Renewable energy
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
- Status
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Remember Jarvis Bay? Yes it has been looked at and even in the Menzies era.
But your right no will.
Greens are against all nuclear ( and most everything but highly subsided alternatives) and have worked all over the world to prevent it so I don't think its a misdirection.
The subsidies provided to the extraction and fossil fuel industries through tax concessions dwarf any subsidies given to renewables.
Tex
Greg Davis (50)
The company that operates Victoria's Hazelwood coal mine will charge homes with solar arrays a flat $0.14 per day to cover their reduced reliance on infrastructure.
https://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/7/15/solar-energy/solar-users-ripped-gdf-suez-tax
https://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/7/15/solar-energy/solar-users-ripped-gdf-suez-tax
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Green energy is the way forward, says economist Adrian Blundell-Wignall
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/green-energy-is-the-way-forward-says-economist-adrian-blundellwignall-20140722-zvlog.html#ixzz38AUe1dko
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/green-energy-is-the-way-forward-says-economist-adrian-blundellwignall-20140722-zvlog.html#ixzz38AUe1dko
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Why then start a new subsided industry that is unable to provide base load power. It is economically crazy.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Renewable energy: NSW to be 'Australia's answer to California'
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-nsw-to-be-australias-answer-to-california-20140722-zvl60.html#ixzz38CDGcsmw
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-nsw-to-be-australias-answer-to-california-20140722-zvl60.html#ixzz38CDGcsmw
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Behind a pay wall so sorry for the whole article.
The cost and effectiveness of zero-carbon power
30 Jul 2014
Electricity demand varies during the day in ways that the supply from wind and solar generation may not match.
Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought. Subsidies for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the hope that they will one day undercut fossil fuels and drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. The idea seems to be working. Photovoltaic panels have halved in price since 2008 and the capital cost of a solar-power plant – of which panels account for slightly under half – fell by 22 per cent in 2010-13. In a few sunny places, solar power is providing electricity to the grid as cheaply as conventional coal or gas-fired power plants.
But whereas the cost of a solar panel is easy to calculate, the cost of electricity is harder to assess. It depends not only on the fuel used, but also on the cost of capital (power plants take years to build and last for decades), how much of the time a plant operates, and whether it generates power at times of peak demand. To take account of all this, economists use “levelised costs” – the net present value of all costs (capital and operating) of a generating unit over its life cycle, divided by the number of megawatt-hours of electricity it is expected to supply.
The trouble, as Paul Joskow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out, is that levelised costs do not take account of the costs of intermittency. Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby – but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables.
Electricity demand also varies during the day in ways that the supply from wind and solar generation may not match, so even if renewable forms of energy have the same levelised cost as conventional ones, the value of the power they produce may be lower. In short, levelised costs are poor at comparing different forms of power generation.
To get around that problem, Charles Frank of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, uses a cost-benefit analysis to rank various forms of energy. The costs include building and running power plants, and those associated with particular technologies, such as balancing the electricity system when wind or solar plants go offline or disposing of spent nuclear-fuel rods. The benefits of renewable energy include the value of the fuel that would have been used if coal- or gas-fired plants had produced the same amount of electricity and the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions that they avoid. It makes wind and solar power look far more expensive than they appear on the basis of levelised costs.
Comparing zero-carbon with conventional
Mr Frank took four sorts of zero-carbon energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear), plus a low-carbon sort (an especially efficient type of gas-burning plant), and compared them with various sorts of conventional power. Obviously, low- and no-carbon power plants do not avoid emissions when they are not working, though they do incur some costs. So nuclear-power plants, which run at about 90 per cent of capacity, avoid almost four times as much CO2 per unit of capacity as do wind turbines, which run at about 25 per cent; they avoid six times as much as solar arrays do. If you assume a carbon price of $US50 ($53) a tonne – way over most actual prices – nuclear energy avoids over $US400,000-worth of carbon emissions per megawatt of capacity, compared with only $US69,500 for solar and $US107,000 for wind.
Nuclear power plants, however, are vastly expensive. A new plant at Hinkley Point, in south-west England, for example, is likely to cost at least $US27 billion. They are also uninsurable commercially. Yet the fact that they run around the clock makes them only 75 per cent more expensive to build and run per MW of capacity than a solar-power plant, Mr Frank reckons.
To determine the overall cost or benefit, though, the cost of the fossil-fuel plants that have to be kept hanging around for the times when solar and wind plants stand idle must also be factored in. Mr Frank calls these “avoided capacity costs” – costs that would not have been incurred had the green-energy plants not been built. Thus a 1MW wind farm running at about 25 per cent of capacity can replace only about 0.23MW of a coal plant running at 90 per cent of capacity. Solar farms run at only about 15 per cent of capacity, so they can replace even less. Seven solar plants or four wind farms would be needed to produce the same amount of electricity over time as a similar-sized coal-fired plant. And all that extra solar and wind capacity is expensive.
If all the costs and benefits are totted up using Mr Frank’s calculation, solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $US189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive. Hydropower provides a modest net benefit. But the most cost-effective zero-emission technology is nuclear power. The pattern is similar if 1MW of gas-fired capacity is displaced instead of coal. And all this assumes a carbon price of $US50 a tonne. Using actual carbon prices (below $US10 in Europe) makes solar and wind look even worse. The carbon price would have to rise to $185 a tonne before solar power shows a net benefit.
There are, of course, all sorts of reasons to choose one form of energy over another, including emissions of pollutants other than CO2 and fear of nuclear accidents. Mr Frank does not look at these. Still, his findings have profound policy implications. At the moment, most rich countries and China subsidise solar and wind power to help stem climate change. Yet this is the most expensive way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Meanwhile Germany and Japan, among others, are mothballing nuclear plants, which (in terms of carbon abatement) are cheaper. The implication of Mr Frank’s research is clear: governments should target emissions reductions from any source rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy.
