Global Warming

E

easy_tiger

Guest
KnightersRevenge said:
Still salty easy? They're all in it for what they can get out of it I reckon. Maybe Wong, Wilkie might have some integrity. I'd be hard pushed to name another.
Nah over the pain of the election.

a bloke helped my 18 year old daughter and her boyfriend out of a jam in a remote car breakdown.

towed them 3hours, fixed their car and not only didnt charge her, but sent them off with $100.

pretty much what I would do for young people far from home and in need.

It reminded me, that despite the psycho and greedy running the show,

there's heaps of good and kind people in the world and you just have to be good and kind yourself as much as you can

while the nasty pricks all knife each other.

that's the best ive got.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,323
4
Brisbane
mrposhman said:
Not just the conservatives. You realise that labor included in their environmental plan a large increase in International carbon credits.

It appears that no-one actually wants to try and address this issue within Australia.

My view is simple, solar subsidies should be brought back in. Economically they make a lot of sense compared to large scale replacement of power stations. More solar power being created directly by homes and businesses will reduce the reliance on new power stations when older ones are decommissioned.
Serious question, but how much do you know about the process of electrical energy production and transport? If the answer is little, than how can you have such a firm position on the matter?


[youtube=560,315]N-yALPEpV4w[/youtube]
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,293
82
Giardiasis said:
Serious question, but how much do you know about the process of electrical energy production and transport? If the answer is little, than how can you have such a firm position on the matter?


[youtube=560,315]N-yALPEpV4w[/youtube]
the guy raises a lot of valid points, no doubt about it, but binds them up in a lot of half truths and confuses issues. Overall I like the fact he is muddying the waters on renewables, too many people ignore the real issues that need addressing, like cost and energy required for production and what happens when panels wear out. But He suggests a lot of the problems aren't technical that are, such as the ability of the grid to cope. This is your garden variety tech issue that is being solved and will be solved. Also dual purpose land use like solar panels on large scale industial estates etc. A lot of the issues he raises are totally legit, but also totally solveable, although he implies they aren't. People have been solving the problems inevitable presented by tech transition for 150 years. (The rules have now changed in that solutions need to be low energy and recyclable, which makes it harder, but it can happen).

The biggest hole in his argument though is the presentation of nuclear as "clean". It ain't. There is a reason it is not universally adopted, the waste is expensive to dispose of, and nobody wants it, even if you give them a stack of money to take it. Also he talks of solar farms needing a lot of land, which is true and a legit problem, BUT, he conveniently neglects to mention the land required for an exclusion zone after a nuclear accident, which happen like clockwork. Chernobyl and Fukushima each have exclusion zones of about 2,500 sq km. There are other smaller ones in France and the US and elsewhere. The amount of land used for solar farms may be comparable, I have no idea, but the key diff is you can walk around the solar farms safely, pack them up and use the land for something else, you can't with a nuclear exclusion zone.

If he had brought this up, he would have countered with "oh but that is old technology (Fukushima) or were built by corrupt contractors (chernobyl)." Corruption will never happen again? new tech never becomes old tech? These arguments always amaze me. Nuclear is not the answer, if it was, we'd be adopting it.
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
5,519
39
Giardiasis said:
Serious question, but how much do you know about the process of electrical energy production and transport? If the answer is little, than how can you have such a firm position on the matter?


[youtube=560,315]N-yALPEpV4w[/youtube]
Nothing directly as I don't work in the industry, however I invest in a wide variety of companies and always do my own research. I may use tips from others, but will always do significant research myself.

The video you have added highlights some very good points, however I know you know stats so will understand this, there was a slide there where he showed the environmental cost of production of solar panels against other streams, stats can show whatever you want so I'd be interested to know how this was calculated, initial production or across a number of years. As I'm sure you are aware the ongoing cost related to solar panels is next to nothing. I have direct knowledge of solar panels on buildings as I installed them on my old house (I now rent) a whkle ago, cost me about $3k (including inverter) and across a 12 month period probably produced about half of my energy from this source. When I mentioned solar subsidies in my previous post, I'm less concerned about the initial upfront cost (which was previously subsidised via RECS) but more about FIT's. The grid can now "buy back" this gas from individuals at a significantly lower price than retailers buy from the direct energy suppliers, ie. this is via incentives by the government. I'm not sure why a more structured market has not been created, this is the retailer we are talking about, and not the supplier. With the current suppliers, the retailers purchase energy from suppliers and on sell to households / businesses. Why can they then receive energy back from households at significantly less than they can buy from retailers? It makes very little sense and deters households from investing in solar.

