News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[abc]

Their lack of one didn't help.

Don't get me wrong, i always took you as a pretty unintelligent poster, but to imply I some how found joy in the death of innocent Ukrainians because it brought about an increase in renewables is a pretty despicable post and one only a genuine grub would make.

You indicated you've found joy in the decline of 'cheap' Russian gas (which is as good as any other gas but please go with 'cheap' because it makes it sound inferior).
I never said you found joy in the death of anyone but that is the cost of you enjoying the decline of Russian gas. Once again your comprehension skills fail you.

No, you made that up and are now desperately trying to back pedal.

Don't worry, we can all see what you said.

The evidence is here for all to see and its not in your favour. Why do you people always lie?

[Waewick]

You indicated you've found joy in the decline of 'cheap' Russian gas (which is as good as any other gas but please go with 'cheap' because it makes it sound inferior).
I never said you found joy in the death of anyone but that is the cost of you enjoying the decline of Russian gas. Once again your comprehension skills fail you.

No, you made that up and are now desperately trying to back pedal.

Don't worry, we can all see what you said.

The evidence is here for all to see and its not in your favour. Why do you people always lie?

'You people'

Another classy response.

[Norman]

Enough of the tit-for-tat. Keep the discussion on topic please.

[claybro]

also read the fine print

more countries are embracing nuclear

At the moment, we have a crisis with gas. If the government and generation companies don't focus on that 100%, there's a problem right now.

So, diverting attention from something that's a problem now, to talk about something that may be able to happen in 20 years is almost guaranteeing that the problem we have now, gets out of control, and turns into a disaster.

Of course, the cynic in me says that if a disaster happens, the Government gets blamed, and the Opposition has a huge win in the polls. Meaning that the nuclear debate isn't really about solving energy problems, it's about the Coalition trying to draw the country into an energy crisis before the election. Naturally, if that happens, and they get into power, they'll miraculously find that nuclear is too expensive, and build a few coal plants.

Looking at the graph, it's also clear that renewables have arrested the decline evident in the first half of the chart, and then steadily reversed that trend.

Now, it's also true that most of those new nuclear plants are either Government owned, government subsidised, and/or guaranteed. In other words, nobody would buy it if it were priced properly. I don't think that pointing to a compulsory government subsidy to make nuclear happen is a good idea. I also bet that that will be the reason the Coalition dumps them if it wins the election.

Interesting you mention the gas crisis, and this is part of the credibility issue the current government now have despite being elected on a platform of ending the climate wars. When the coalition suggested gas, as a transition fuel and the ramping up of gas plants to support renewables- there was a cry from Labor, the greens and independents about it holding back investment in renewables- and sending mixed messages to investors. The states had also banned further gas exploration drilling for new projects, partly leading to the current Eastern States gas shortages. The teals, who were almost entirely elected on a platform of complete transition to renewables, and who's campaigns were funded by Climate 200's Simon Holmes a Court, a multi millionaire who's company receives funding from the renewables lobby, all said gas was not to be relied upon. Now suddenly, the current government acknowledge gas is essential to the transition. Well, perhaps it might have been better to put some more funding into keeping some of the coal plants open for longer. -But again ideology gets in the way. Again BOTH sides are playing ideological games, ignoring the facts as they currently stand. The Teals especially have been totally captured and funded by the renewables industry, as much as the Coalition is beholden to the fossil fuel groups. The Libs, publicly have very little credibility in the energy debate, and therefore Dutton doesnt have anything to loose opening up the nuclear debate. Labor on the other hand will be a victim of their own inflexibility of any other path without appearing to be backflipping. Meanwhile- if widespread blackouts occur, it will be on for all.

[rubberman]

also read the fine print

more countries are embracing nuclear

At the moment, we have a crisis with gas. If the government and generation companies don't focus on that 100%, there's a problem right now.

So, diverting attention from something that's a problem now, to talk about something that may be able to happen in 20 years is almost guaranteeing that the problem we have now, gets out of control, and turns into a disaster.

Of course, the cynic in me says that if a disaster happens, the Government gets blamed, and the Opposition has a huge win in the polls. Meaning that the nuclear debate isn't really about solving energy problems, it's about the Coalition trying to draw the country into an energy crisis before the election. Naturally, if that happens, and they get into power, they'll miraculously find that nuclear is too expensive, and build a few coal plants.

Looking at the graph, it's also clear that renewables have arrested the decline evident in the first half of the chart, and then steadily reversed that trend.

Now, it's also true that most of those new nuclear plants are either Government owned, government subsidised, and/or guaranteed. In other words, nobody would buy it if it were priced properly. I don't think that pointing to a compulsory government subsidy to make nuclear happen is a good idea. I also bet that that will be the reason the Coalition dumps them if it wins the election.

