News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[abc]

Amazing that basically the only thing SA could ever be regarded as a world leader in and you still get those types against it.

nobody will want to move to a state to manufacture that has the most expensive energy in the world that only has the capacity for 1.5 million people and requires backfill from interstate gas supplies when the wind isn't blowing

SA is already regarded as a parasite on the rest of the nation

[SBD]

Amazing that basically the only thing SA could ever be regarded as a world leader in and you still get those types against it.

nobody will want to move to a state to manufacture that has the most expensive energy in the world that only has the capacity for 1.5 million people and requires backfill from interstate gas supplies when the wind isn't blowing

SA is already regarded as a parasite on the rest of the nation

Do you have any evidence for that claim? Do you mean in the electricity market (where SA wind farms are contracted to the ACT government), or more generally where one state (not SA) has special rules to get extra GST revenue?

[abc]

Amazing that basically the only thing SA could ever be regarded as a world leader in and you still get those types against it.

nobody will want to move to a state to manufacture that has the most expensive energy in the world that only has the capacity for 1.5 million people and requires backfill from interstate gas supplies when the wind isn't blowing

SA is already regarded as a parasite on the rest of the nation

Do you have any evidence for that claim? Do you mean in the electricity market (where SA wind farms are contracted to the ACT government), or more generally where one state (not SA) has special rules to get extra GST revenue?

we'll play your game then

SA has a smaller population than WA but still rakes in more GST = parasite

+ higher GST per capita than QLD, NSW and Vic

[Algernon]

Amazing that basically the only thing SA could ever be regarded as a world leader in and you still get those types against it.

nobody will want to move to a state to manufacture that has the most expensive energy in the world that only has the capacity for 1.5 million people and requires backfill from interstate gas supplies when the wind isn't blowing

SA is already regarded as a parasite on the rest of the nation

The question you raise isn't an argument against going 100% renewables. It's a statement of what the challenge is which was used as an argument against until a state named South Australia went ahead and took the risk in figuring it out. If that makes SA a parasite then it says a lot more about you needing to put down your copy of The Australian for a minute each day rather than what the current state of play is.

Between 2018 and 2023, the generation capacity share of gas in SA went from 45% to 20% and all of that was snapped up by solar and wind (50 to 72%). The import share was relatively steady (10% v 12%). Your fear mongering doesn't come out in the numbers. From almost half down to a 5th of the generation capacity is the hallowed "base load" and yet the strain on imports isn't there. Renewables aren't as predictably unreliable as you think they are. Not as predictable as other certain truths, such as when at the depths of night when the sun isn't shining as you like to pontificate about, the demand is half.

Considering the little need to backfill capacity, despite the renewable share already being at 72%, it's pretty obvious that it will be a very small gap to be filled by batteries on a 100% renewable grid.

[abc]

Amazing that basically the only thing SA could ever be regarded as a world leader in and you still get those types against it.

nobody will want to move to a state to manufacture that has the most expensive energy in the world that only has the capacity for 1.5 million people and requires backfill from interstate gas supplies when the wind isn't blowing

SA is already regarded as a parasite on the rest of the nation

The question you raise isn't an argument against going 100% renewables. It's a statement of what the challenge is which was used as an argument against until a state named South Australia went ahead and took the risk in figuring it out. If that makes SA a parasite then it says a lot more about you needing to put down your copy of The Australian for a minute each day rather than what the current state of play is.

Between 2018 and 2023, the generation capacity share of gas in SA went from 45% to 20% and all of that was snapped up by solar and wind (50 to 72%). The import share was relatively steady (10% v 12%). Your fear mongering doesn't come out in the numbers. From almost half down to a 5th of the generation capacity is the hallowed "base load" and yet the strain on imports isn't there. Renewables aren't as predictably unreliable as you think they are. Not as predictable as other certain truths, such as when at the depths of night when the sun isn't shining as you like to pontificate about, the demand is half.

SA's hick government got conned by the renewable industry that no other state was naïve enough to get conned by and now the general public are paying the price. SA didn't figure anything out... it got steamrolled by an industry that is subsidised by the government to remain viable.