My view from an economical perspective for the country is many power plants are built in public / private partnerships. If this cost is deferred to households / businesses this will occur if the investment is favourable enough for households / businesses. The payback on my home system was around 3.5-4 years, when I did this analysis 2 years ago for the business I work for (which uses flat roof warehouses, which are significant real estate for solar) payback has increased to around 7-8 years and there was no chance that would be approved.

Going back to the video, I agree with some of the points, however I feel he understates some of the costs of nucleur but my view is nucleur has a place in the strategy, but should be part not the bulk of the strategy. I'm also not a big fan of large scale solar installations and I note he focused a lot more on those than on buildings, and I understand why he did that as it didn't fit his rhetoric that investment in solar / wind was actually hurting the environment. Installation on buildings does not steal land from another source, it uses real estate that will be used for no other purpose.

We will never get to a position where all power has to be from clean energy (unless we include nucleur) because cleaner sources are cyclical, for example, I was generating circa 13-14 kwh's per day in summer but about half that during winter for obvious reasons so I relied on the grid far more during winter (not even allowing for gas for heating etc) so I still see natural gas and nucleur as part of the solution.

Its a complicated issue and everyone has different views but IMO solar on buildings (residential and business) should be an important part of the solution and to encourage that investment we need to offer more than 6 or 7c FIT (or whatever it ios now) which is below the cost from all other sources.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Matchwinner
Dec 11, 2017
784
15
Melbourne
Nuclear has always been a silly idea.

If we substantially increase nuclear power how long will the uranium last? Maybe 50 years, less if the usage increases.

How long does the toxic waste last? 250,000 years. Now let's put this in some perspective. If the Ancient Egyptians had nuclear power and had buried the waste in the pyramids, we would be about one twentieth of the way through the half life of plutonium.

All this for 50 years of energy. I thought even the right weren't that dumb, guess I was mistaken.

As for solar taking up land, geez, that would be a big problem for Australia, shortage of land receiving sunlight is a huge problem for us ::)

Plenty of rooftops too, might as well put solar panels on them.

What is a problem for Australia is the trend towards longer droughts and the mess that is the Murray-Darling, both contributed to by global warming.

DS
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,323
4
Brisbane
mrposhman said:
Nothing directly as I don't work in the industry, however I invest in a wide variety of companies and always do my own research. I may use tips from others, but will always do significant research myself.
I think you’ll appreciate that equity investment into power companies and direct investment into power generation are two very different things. I’m interested to know why you think government intervention through subsidisation is superior to entrepreneurship in the power market, especially given you don’t have much knowledge of the power market itself.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
10,914
16
Giardiasis said:
I think you’ll appreciate that equity investment into power companies and direct investment into power generation are two very different things. I’m interested to know why you think government intervention through subsidisation is superior to entrepreneurship in the power market, especially given you don’t have much knowledge of the power market itself.
this government is determined to invest in power generation and supply, it is unfortunate they continue to back coal.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
10,914
16
even the pope is calling for more action on climate change, surely all good Christians will act accordingly.
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
5,519
39
Giardiasis said:
I think you’ll appreciate that equity investment into power companies and direct investment into power generation are two very different things. I’m interested to know why you think government intervention through subsidisation is superior to entrepreneurship in the power market, especially given you don’t have much knowledge of the power market itself.
The government sets the process around FIT's so why wouldn't they be the source of changing this process to encourage more investment in rooftop solar. They are already involved in some form of subsidisation, but is it even subsidisation? My suggestion isn't actually subsidisation, it is adequate pricing of energy generation.

I said it in my post before and I'll repeat it as you haven't commented on it, but why should retailers gain the benefit of cheap energy from feed back energy (households are not provided an opportunity to negotiate the FIT) compared to what they need to purchase from energy providers? The FIT is about 7c (which the government pay for) but retailers can sell that back to other households at full rates, why is that and why do they not have to purchase that power as they do from other suppliers?
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,293
82
mrposhman said:
The government sets the process around FIT's so why wouldn't they be the source of changing this process to encourage more investment in rooftop solar. They are already involved in some form of subsidisation, but is it even subsidisation? My suggestion isn't actually subsidisation, it is adequate pricing of energy generation.