Interesting you mention the gas crisis, and this is part of the credibility issue the current government now have despite being elected on a platform of ending the climate wars. When the coalition suggested gas, as a transition fuel and the ramping up of gas plants to support renewables- there was a cry from Labor, the greens and independents about it holding back investment in renewables- and sending mixed messages to investors. The states had also banned further gas exploration drilling for new projects, partly leading to the current Eastern States gas shortages. The teals, who were almost entirely elected on a platform of complete transition to renewables, and who's campaigns were funded by Climate 200's Simon Holmes a Court, a multi millionaire who's company receives funding from the renewables lobby, all said gas was not to be relied upon. Now suddenly, the current government acknowledge gas is essential to the transition. Well, perhaps it might have been better to put some more funding into keeping some of the coal plants open for longer. -But again ideology gets in the way. Again BOTH sides are playing ideological games, ignoring the facts as they currently stand. The Teals especially have been totally captured and funded by the renewables industry, as much as the Coalition is beholden to the fossil fuel groups. The Libs, publicly have very little credibility in the energy debate, and therefore Dutton doesnt have anything to loose opening up the nuclear debate. Labor on the other hand will be a victim of their own inflexibility of any other path without appearing to be backflipping. Meanwhile- if widespread blackouts occur, it will be on for all.

Ok. Let me get this straight.

We have a shortage of gas for our existing capacity. So, had we listened to the Coalition, the gap between capacity and supply would have been greater.

So, under the Coalition we would have had more gas capacity, but without the gas, we would have that extra capacity idle, unable to be used.

In addition, under the Coalition, we would have had less renewables.

So. Less renewables, no more gas output because of the fuel shortage. I'm not sure why you think that would have been better in any way. How does less renewable energy and unusable gas capacity help? Further, this seems to put upwards pressure on prices.

The Coalition policy made little sense then, but having extra gas plants unable to be used because of gas shortages, actually justifies the ALP position....and the Teals and the Greens.

Might I suggest that the Teals know that their electorates are actually highly educated, know the issues, and have concluded renewables are the way to go.

[abc]

also read the fine print

more countries are embracing nuclear

At the moment, we have a crisis with gas. If the government and generation companies don't focus on that 100%, there's a problem right now.

So, diverting attention from something that's a problem now, to talk about something that may be able to happen in 20 years is almost guaranteeing that the problem we have now, gets out of control, and turns into a disaster.

Of course, the cynic in me says that if a disaster happens, the Government gets blamed, and the Opposition has a huge win in the polls. Meaning that the nuclear debate isn't really about solving energy problems, it's about the Coalition trying to draw the country into an energy crisis before the election. Naturally, if that happens, and they get into power, they'll miraculously find that nuclear is too expensive, and build a few coal plants.

Looking at the graph, it's also clear that renewables have arrested the decline evident in the first half of the chart, and then steadily reversed that trend.

Now, it's also true that most of those new nuclear plants are either Government owned, government subsidised, and/or guaranteed. In other words, nobody would buy it if it were priced properly. I don't think that pointing to a compulsory government subsidy to make nuclear happen is a good idea. I also bet that that will be the reason the Coalition dumps them if it wins the election.

Interesting you mention the gas crisis, and this is part of the credibility issue the current government now have despite being elected on a platform of ending the climate wars. When the coalition suggested gas, as a transition fuel and the ramping up of gas plants to support renewables- there was a cry from Labor, the greens and independents about it holding back investment in renewables- and sending mixed messages to investors. The states had also banned further gas exploration drilling for new projects, partly leading to the current Eastern States gas shortages. The teals, who were almost entirely elected on a platform of complete transition to renewables, and who's campaigns were funded by Climate 200's Simon Holmes a Court, a multi millionaire who's company receives funding from the renewables lobby, all said gas was not to be relied upon. Now suddenly, the current government acknowledge gas is essential to the transition. Well, perhaps it might have been better to put some more funding into keeping some of the coal plants open for longer. -But again ideology gets in the way. Again BOTH sides are playing ideological games, ignoring the facts as they currently stand. The Teals especially have been totally captured and funded by the renewables industry, as much as the Coalition is beholden to the fossil fuel groups. The Libs, publicly have very little credibility in the energy debate, and therefore Dutton doesnt have anything to loose opening up the nuclear debate. Labor on the other hand will be a victim of their own inflexibility of any other path without appearing to be backflipping. Meanwhile- if widespread blackouts occur, it will be on for all.

