News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Spurdo]

the seppos blew up their pipeline FFS

Do you have to ruin every thread with this garbage. If the west is such a shithole, go live in your precious russia/china/venezuela/.etc

[rubberman]

Typical distraction. Pluck out the dumbest conspioracy theory you can to get a rise out of people.

Back to the topic at hand.

Your expert is full of shit.

Germany's emissions went up - then came straight back down again and are continuing to do so.

Germany's economy didn't tank. Despite the headwinds or covid and the gas supply crisis, it is growing and at the same time still paying down national debt.

You don't need nuclear " in the mix" in developing economies. If that were the case, Australia today wouldn't be a developed economy.

Your expert tries to argue nuclear is cheaper than renewables by stripping out overheads such as the 25 billion required to build the reactor in the first place.

If you want to tell us windmills cause more cancer than Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, then that's on you to find it.

Yup. If one looks at the actual figures for Germany, there's almost no evidence of the economy tanking. Certainly, that is, compared with Australia. So, when someone makes one assertion that isn't backed up by facts, you really have to doubt anything else they say.

[rubberman]

But we all know this isn't about building nuclear. It's about burning coal.

Strange, I think I missed the bit in science class where they taught us about the fissile properties of coal and its use in the nuclear industry

What he means is, and those who genuinely believe in nuclear take note, that the Coalition's plan is to promise nuclear, but when they get in dump it because it can't be done in time (Labor and the Greens' fault, of course), and build coal plants. They will drop nuclear...or draw it out so long it might as well be dropped...so that more coal is sold.

How do I figure this out?

Easy.

1. We know nuclear cannot be built in time.

2. We know existing power stations are on their last legs, witness the multiple long and expensive outages.

3. The Coalition doesn't like renewables. See reports from Littleproud this week.

4. Gina, a coal miner, supports the Coalition financially.

5. So, nuclear cannot be delivered in time. The Coalition doesn't like renewables, all that's left is coal and gas. One of which coincidentally profits a substantial Coalition donor.

6. Once new coal plants are built, there's no longer a need for nuclear for another 40-50 years.

[Nort]

But we all know this isn't about building nuclear. It's about burning coal.

Strange, I think I missed the bit in science class where they taught us about the fissile properties of coal and its use in the nuclear industry

What he means is, and those who genuinely believe in nuclear take note, that the Coalition's plan is to promise nuclear, but when they get in dump it because it can't be done in time (Labor and the Greens' fault, of course), and build coal plants. They will drop nuclear...or draw it out so long it might as well be dropped...so that more coal is sold.

How do I figure this out?

Easy.

1. We know nuclear cannot be built in time.

2. We know existing power stations are on their last legs, witness the multiple long and expensive outages.

3. The Coalition doesn't like renewables. See reports from Littleproud this week.

4. Gina, a coal miner, supports the Coalition financially.

5. So, nuclear cannot be delivered in time. The Coalition doesn't like renewables, all that's left is coal and gas. One of which coincidentally profits a substantial Coalition donor.

6. Once new coal plants are built, there's no longer a need for nuclear for another 40-50 years.

I don't think they'll immediately abandon it if elected, but there is absolutely no way the first plant goes online before the 2040's at the earliest, and the costs will be many times higher than initial estimates.

We're already seeing quotes from many Coalition figures about how this plan means coal plants should be kept online longer. The reason they're pushing this now is simple: They know that on the current path the widescale adoption of renewables IS going to happen, they have lost the fight against that. So they are trying a last hail mary attempt to sabotage investment in renewable schemes, and eke out another decade or so of support for coal plants.

If they don't win the next election, and Labor runs a full second term, then the next opportunity to get in would be 2028, and by that time you'll have South Australia at net 100% renewables, Queensland well on it's way towards their 50% 2030 target, and more projects having come online or be in the process of construction across the country. This is literally their last chance to fight back against renewables and they're throwing the kitchen sink at it, and I hope the Australian public is smart enough to see the obvious panic in them.

I say all this as someone who isn't by default anti-nuclear. It makes sense to me for countries like France and China to keep their existing plants running and even build more scaling their nuclear industry up where appropriate. If Australia had built nuclear fifty years ago it would make a lot of sense to keep those plants online. We didn't though, and all the evidence shows that any domestic nuclear industry would take literal decades to spin up and cost astronomical amounts of money.