I said it in my post before and I'll repeat it as you haven't commented on it, but why should retailers gain the benefit of cheap energy from feed back energy (households are not provided an opportunity to negotiate the FIT) compared to what they need to purchase from energy providers? The FIT is about 7c (which the government pay for) but retailers can sell that back to other households at full rates, why is that and why do they not have to purchase that power as they do from other suppliers?
House always wins. Their argument is they have to spend more money to deliver energy, but it is highly questionable.

The thing G man never addresses is the cost of burning hydrocarbons. Coal is being heavily subsidised by not having to pay for the ecological and economic impacts of polluting the atmostphere. If you believe there is no cost, ie climate change science is a hoax, then OK you can think that. But its pointless trying to debate with that view, hence the old flat earth analogy.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,323
4
Brisbane
mrposhman said:
The government sets the process around FIT's so why wouldn't they be the source of changing this process to encourage more investment in rooftop solar. They are already involved in some form of subsidisation, but is it even subsidisation? My suggestion isn't actually subsidisation, it is adequate pricing of energy generation.

I said it in my post before and I'll repeat it as you haven't commented on it, but why should retailers gain the benefit of cheap energy from feed back energy (households are not provided an opportunity to negotiate the FIT) compared to what they need to purchase from energy providers? The FIT is about 7c (which the government pay for) but retailers can sell that back to other households at full rates, why is that and why do they not have to purchase that power as they do from other suppliers?
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. Are we talking about how the price that solar rooftop owners get paid should be set or are we talking about subsidies to “encourage” (aka divert resources from a more demanded to a less demanded area) further rooftop solar construction.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Matchwinner
Aug 20, 2005
741
11
mrposhman said:
The government sets the process around FIT's so why wouldn't they be the source of changing this process to encourage more investment in rooftop solar. They are already involved in some form of subsidisation, but is it even subsidisation? My suggestion isn't actually subsidisation, it is adequate pricing of energy generation.

I said it in my post before and I'll repeat it as you haven't commented on it, but why should retailers gain the benefit of cheap energy from feed back energy (households are not provided an opportunity to negotiate the FIT) compared to what they need to purchase from energy providers? The FIT is about 7c (which the government pay for) but retailers can sell that back to other households at full rates, why is that and why do they not have to purchase that power as they do from other suppliers?
I think the main logic is that One they can request on demand the other they have to take when it is available - not necessarily when they need it.

If the market was dynamic such that the sale price from the household reflected the retailers alternate cost less a profit margin then you’d probably get a great price on a hot summers day and a small amount when it isn’t needed. I imagine they buy a base amount at a cheap price but have to pay more for peaking amounts reflecting the supplier costs of turning production up and down.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
5,323
4
Brisbane
tigersnake said:
House always wins. Their argument is they have to spend more money to deliver energy, but it is highly questionable.

The thing G man never addresses is the cost of burning hydrocarbons. Coal is being heavily subsidised by not having to pay for the ecological and economic impacts of polluting the atmostphere. If you believe there is no cost, ie climate change science is a hoax, then OK you can think that. But its pointless trying to debate with that view, hence the old flat earth analogy.
Ah yes TS with his classic straw man. I’ve always maintained environmental damage is a real cost that needs to be factored into any cost accounting. The thing you never address is how to actual cost the environmental damage from CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide taxes for example are not the answer because they are arbitrary numbers pulled out of the bureaucracy’s bums. What are the costs TS and how can they be discovered?
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
10,914
16
RoarEmotion said:
I think the main logic is that One they can request on demand the other they have to take when it is available - not necessarily when they need it.

If the market was dynamic such that the sale price from the household reflected the retailers alternate cost less a profit margin then you’d probably get a great price on a hot summers day and a small amount when it isn’t needed. I imagine they buy a base amount at a cheap price but have to pay more for peaking amounts reflecting the supplier costs of turning production up and down.
a profit margin decided by the energy retailer i assume? while their cost would be based on the energy wholesalers price? which they determine?
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,293
82
Giardiasis said:
Ah yes TS with his classic straw man. I’ve always maintained environmental damage is a real cost that needs to be factored into any cost accounting. The thing you never address is how to actual cost the environmental damage from CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide taxes for example are not the answer because they are arbitrary numbers pulled out of the bureaucracy’s bums. What are the costs TS and how can they be discovered?
G-man says climate change is happening. are you sure? well I'll be buggered. If you've always maintained that, I missed it.
 

tigertime2

Our cup runneth over!
Mar 22, 2008
3,544
3
Sun comes up everyday...you guys still trying to convince yourselves Man made climate change is real. The only thing that warrants any thought is finding new sources of power - That is valid.