It isnt a problem as such in Australia small population, lots of flat land for renawable installations.
That is what seems to be missing in the debate, a sense of scale, in proportion to the world issue we are a micro grid at best in reality we are small commune.Yep - I'm assuming here that the discussion is Australian centric given it's an Australian forum.
As has always been the case, what's best in one place isn't necessarily best in another and that's true even with non-renewable technology. It comes down to what resources are available locally or, if nothing exists locally, can most easily be brought in and that varies hugely with location.
And in term of resources, where the hell would Australia find the nuclear technicians needed for nuclear reactors.... import them from Pakistan?Yep - I'm assuming here that the discussion is Australian centric given it's an Australian forum.
As has always been the case, what's best in one place isn't necessarily best in another and that's true even with non-renewable technology. It comes down to what resources are available locally or, if nothing exists locally, can most easily be brought in and that varies hugely with location.
It hasn't been "self resolving" for the past decade where Europe, China and even the USA have the jump on us.The only premise to all that is, you have enough energy to move around, that is the whole issue.
It isnt a problem as such in Australia small population, lots of flat land for renawable installations.
It all boils back to cherry picking, best case scenario.
As Ive said it will be self resolving.
It is simple really, as smurf has explained coal generation is aging and it won't be replaced by coal, so as you and Bas have so often commented renewables are the cheapest form of generation at the moment, therefore as the government's won't let you sit there in the dark it will be self resolving.It hasn't been "self resolving" for the past decade where Europe, China and even the USA have the jump on us.
And it does not get "self resolving" without a commitment to the necessary infrastructure.
Aside from that, there still remains no national policy that is providing major energy investors with the certainty they need to commit the billions needed to replace aging generators.
Instead we still have a government making inquiries in nuclear and coal.
And that's occurring against Australia being a global leader in gas production and a backdrop of gas prices being ridiculously low.
That's how advanced Australia is!
Maybe you can explain who this "self" is that is resolving our energy issues?
Except that it is not.It is simple really, as smurf has explained coal generation is aging and it won't be replaced by coal, so as you and Bas have so often commented renewables are the cheapest form of generation at the moment, therefore as the government's won't let you sit there in the dark it will be self resolving.
So you needn't keep pedaling your political agenda.
Finally, I don't have a political agenda as this is a simple matter of policy failure in our energy market.
Sorry @macca, I should have realised that the idea of the federal government having a "policy" - any policy - was a joke.Shouldn't this line be in the ASF joke thread ?
Sorry @macca, I should have realised that the idea of the federal government having a "policy" - any policy - was a joke.
I am a humanist.I agree that a firm policy would be an improvement, I really should have trimmed my quote a bit better.
I consider the "joke" to be your statement of " not having a political agenda"
I support the right to free speech and am more than happy to listen to lefties, I am surrounded by them in my family actually but to say you have no political bias when you obviously do, is funny IMO
As I said, if the coal generation is being shut down, it will be replaced by whatever is suitable, or else the generators don't have a business.
If the generators leave a vacuum, then it will be the responsibility of the governments to again get involved in power generation, which IMO would be a good thing.
The one thing for sure you wont be sitting in the dark and if by some chance that did happen, it would bring the whole issue to a head.
So again, as I said, it will be self resolving IMO.
The energy curtailment has been explained over and over on this thread, just because you wish to use it as a vehicle for your political agenda, makes it obviously you are still front and center in the Labor party cheer squad but the veneer is wearing thin.
By the way, you have not at any stage tried to hide your political affiliation, so don't get all shy about it now.
The tendency in so many threads at ASF is to "label" people rather than deal with the substance of issues.
I thought there was a policy announcement, coming up toward the end of the year?7 years of no energy policy (or should I say failed energy policy) by the Conservatives is not a problem ?
Anyone looking objectively at the LNP's record on energy non-policy would conclude that they are pathetic when it comes to forward thinking on this issue, it's only their rusted on supporters that deny there is a problem.
even as we speak there are many saying snowy2 is an absolute waste of taxpayers money
I agree completely, but as you say it makes a statement and in a lot ways lights the way and direction needed.The basic problem with Snowy 2.0 is that it isn't the most rational thing to build right now since in the short term, so long as there's an under-utilised fossil fuel generation backbone, small pumped hydros and batteries could do the job of shifting supply from midday to 6pm more cheaply than Snowy 2.0 can do it.
I'm strongly in favour of it however for reasons of pragmatism. It is needed to be in service about 2029-30 in practice but there's no guarantee at all that whoever's in government in 2023 could be relied on to simply give it the proverbial rubber stamp to proceed. They might start debating, arguing, wasting time and so on. Do that and then in practice we build new fossil fuel generation instead and it'll probably be open cycle gas turbines.
Or in other words, it's being built a bit earlier than it needs to be built but I'm seeing it as a "now or never" thing due to the way politics works. That being so, well the interest on a few $ billion for a few years is just the price we pay for the political process being what it is.
If you look at say 2036 (the date is significant) then clearly Snowy 2.0 is needed as is Battery of the Nation and we need a lot of other storage projects built by then too.I agree completely, but as you say it makes a statement and in a lot ways lights the way and direction needed.
The other point IMO is, I really don't see the Federal Government getting heavily involved in small to medium sized pumped storage and battery storage installations, I would see that as private sector and State Government level.If you look at say 2036 (the date is significant) then clearly Snowy 2.0 is needed as is Battery of the Nation and we need a lot of other storage projects built by then too.
In theory building the cheap ones first, those with limited energy storage relative to peak power, would give an economic advantage but only to the extent that interest rates are high enough to matter which it seems they probably won't be.
The danger in trying to optimise, in getting the sequencing optimal, is ending up with nothing at all........
The whole Eastern States grid is a mess IMO, the State Governments have sold off the bulk of the generators and now want the Federal government to sort the mess out, which usually means the taxpayer.
Problems which require "intervention" cannot be "self resolving." That's a principle of reasoning.As I said, if the coal generation is being shut down, it will be replaced by whatever is suitable, or else the generators don't have a business.
If the generators leave a vacuum, then it will be the responsibility of the governments to again get involved in power generation, which IMO would be a good thing.
The one thing for sure you wont be sitting in the dark and if by some chance that did happen, it would bring the whole issue to a head.
So again, as I said, it will be self resolving IMO.
First, energy curtailment is significantly due to poor policy (a rational market does not shut out the cheapest source of supply) and, secondly, I don't have any association with Labor and typically vote "independent" first or Green if there is there is not a good independent candidate.The energy curtailment has been explained over and over on this thread, just because you wish to use it as a vehicle for your political agenda, makes it obviously you are still front and center in the Labor party cheer squad but the veneer is wearing thin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?