[rev]

Typical distraction. Pluck out the dumbest conspioracy theory you can to get a rise out of people.

If i was trying to get a rise out of people, it couldn't have been easier with you and the two trolls both reacting to something in an article.

Back to the topic at hand.

Your expert is full of shit.

You, and a couple others, routinely dismiss experts who you don't agree with.
Can you go on the record, right here, and show us what your credentials are that make you a qualified expert?
We can all read articles and cherry pick the ones that suit whatever narrative we want to push, but that doesn't make any of us more of an expert then anyone else here.

Germany's emissions went up - then came straight back down again and are continuing to do so.

Germany's economy didn't tank. Despite the headwinds or covid and the gas supply crisis, it is growing and at the same time still paying down national debt.

You don't need nuclear " in the mix" in developing economies. If that were the case, Australia today wouldn't be a developed economy.

Your expert tries to argue nuclear is cheaper than renewables by stripping out overheads such as the 25 billion required to build the reactor in the first place.

If you want to tell us windmills cause more cancer than Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, then that's on you to find it.

Not my expert.
I just posted the link to the article, with a few interesting bits that stood out.
I never claimed wind turbines cause more cancer then Fukushima. But interesting choice of words and choice of comparison.
No need to take everything so personally particularly when nothing is directed at you

[claybro]

But we all know this isn't about building nuclear. It's about burning coal.

Strange, I think I missed the bit in science class where they taught us about the fissile properties of coal and its use in the nuclear industry

What he means is, and those who genuinely believe in nuclear take note, that the Coalition's plan is to promise nuclear, but when they get in dump it because it can't be done in time (Labor and the Greens' fault, of course), and build coal plants. They will drop nuclear...or draw it out so long it might as well be dropped...so that more coal is sold.

How do I figure this out?

Easy.

1. We know nuclear cannot be built in time.

2. We know existing power stations are on their last legs, witness the multiple long and expensive outages.

3. The Coalition doesn't like renewables. See reports from Littleproud this week.

4. Gina, a coal miner, supports the Coalition financially.

5. So, nuclear cannot be delivered in time. The Coalition doesn't like renewables, all that's left is coal and gas. One of which coincidentally profits a substantial Coalition donor.

6. Once new coal plants are built, there's no longer a need for nuclear for another 40-50 years.

1. We also know the renewables required, the transmission and the storage cannot be built in time, or are even possible with current battery performance.

2. Existing power stations are most definitely on their last legs, due to a hostile legislative environment promoting renewables making investment in coal, or even maintenance beyond a bare minimum untenable.

3. The coalition doesn't like renewables... Some do- some don't. During a decade of coalition government- Australia achieved more rooftop solar than most countries on earth. Most of the policy leading to the demise of the coal generators were maintained or increased during the decade of coalition government, excellerating the demise of the coal fired power stations, creating the issues we now have.

4. Gina is a miner, and a coalition supporter- no shit..., just as Twiggy and Mike Cannon Brookes continue to received hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidies for renewable projects which are yet to even get off the ground, Just as Alex Turnbull, the former prime ministers son is a hedge fund manager involved in renewables.- Grifting is not a left or right phenomenon.

5. Nuclear definitely cant get off the ground in time- nor can the renewables required. We are nowhere near rolling out the number of wind turbines, solar panels, storage batteries, transmission corridors...and snowy 2.0 boring machine is still stuck in its tunnel. The task required is simply not logistically, or financially possible-So the politicians are either willfully ignorant- or outright lying...no surprises there.

6. If new coal stations are built, as they are in their hundreds- every year around the world- Australias emissions would reduce, due to new coal plant technology. The alternative is gas....remembering the state governments want to ban all onshore gas exploration, so the more we use gas for electricity- the more shortages there will be for industry- in fact the stupid reporter on the ABC this morning, said the current gas shortages wont affect you and I...households- only the big consumers....what a stupid statement.

So yes- you are probably right- the end result will be new coal fires power stations- but out of necessity- not for the supposed conspiracy you think.

[Nort]

1. We also know the renewables required, the transmission and the storage cannot be built in time, or are even possible with current battery performance.

CItation needed. Both South Australia and Queensland seem to be tracking very well in regards to their targets.

[rev]

1. We also know the renewables required, the transmission and the storage cannot be built in time, or are even possible with current battery performance.

2. Existing power stations are most definitely on their last legs, due to a hostile legislative environment promoting renewables making investment in coal, or even maintenance beyond a bare minimum untenable.

