants will be supercritical or even ultra-superciticial, deploying higher efficiency to generate more power using less coal."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/#24d524f865fa

 

As I've mentioned before, it's not solar energy itself that has made coal power economically uncompetitive, but government policy in allowing the electricity from subsidised solar panels to freely piggyback on the infrastructure and transmission lines paid for by the coal companies.

 

If you were to remove the subsidies for solar and wind, add the real costs of transmission lines and battery storage, then you would find that solar and wind would still currently be more expensive than coal. I'm sure the Chinese understand this.

 

To quote from your linked article.

"LCOE calculations compare generation technologies on an apples-to-apples basis by evaluating the total costs to build and operate power plants over their assumed lifetimes.  However, the analysis does not attempt to quantify aspects such as reliability, meaning it does not capture the full values of different energy sources."

 

"This year’s LCOE analysis reported new onshore wind costs $29-$56 per megawatt hour (MWh) to build without subsidies and $14-$47/MWh to build with subsidies.  New utility solar PV costs $36-$44/MWh to build without subsidies and $32-$41/MWh to build with subsidies.  Comparatively, marginal costs—the cost to operate existing plants—are $27-$45/MWh for coal and $24-$31/MWh for nuclear."

 

It's not clear in the article if this analysis has included the cost of transmission lines and their maintenance, and/or battery storage and the battery replacement after a period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Really! You'd better inform China about this fact. ????

 

The Chinese are very wise regarding economic matters and have been producing lots of cheap solar panels for many years, exporting some of them to Australia.

 

Why is China still currently building, and approving the future construction of, new coal-fired power plants in their own country, if solar is more economic? Very puzzling!

 

"Carbon Brief reported last summer that China quietly has 210,000 MW of new coal capacity in the works, or nearly a 25% expansion.
The good news is that these plants will be supercritical or even ultra-superciticial, deploying higher efficiency to generate more power using less coal."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/#24d524f865fa

 

As I've mentioned before, it's not solar energy itself that has made coal power economically uncompetitive, but government policy in allowing the electricity from subsidised solar panels to freely piggyback on the infrastructure and transmission lines paid for by the coal companies.

 

If you were to remove the subsidies for solar and wind, add the real costs of transmission lines and battery storage, then you would find that solar and wind would still currently be more expensive than coal. I'm sure the Chinese understand this.

 

To quote from your linked article.

"LCOE calculations compare generation technologies on an apples-to-apples basis by evaluating the total costs to build and operate power plants over their assumed lifetimes.  However, the analysis does not attempt to quantify aspects such as reliability, meaning it does not capture the full values of different energy sources."

 

"This year’s LCOE analysis reported new onshore wind costs $29-$56 per megawatt hour (MWh) to build without subsidies and $14-$47/MWh to build with subsidies.  New utility solar PV costs $36-$44/MWh to build without subsidies and $32-$41/MWh to build with subsidies.  Comparatively, marginal costs—the cost to operate existing plants—are $27-$45/MWh for coal and $24-$31/MWh for nuclear."

 

It's not clear in the article if this analysis has included the cost of transmission lines and their maintenance, and/or battery storage and the battery replacement after a period of time.

Nonsense. The Chinese actually are very inefficient at investment and are massively subsidizing their coal industry. Anyone who knows anything about how the Chinese economy works knows that the government lavishes huge subsidies on state run businesses and their suppliers.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9458-China-coal-subsidies-undermining-renewables-investment

In India banks are refusing to finance coal plants because the cost of solar energy has made them uncompetitive:

https://www.ft.com/content/b8d24c94-fde7-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521

 

 For example, the Australian Climate Council states that over the 5 years between 2009–2014 solar costs fell by 75% making them comparable to coal, and are expected to continue dropping over the next 5 years by another 45% from 2014 prices.[43] They also found that wind has been cheaper than coal since 2013, and that coal and gas will become less viable as subsidies are withdrawn and there is the expectation that they will eventually have to pay the costs of pollution.[43]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

 

The World Bank has stopped financing coal plants because renewables are now cheaper.

"The World Bank (World Bank) President Jim Yong Kim agreed on 10 October 2018: "We are required by our by-laws to go with the lowest cost option, and renewables have now come below the cost of [fossil fuels]." [41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. The Chinese actually are very inefficient at investment and are massively subsidizing their coal industry. Anyone who knows anything about how the Chinese economy works knows that the government lavishes huge subsidies on state run businesses and their suppliers.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9458-China-coal-subsidies-undermining-renewables-investment

Really! What a strange comment. China has achieved, by far, the most rapid economic growth in recent decades, which is greater than any other country in the history of civilization, yet you think they are very inefficient at investment. I'm sorry. I just can't believe that. I would say that is real nonsense.

 

To quote from your linked article:
"A look at the numbers in China’s new plan for energy, passed on November 17, shows that its leaders will continue to prioritise both low and high carbon energy sources. Within five years the government wants roughly equal growth in coal capacity and non-fossil sources of energy."

 

This is why China is destined to become the world superpower. It's political system enables it to make rational decisions that are not blocked by groups of dissenting irrationalists, as happens in Australia.
China is prepared to consider the economic benefits and advantages of all sources of power, in the interests of economic development and raising people out of poverty.

 

It does subsidize coal power, but mainly to reduce harmful emissions, which again is very sensible. To quote again from your article:
 

"In practice, the state has promised to pay for less polluting coal-fired power while also helping renewables overcome price disadvantages.
Currently there are state subsidies for equipment to remove sulphur, nitrogen oxides and dust from coal-fired power plant emissions, worth 0.027 yuan [US$0.004] per kilowatt hour."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...