7.53 By any reckoning, the wind industry receives a substantial and generous cross subsidy from the RET. On a conservative estimate, each RET-eligible company receives in excess of $500 000 a year for each turbine. On the basis of there being 2 077 wind turbines in Australia, the RET provides $1.09 billion per annum to the wind industry. On this basis, and assuming the RET operates for another 15 years, the RET cross-subsidy for existing turbines from now until 2030 will be in the vicinity of $9.3 billion. Given that the wind industry plans significant future investment, the subsidy is likely to be considerably more than $9.3 billion.

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bu ... 20industry.

[Algernon]

ok boomer

[mattblack]

Why do you people always have to include insults in your responses to reasonable

Cry me a river mate. I believe I reported u multiple times on another thread which is now locked because of your abusive ranting

this is a you problem and the hostility was entirely initiated by your meltdown

So it's my problem that you could communicate without using abusive language? Good one champ.

[Spurdo]

Is there actually enough Lithium in the world for civilisation to become reliant on battery storage? I mean, there’s a lot of it, but it certainly doesn’t seem as plentiful as oil, coal or gas? Not to mention the low energy density meaning you have to build literal fields of them to store any meaningful amount of energy

[Algernon]

If we're crying about 9 billion then...

Europe: the continent with 70 years of expertise in building and running nuclear plants in a nuclear industry. Let that sink in.

Finland built a 1.6GW reactor for a cost of 11.6 billion euro. This is a country with existing expertise in building and running nuclear power plants. This wasn't a new plant. It was a new, 3rd reactor added to an existing nuclear power plant with all the infrastructure already there. 11.6 billion euro / 19 billion aud.

For Australia to fill the remaining 60% shortfall in its generation capacity not filled with renewables, would require about 40GW of capacity or ~750 billion aud at those prices. Australia's national debt is 890 billion. Nuclear power plants are, for want of a better term, mega structures. They're not cost efficient through scale. Each one you build is a new beast with maybe an off the shelf reactor and the rest engineering for its location (hello water!).

If Australia, with absolutely no expertise whatsoever in building and running a nuclear power industry, could start it from scratch and do so with no cost overruns, those are the numbers to fill the hole with nuclear. And in the minimum 15 year period between now and the first possible time a single reactor could be commissioned, there wasn't a single extra solar panel or wind turbine added to the NEM.

How do you think Australia would go? Take a look at what happens when Australia, a country with not much experience with laying 2 long bits of steel down on the ground to run a tram on it, can't get within a cooee of its budget. But Australia will nail 25 nuclear power plants, first try, all at once. Not one single CFMEU tradie would take an ounce of delight in going on strike during a 19 billion build x 25.

Let's be clear here. Nobody who is a proponent of a nuclear power industry in Australia legitimately wants their advocacy to result in a nuclear power plant being built. They just want people to accept the concept of it being an alternative, so they can then fart arse around for another 20 years burning coal until they realise it's too hard to go nuclear, then carry on burning coal.

Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me the world's eminent nuclear physicist Barnaby Joyce is building a nuclear power industry when it's coal.

[rubberman]

nobody will want to move to a state to manufacture that has the most expensive energy in the world that only has the capacity for 1.5 million people and requires backfill from interstate gas supplies when the wind isn't blowing

SA is already regarded as a parasite on the rest of the nation

The question you raise isn't an argument against going 100% renewables. It's a statement of what the challenge is which was used as an argument against until a state named South Australia went ahead and took the risk in figuring it out. If that makes SA a parasite then it says a lot more about you needing to put down your copy of The Australian for a minute each day rather than what the current state of play is.

Between 2018 and 2023, the generation capacity share of gas in SA went from 45% to 20% and all of that was snapped up by solar and wind (50 to 72%). The import share was relatively steady (10% v 12%). Your fear mongering doesn't come out in the numbers. From almost half down to a 5th of the generation capacity is the hallowed "base load" and yet the strain on imports isn't there. Renewables aren't as predictably unreliable as you think they are. Not as predictable as other certain truths, such as when at the depths of night when the sun isn't shining as you like to pontificate about, the demand is half.