The current government weren't elected on a platform of ending the climate wars, this is pure revisionism by ideologues. They got 30% of the primary vote ffs.
They were elected by default because a significant portion of the liberal party base deserted them due to Scomo and the party's handling of the covid era and related obvious corrupt activities.

Onto the energy crisis, this is also a product of corruption, selling out to globalism, naivety, short sightedness and ideology. Now we have a whole generation of people in this country who've been brainwashed by the corrupted education system into believing there's a climate crisis caused by our energy usage. Its madness.

[rooshooter]

2024 and we're still arguing over the reality of climate change?

I'm out. This forum used to be a fantastic place to discuss infrastructure and have CONSTRUCTIVE arguments that didn't just dissolve into culture and idealogical wars.

Sure, tempers got heated sometimes, and there certainly wasn't a single consistent consensus on every issue.

BUT the toxicity that a certain member bring to each and every forum here in recent months especially has really hollowed out this site and made it about as worthwhile as a RW facebook group.

And it's not that just I don't agree with their point of view (I don't expect to, nor do I expect people to agree with MY POV), I just despise their constant sniping and digs, their sneering and childish retorts, their miserable take on EVERY issue here.

Thanks to all the people who DO try this forum a great place to visit.

[rev]

We're in an energy crisis now.
Today.
The millions of Australians who are being rorted by electricity companies, despite the government continually promising to bring prices down, would argue the energy crisis is here, NOW.

Reality vs ideology.

[abc]

2024 and we're still arguing over the reality of climate change?

I'm out. This forum used to be a fantastic place to discuss infrastructure and have CONSTRUCTIVE arguments that didn't just dissolve into culture and idealogical wars.

Sure, tempers got heated sometimes, and there certainly wasn't a single consistent consensus on every issue.

BUT the toxicity that a certain member bring to each and every forum here in recent months especially has really hollowed out this site and made it about as worthwhile as a RW facebook group.

And it's not that just I don't agree with their point of view (I don't expect to, nor do I expect people to agree with MY POV), I just despise their constant sniping and digs, their sneering and childish retorts, their miserable take on EVERY issue here.

Thanks to all the people who DO try this forum a great place to visit.

You cannot identity a solution to anything if you cannot identify the problem. ...and the problem isn't what you think it is.
Unfortunately you're one of those people I've referenced in the previous post.

and by the way, I received my electricity bill today, up 25% from same time last year and same usage as last year

thanks zeolots

[Waewick]

We're in an energy crisis now.
Today.
The millions of Australians who are being rorted by electricity companies, despite the government continually promising to bring prices down, would argue the energy crisis is here, NOW.

Reality vs ideology.

The ideology that got us here was LNP climate denial, which paralysed them completely in Govt and led to a decade of under investment in energy production, we now get to chose which ideology gets us out.

Thats the reality.

[abc]

We're in an energy crisis now.
Today.
The millions of Australians who are being rorted by electricity companies, despite the government continually promising to bring prices down, would argue the energy crisis is here, NOW.

Reality vs ideology.

The ideology that got us here was LNP climate denial, which paralysed them completely in Govt and led to a decade of under investment in energy production, we now get to chose which ideology gets us out.

Thats the reality.

...and you're another one

I personally blame people of your ilk for the current energy crisis we're in... the pervasive culture of complete ignorance and gullibility got us here and keeps us here.

You talk about 'climate denial' like its a thing. Nobody is denying there is a climate. This is what its been reduced to by people with no education in basic science and who insult people with formal education in university level science from an era prior to when the climate change grift industry money corrupted the educational institutions.

[mattblack]

The ideology that got us here was LNP climate denial, which paralysed them completely in Govt and led to a decade of under investment in energy production, we now get to chose which ideology gets us out.

Thats the reality.

...and you're another one

I personally blame people of your ilk for the current energy crisis we're in... the pervasive culture of complete ignorance and gullibility got us here and keeps us here.

You talk about 'climate denial' like its a thing. Nobody is denying there is a climate. This is what its been reduced to by people with no education in basic science and who insult people with formal education in university level science from an era prior to when the climate change grift industry money corrupted the educational institutions.

Thats sweet.

But you really need to stop taking about education like you've got one.

The mods have already warned us about responding to you. So I'll leave it there.

Waewick, a bit of advice. Abc does not seem to understand that disolving every thread into a personsl attack when he doesn't agree is not appreciated.

Report him every time so Norman is alerted and hopefully sterner action is taken. I will be. Until then long live ignore. I encourage everyone who feels the same to do the same.

[Norman]

Thread locked so everyone can cool off a little.

[PeFe]

Goyder South wind farm soon to start producing power starting small and then increasing output.