3. The coalition doesn't like renewables... Some do- some don't. During a decade of coalition government- Australia achieved more rooftop solar than most countries on earth. Most of the policy leading to the demise of the coal generators were maintained or increased during the decade of coalition government, excellerating the demise of the coal fired power stations, creating the issues we now have.

4. Gina is a miner, and a coalition supporter- no shit..., just as Twiggy and Mike Cannon Brookes continue to received hundreds of millions of taxpayer subsidies for renewable projects which are yet to even get off the ground, Just as Alex Turnbull, the former prime ministers son is a hedge fund manager involved in renewables.- Grifting is not a left or right phenomenon.

5. Nuclear definitely cant get off the ground in time- nor can the renewables required. We are nowhere near rolling out the number of wind turbines, solar panels, storage batteries, transmission corridors...and snowy 2.0 boring machine is still stuck in its tunnel. The task required is simply not logistically, or financially possible-So the politicians are either willfully ignorant- or outright lying...no surprises there.

6. If new coal stations are built, as they are in their hundreds- every year around the world- Australias emissions would reduce, due to new coal plant technology. The alternative is gas....remembering the state governments want to ban all onshore gas exploration, so the more we use gas for electricity- the more shortages there will be for industry- in fact the stupid reporter on the ABC this morning, said the current gas shortages wont affect you and I...households- only the big consumers....what a stupid statement.

So yes- you are probably right- the end result will be new coal fires power stations- but out of necessity- not for the supposed conspiracy you think.

The cost renewables isn't cheap either. How many billions have been poured into setting up renewables, and how many billions more are going to be spent so that we have a reliable and stable grid with capacity?
How many billions are gong to be needed so that the network can provide enough power for manufacturing? Remember manufacturing? The governments wants to restart it, and have more high end manufacturing done in Australia. It's a known fact without a reliable and stable power supply, manufacturing suffers and stalls.

The ideologues of the left never want to talk about the cost of renewables.
How many batteries will need to be built? Do they last as long as a nuclear power plant, a coal plant, a gas fired plant? So they'll need to be replaced sooner.
How long do wind turbines last? Solar panels? They'll need to be replaced sooner then other alternatives.
But those aren't factors that the radical left wants anyone to think about.

This is why they don't want a proper independent and unbiased and without the ideological influence, look into any of this. Because they're bullshit they've been selling for at least a decade now will rise to the top lol.
Wont see another Labor government for at least a decade after that.

This battery, or this solar farm, or this wind turbine farm, will bring down costs.
Next minute, costs have gone up.
Excuses, AEMO sets the prices (but you said those new developments would bring costs down), coal plants are costing more then before to maintain (but we've got very few compared to the amount of renewables built and being built), its your own fault because you cant afford to install solar and a battery in your home (kid you not, one of the trolls basically said this it's peoples own fault)...

At no stage do they ever taken responsibility or admit being wrong.
You can't have a discussion with such blind ideologues. Sadly this is what many of our politicians are on both sides.

The benefit I see in the coalition announcing this nuclear policy, is that it is bringing all of this stuff to the forefront finally. And maybe, with some hope, this nation can have a proper look at what the fuck has been going on and what's best for the future, without the bullshit ideological political shit that clouds everything.
Maybe it is renewables that's the best way forward, maybe its a mix of technologies including nuclear and/or gas with renewables.
I personally don't believe we have that answer, and I certainly don't believe the lying bastards on the left wing of politics in this country when they tell us renewables. "trust us, we know whats best for you".

[abc]

Typical distraction. Pluck out the dumbest conspioracy theory you can to get a rise out of people.

Back to the topic at hand.

Your expert is full of shit.

Germany's emissions went up - then came straight back down again and are continuing to do so.

Germany's economy didn't tank. Despite the headwinds or covid and the gas supply crisis, it is growing and at the same time still paying down national debt.

You don't need nuclear " in the mix" in developing economies. If that were the case, Australia today wouldn't be a developed economy.

Your expert tries to argue nuclear is cheaper than renewables by stripping out overheads such as the 25 billion required to build the reactor in the first place.

If you want to tell us windmills cause more cancer than Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island, then that's on you to find it.