SA's hick government got conned by the renewable industry that no other state was naïve enough to get conned by and now the general public are paying the price. SA didn't figure anything out... it got steamrolled by an industry that is subsidised by the government to remain viable.

7.53 By any reckoning, the wind industry receives a substantial and generous cross subsidy from the RET. On a conservative estimate, each RET-eligible company receives in excess of $500 000 a year for each turbine. On the basis of there being 2 077 wind turbines in Australia, the RET provides $1.09 billion per annum to the wind industry. On this basis, and assuming the RET operates for another 15 years, the RET cross-subsidy for existing turbines from now until 2030 will be in the vicinity of $9.3 billion. Given that the wind industry plans significant future investment, the subsidy is likely to be considerably more than $9.3 billion.

https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bu ... 20industry.

The only SA Government that was conned was the Olsen Liberal Government.

It sold ETSA, with the result being the shutting down of the Port Augusta power stations. With that sudden drop in supply, of course the prices shot up. What a surprise! Shut down a major supply source, and prices shoot up! Who'd have thought that would happen? Certainly not Olsen. Nor you, apparently.

But then, along come renewables putting more supply into the market and what do you conclude? Putting more supply into a market drives prices up!

Have you discovered a new economic principle? That cutting supply from a market, if it's supplied by coal, doesn't matter? But that adding supply to a market, if it's renewable, will raise prices? Following your "logic" SA should have just done nothing when the Port Augusta stations were closed by the private sector.

[abc]

ok boomer

[abc]

The only SA Government that was conned was the Olsen Liberal Government.

you just can't help yourself can you, you had to make it about partisan party politics again

[rubberman]

The only SA Government that was conned was the Olsen Liberal Government.

you just can't help yourself can you, you had to make it about partisan party politics again

What is it about facts that you hate? It's a matter of record that Olsen sold ETSA. It was an utterly foolish decision.

If Labor had done the same, it would have been just as foolish. However, Labor didn't. Sorry if the facts offend you.

Now, that foolish decision led directly to the closure of the Port Augusta power stations. That closure led to the price rises.

Apparently, if the Libs make a colossal blunder, we are to not only ignore it, but we are also to accept that somehow, it was all the fault of renewables? What a crock.

High prices in SA can be traced directly to the decision by Olsen to privatise ETSA. Nothing else.

[abc]

The only SA Government that was conned was the Olsen Liberal Government.

you just can't help yourself can you, you had to make it about partisan party politics again

What is it about facts that you hate? It's a matter of record that Olsen sold ETSA. It was an utterly foolish decision.

If Labor had done the same, it would have been just as foolish. However, Labor didn't. Sorry if the facts offend you.

Now, that foolish decision led directly to the closure of the Port Augusta power stations. That closure led to the price rises.

Apparently, if the Libs make a colossal blunder, we are to not only ignore it, but we are also to accept that somehow, it was all the fault of renewables? What a crock.

High prices in SA can be traced directly to the decision by Olsen to privatise ETSA. Nothing else.

ETSA was part of the fire sale to service the State Bank collapse debt... which the ALP was responsible for, if you want to go down that path zealot.
But no that did not directly lead to the closure of Port Augusta. That was the result of the Clean Energy act.

[rubberman]

you just can't help yourself can you, you had to make it about partisan party politics again

What is it about facts that you hate? It's a matter of record that Olsen sold ETSA. It was an utterly foolish decision.

If Labor had done the same, it would have been just as foolish. However, Labor didn't. Sorry if the facts offend you.

Now, that foolish decision led directly to the closure of the Port Augusta power stations. That closure led to the price rises.

Apparently, if the Libs make a colossal blunder, we are to not only ignore it, but we are also to accept that somehow, it was all the fault of renewables? What a crock.

High prices in SA can be traced directly to the decision by Olsen to privatise ETSA. Nothing else.

ETSA was part of the fire sale to service the State Bank collapse debt... which the ALP was responsible for, if you want to go down that path zealot.
But no that did not directly lead to the closure of Port Augusta. That was the result of the Clean Energy act.

Was that the Clean Energy Act that closed down Yallourn?

Oh wait. It didn't.

Excuses, excuses.