From Renew Economy

Concrete foundations and first turbines up as S.A.’s biggest wind farm poised to start production



The biggest wind project in South Australia – and the first to connect to the country’s most renewable state in more than two years – is nearing first generation with all 75 concrete foundations laid and the first 22 wind turbines complete.

The 412 megawatt (MW) Goyder South wind project near Burra is being built by Neoen Australia, which has agreed to a $10 billion takeover from Canadian funds management giant Brookfield and is regarded as the most successful developer of renewables and storage in Australia.

In a LinkedIn post over the weekend, Neoen said all 75 concrete footings had now been poured, and the first 22 turbines had also been installed. The wind farm has also been registered and is poised to start injecting power into the grid, albeit at small initial amounts, some time soon.

South Australia has the biggest share of wind and solar in its local grid in Australia, and the world, with an average of 70 per cent in the last 12 months, according to OpenNEM.

Remarkably, Goyde South will be the first wind project to be added to the grid since April 2022 when the wind component of Iberdrola’s Port Augusta Renewable Energy Park started sending power to the grid.

South Australia aims to reach 100 per cent net renewables by 2027, even though its share of wind and solar fell slightly in the last six months due to significant wind lulls this past autumn.

Goyder South has contracts with the ACT government and a landmark deal with BHP to provide a supply of “baseload renewables” to the giant Olympic Dam mine in concert with the Blyth battery that is also under construction in South Australia.

Neoen is also putting the finishing touches to its Western Downs and Capital batteries in Queensland and NSW, and is also building the Culcairn solar farm in NSW and the country’s biggest battery project, the 560 MW, 2240 MWh Collie battery in Western Australia.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/concrete-fo ... roduction/

[rev]

International nuclear lawyer says Australia not starting ‘from scratch’ on regulations
An international nuclear lawyer has revealed just how soon a nuclear reactor could be up and running in Australia.

Clare Armstrong
National political editor
Follow
@ByClare
2 min read
July 9, 2024 - 4:30AM

Australia can clear the legal barriers to get a nuclear reactor up and running by 2035 as existing agreements and safety regulations mean the country is not starting “from scratch,” a top expert says.

Labor’s bid to cast the Coalition’s nuclear plan as unfeasible has been rejected by a nuclear lawyer who says Australia already has safeguards and frameworks in place that could be expanded to capture an energy program.

International nuclear lawyer Helen Cook said a willing Australian parliament would be able to make the necessary legal changes to have a nuclear reactor operational by 2035 to 2037.

“A ten to 12 year pathway … is feasible from the perspective of the nuclear-specific legislative work that we would need to do,” she said.

“I believe that we can put it in place on that timeline if the political will is there and if we do things in a smart way.”

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has slammed the Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants as “too expensive and too slow” questioning how legal issues could be overcome in time.

He called the policy a “fantasy,” but Ms Cook, an Australian who has spent most of the last 16 years abroad advising countries pursuing civilian nuclear programs, said pursuing proven technology and working within existing frameworks would facilitate the timeline.

“What we would need to do is a gap analysis of our existing laws, regulations and institutions to adapt them, build on them so that they are ready to regulate power reactors,” she said.

“Politics aside, there’s nothing particularly difficult about doing a gap analysis or putting any necessary legislation together, it’s what country after country is doing at the moment.”

Ms Cook said Australia has already ratified most treaties required to build and operate domestic nuclear reactors, has existing international-standard safety bodies and experience in nuclear trade due to its uranium exports and research reactor.

“Yes we have some work to do, but in no way are we starting any of this from scratch,” she said.

“We have a lot of existing national laws on the topic of safety, security and safeguards,” she said.

Regulators like the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), which oversee Australia’s current nuclear activities and uranium export would need to be expanded to apply to energy generation and associated activities.

Ms Cook said the International Atomic Energy Agency had “model legislation” that Australia could use for its gap analysis, which she recently used to help the Philippines draft its proposed nuclear energy laws.

In terms of existing Australian laws, the Coalition would also have to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conversation Act to allow for nuclear power development, and also establish approval and penalty regimes that would capture transporting and storing radioactive waste products.

It would also need to fund a national regulatory body with a remit that included civil nuclear security and safeguards, site licensing, construction of new reactors, operation of energy plants, decommissioning, storage and transport of radioactive materials and waste.

The Coalition would also have to overturn numerous state and territory laws dealing with nuclear issues, including prohibitions in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has previously claimed he believes state and territory leaders will be open to lifting their localised bans on nuclear power in the face of a “mandate” from voters and with monetary incentive provided by the Commonwealth.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nat ... eed4343672