I do see a valid role for solar thermal certainly, but in the Australian context 13 or 11 cents per kWh is far too expensive to be viable at present. It's comparable to nuclear costs, but more expensive than coal or gas.I know it's really hard to click a link, so I'll click it for you guys. Ooooh that was hard, you're right!
What?! What's this???!!
"solar thermal power plants can do so for around 13 cents per kilowatt hour, according to the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. This is only marginally more expensive than the average U.S. price for coal-generated electricity in 2008 of 11 cents per kilowatt hour".
I suspect you are right there.What I'm getting at it this: the "cost" must be calculated using different formulas.
If a plane crashes at Hobart airport tonight then it might kill 100 or 200 people on the plane. There will be no ongoing effects
Radiation in Tokyo water supply is twice the safe levels for babies (oh I better quote my source in case I get asked - ABC news, 24 Mar 2011). I guess some of the babies just get cancer later on eh? Oh well. No worries. Let's try thorium instead!! Yayy! Anything but renewable, safe environmentally sound energy sources.
I don't follow. If you extend the expected life of anything capital investment out to infinity, the initial outlay is always irrelevant. But the things do not last forever, coal station, nuke station, or fancy RE station. I also don't see how you came to the conclusion that if you factor in labor costs of RE vs coal 'they are pretty clear winners'. No they are not. The labour required to build them must be factored in if the debate is 'which energy source is more efficient as a whole'.It's the financial system that is stopping alternative energy, not the technologies per se. We can already generate electricity with less labour than is required for black coal or gas, but the financial system rewards a reduction in up front cost rather than a reduction in total labour inputs.
sorry but if singapore is NOT the central planning at his best, tell me why; I wish we had more central planning when stuck in traffic jam in Brisbane, believe me...This is not a black and white case, and this applies to alternative vs coal; remember the billions of subsidies going to mining here (fuel excise, etc); this might explain the US vs aus cost differences.......You are talking about central planning - when the government takes peoples money and invests it for them, without concern for profit. This is proven to result in economic hell (USSR, NKorea, GDR, East Europe, China vs Hong Kong/Singapore/Macau/Taiwan etc etc), since finite resources require a profit motive to be efficiently allocated where they are needed the most.
Central planning is the economic system where ownership of property is centralized in the hands of the state, which then controls the allocation of resources. You are perhaps confusing this with 'planning a city'. Singapore is highly free market. And yes, I f*cking HATE traffic jams.sorry but if singapore is NOT the central planning at his best, tell me why; I wish we had more central planning when stuck in traffic jam in Brisbane, believe me...This is not a black and white case, and this applies to alternative vs coal; remember the billions of subsidies going to mining here (fuel excise, etc); this might explain the US vs aus cost differences.......
Fukushima has cast a pall over the industry, just as new designs are showing promise of making reactors far safer. Will fear bring progress to a halt””or stimulate demand for smarter solutions?
Agreed that coal is cheaper, but only because of the desire for immediate return and profit (reflected as interest on loans etc).I don't follow. If you extend the expected life of anything capital investment out to infinity, the initial outlay is always irrelevant. But the things do not last forever, coal station, nuke station, or fancy RE station. I also don't see how you came to the conclusion that if you factor in labor costs of RE vs coal 'they are pretty clear winners'. No they are not. The labour required to build them must be factored in if the debate is 'which energy source is more efficient as a whole'.
If the costs of building and operating RE stations vs power output was lower than coal stations, we would have few coal stations. We have many coal stations. Hence, coal is cheaper.
Regarding the desire for immediate return and profit, this is the only workable system.
The time value of money is important. You seem to think it is some kind of trite inconvenience that needs to be circumvented. There is a reason why interest rates exist - because humans have finite lives. An asset now is worth more than an asset in the future because of this.Agreed that coal is cheaper, but only because of the desire for immediate return and profit (reflected as interest on loans etc).
Here's an example. Spend 30,000 man years of labour and get power for 90 years with virtually no ongoing input. Or spend 1,000 years of labour each and every year, a grand total of 90,000 man years of labour to produce the same power. They are the actual figures for a particular hydro scheme versus gas / coal.
In practice we do the latter, we use 90,000 man years of labour, only because the alternative option involves spending virtually the whole lot up front and "interest" then becomes a real killer.
We are not using the lowest labour input sources of energy today. We are using those which are "cheapest" once the interest is factored in. One fundamental characteristic of virtually all non-fossil fuel energy systems is that they have huge up front costs and very low ongoing costs. Take out the interest and they are already a clear winner in terms of labour hours worked etc.
This is the reason why, in the Australian context, Tas and Vic historically dominated the cheap power game. They built capital-intensive hydro and brown coal power schemes which cost basically nothing to run once built. It's no secret that Hydro Tas has ongoing costs around 0.2 cents per kWh generated and that it's even lower for some of the big brown coal stations in Vic. That contrasts with the roughly 4c value of bulk wholesale electricity, and the more than 20c you are paying at home.
Give me 0% financing and I'll give you renewable energy no worries. Charge me 20% on the loans and even coal becomes an outright dud and we're better off burning expensive gas or even diesel.
If the electricity industry in this country was starting from scratch then there would be no brown coal used in Vic and very little hydro in Tas since neither are viable under present accounting arrangements. Instead, we'd have far less heavy industry in both those states, and what power they do use would be supplied through transmission lines from NSW and local gas-fired generation.
And we'd never have built the Snowy scheme either under current accounting standards. Nor would we build any other renewable energy scheme. Black coal (which is cheaper to build but requires far higher lifetime labour than brown coal) and gas are all that stacks up under a system which favours high ongoing costs over high upfront costs.
The time value of money is important. You seem to think it is some kind of trite inconvenience that needs to be circumvented. There is a reason why interest rates exist - because humans have finite lives. An asset now is worth more than an asset in the future because of this.
Any theorizing about 'if I could get 0% financing' is purely academic and not practically relevant. 0% financing only exists in a fantasy world where everyone lives forever, and projects can take as long as they want to complete.
Perhaps that is like saying 'wheels don't roll because they are round, they roll because they are circular'. Infinite lives and the lack of requirements to satisfy 'current needs' are part of the same hypothetical situation. In a world where you literally have 'all the time in the world', when actions occur would not be important, and hence discounting would be unnecessary. As I said, given that this is not the case:Time value of money exist not because human have finite lives. It exists because of the utility of money. Money today can be used straight away to satisfy a need. Money tomorrow cannot satisfy today needs. So money today has a higher value than money tomorrow. That difference in value is the interest rate (or the risk free rate anyway).
tothemax said:An asset now is worth more than an asset in the future because of this.
Perhaps that is like saying 'wheels don't roll because they are round, they roll because they are circular'. Infinite lives and the lack of requirements to satisfy 'current needs' are part of the same hypothetical situation. In a world where you literally have 'all the time in the world', when actions occur would not be important, and hence discounting would be unnecessary. As I said, given that this is not the case:
http://www.financeprofessor.com/financenotes/timevalueofmoney.htmThe basic idea of time value of money is that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. This can be shown in many ways, many people find it easiest to understand if they think in terms of something they already know: food. For example having the money today allows you to buy some food immediately. Alternatively you may be willing to forgo current consumption and wait until later to purchase your food. Thus you could lend your "food money" to another with the promise of being paid back at some future time. Since you are passing up food today you would demand a return sufficient to allow you to buy at least as much food in the future that you are giving up now.
A fair point, but try to explain this one (real example that's relevant to the uranium topic).The time value of money is important. You seem to think it is some kind of trite inconvenience that needs to be circumvented. There is a reason why interest rates exist - because humans have finite lives.
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?