You're literally spreading disinformation by saying "cessation of Russian gas" when its on record it was blown up and we know who did it because they told us - and we know why.
No evidence that Fukushima or 3 Mile Island caused anything, that was a media beat up. Regardless all of those reactors are completely different technology to modern reactors such as those used in France. You clearly have no understanding of the technology you denigrate.

[claybro]

1. We also know the renewables required, the transmission and the storage cannot be built in time, or are even possible with current battery performance.

CItation needed. Both South Australia and Queensland seem to be tracking very well in regards to their targets.

So, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%… it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
So… despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the “ low hanging fruit” of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.

[Nort]

1. We also know the renewables required, the transmission and the storage cannot be built in time, or are even possible with current battery performance.

CItation needed. Both South Australia and Queensland seem to be tracking very well in regards to their targets.

So, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%… it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
So… despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the “ low hanging fruit” of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.

What perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?

[PD2/20]

CItation needed. Both South Australia and Queensland seem to be tracking very well in regards to their targets.

So, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%… it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
So… despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the “ low hanging fruit” of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.

What perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?

Must be national as both black and brown coal.

At 1340 EST prices in SA and VIc are much the same, but SA has >50% renewables but Vic has 85% fossil fuel! In discussing wholesale prices, attention has to be given to how the market pricing mechanism operates with the spot price being generally set by the fossil fuel bids.

[claybro]

CItation needed. Both South Australia and Queensland seem to be tracking very well in regards to their targets.

So, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%… it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
So… despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the “ low hanging fruit” of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.

What perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?

Its National. States cant be taken in isolation. They all rely on exporting/ importing power to each other, depending on regional weather conditions Furthermore- the more renewable generation that comes on line in Qld, and the more coal Queensland shuts down, will create an issue for NSW which is struggling with thier own transition, which then cascades to Victoria. Added to this, what the wind drought of the last three weeks has demonstrated is that calm conditions can exist over most of the continent, for days even weeks at a time. Doubling or even tripling the amount of wind turbines will not help in these conditions,- they are all experiencing the same calm, and from 4pm at this time of year- solar is effectively zero. Over to storage.... we dont have the technology to store days of shortfall in generation, no matter how many batteries are installed. All of this, before we get serious about fully electrifying every home, and vehicle- and switch everything to Ai and increase our population by another 10 million.

[SBD]

The Commonwealth government's Snowy 2.0 seems to have stalled (literally!)

Kidston 250MW, 8 hours pumped hydro in northern Queensland seems to be under construction.

South Australia had a bunch of pumped hydro proposals a few years ago. Baroota (also 250MW for 8 hours) is the only one I can't find has been cancelled, but I'm not certain if it's still proposed or under construction either - does anyone else know for sure either way?

There have been various proposals for new technology with thermal storage but none seem to have matured past concept demonstrations if they've even got that far.

[rev]

So, to put things into perspective.
Current generation sources as at 13:30 EST, today.
Black coal 45%
Brown coal 25%
Gas 7%
Hydro 4%
Solar 18%… it is midday and will be zero within 4 hours.
Wind 4%.
It has been like this for weeks now.
So… despite the hundreds of millions spent, the land cleared so far, world record rooftop solar in place, exactly how much more renewables need to be constructed, before we can get rid of coal? Note: much of the “ low hanging fruit” of easy relatively affordable and accessible wind sites are already taken.

What perspective is that? Queensland or national grid stats?

Its National. States cant be taken in isolation. They all rely on exporting/ importing power to each other, depending on regional weather conditions Furthermore- the more renewable generation that comes on line in Qld, and the more coal Queensland shuts down, will create an issue for NSW which is struggling with thier own transition, which then cascades to Victoria. Added to this, what the wind drought of the last three weeks has demonstrated is that calm conditions can exist over most of the continent, for days even weeks at a time. Doubling or even tripling the amount of wind turbines will not help in these conditions,- they are all experiencing the same calm, and from 4pm at this time of year- solar is effectively zero. Over to storage.... we dont have the technology to store days of shortfall in generation, no matter how many batteries are installed. All of this, before we get serious about fully electrifying every home, and vehicle- and switch everything to Ai and increase our population by another 10 million.

They cant tell us (politicians that is) how many tens of billions more are needed for renewables, because they don't know.
They're too scared to even contemplate it publicly, because they know more and more people are now seeing that the transition is correlating to higher and higher electricity bills.

When you strip away the bs rhetoric much of which is regurgitated in this thread, it's all just one big shit show and we're in the middle of it.