The Economist
The Australian Financial Review
The cost and effectiveness of zero-carbon power
30 Jul 2014
Electricity demand varies during the day in ways that the supply from wind and solar generation may not match.
Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought. Subsidies for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the hope that they will one day undercut fossil fuels and drastically reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere. The idea seems to be working. Photovoltaic panels have halved in price since 2008 and the capital cost of a solar-power plant – of which panels account for slightly under half – fell by 22 per cent in 2010-13. In a few sunny places, solar power is providing electricity to the grid as cheaply as conventional coal or gas-fired power plants.
But whereas the cost of a solar panel is easy to calculate, the cost of electricity is harder to assess. It depends not only on the fuel used, but also on the cost of capital (power plants take years to build and last for decades), how much of the time a plant operates, and whether it generates power at times of peak demand. To take account of all this, economists use “levelised costs” – the net present value of all costs (capital and operating) of a generating unit over its life cycle, divided by the number of megawatt-hours of electricity it is expected to supply.
The trouble, as Paul Joskow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has pointed out, is that levelised costs do not take account of the costs of intermittency. Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby – but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables.
Electricity demand also varies during the day in ways that the supply from wind and solar generation may not match, so even if renewable forms of energy have the same levelised cost as conventional ones, the value of the power they produce may be lower. In short, levelised costs are poor at comparing different forms of power generation.
To get around that problem, Charles Frank of the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, uses a cost-benefit analysis to rank various forms of energy. The costs include building and running power plants, and those associated with particular technologies, such as balancing the electricity system when wind or solar plants go offline or disposing of spent nuclear-fuel rods. The benefits of renewable energy include the value of the fuel that would have been used if coal- or gas-fired plants had produced the same amount of electricity and the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions that they avoid. It makes wind and solar power look far more expensive than they appear on the basis of levelised costs.
Comparing zero-carbon with conventional
Mr Frank took four sorts of zero-carbon energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear), plus a low-carbon sort (an especially efficient type of gas-burning plant), and compared them with various sorts of conventional power. Obviously, low- and no-carbon power plants do not avoid emissions when they are not working, though they do incur some costs. So nuclear-power plants, which run at about 90 per cent of capacity, avoid almost four times as much CO2 per unit of capacity as do wind turbines, which run at about 25 per cent; they avoid six times as much as solar arrays do. If you assume a carbon price of $US50 ($53) a tonne – way over most actual prices – nuclear energy avoids over $US400,000-worth of carbon emissions per megawatt of capacity, compared with only $US69,500 for solar and $US107,000 for wind.
Nuclear power plants, however, are vastly expensive. A new plant at Hinkley Point, in south-west England, for example, is likely to cost at least $US27 billion. They are also uninsurable commercially. Yet the fact that they run around the clock makes them only 75 per cent more expensive to build and run per MW of capacity than a solar-power plant, Mr Frank reckons.
To determine the overall cost or benefit, though, the cost of the fossil-fuel plants that have to be kept hanging around for the times when solar and wind plants stand idle must also be factored in. Mr Frank calls these “avoided capacity costs” – costs that would not have been incurred had the green-energy plants not been built. Thus a 1MW wind farm running at about 25 per cent of capacity can replace only about 0.23MW of a coal plant running at 90 per cent of capacity. Solar farms run at only about 15 per cent of capacity, so they can replace even less. Seven solar plants or four wind farms would be needed to produce the same amount of electricity over time as a similar-sized coal-fired plant. And all that extra solar and wind capacity is expensive.
If all the costs and benefits are totted up using Mr Frank’s calculation, solar power is by far the most expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. It costs $US189,000 to replace 1MW per year of power from coal. Wind is the next most expensive. Hydropower provides a modest net benefit. But the most cost-effective zero-emission technology is nuclear power. The pattern is similar if 1MW of gas-fired capacity is displaced instead of coal. And all this assumes a carbon price of $US50 a tonne. Using actual carbon prices (below $US10 in Europe) makes solar and wind look even worse. The carbon price would have to rise to $185 a tonne before solar power shows a net benefit.
There are, of course, all sorts of reasons to choose one form of energy over another, including emissions of pollutants other than CO2 and fear of nuclear accidents. Mr Frank does not look at these. Still, his findings have profound policy implications. At the moment, most rich countries and China subsidise solar and wind power to help stem climate change. Yet this is the most expensive way of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Meanwhile Germany and Japan, among others, are mothballing nuclear plants, which (in terms of carbon abatement) are cheaper. The implication of Mr Frank’s research is clear: governments should target emissions reductions from any source rather than focus on boosting certain kinds of renewable energy.
The Economist
The Australian Financial Review
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
How the renewable energy target affects the cost of living
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-the-renewable-energy-target-affects-the-cost-of-living-20140805-100izx.html#ixzz39ZbWylD6
"The preliminary report found that, between 2015 and 2020, the target would increase the average household electricity bill by $54 a year – a tad over $1 a week. This five-year average, however, conceals the estimation that the cost of the scheme will fall as each year passes.
So by the year 2020 itself, the increase will have reduced to just $7 a year. By the end of another 10 years, in 2030, the scheme is estimated to be actually reducing average household electricity bills by $91 a year, or $1.75 a week."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/how-the-renewable-energy-target-affects-the-cost-of-living-20140805-100izx.html#ixzz39ZbWylD6
"The preliminary report found that, between 2015 and 2020, the target would increase the average household electricity bill by $54 a year – a tad over $1 a week. This five-year average, however, conceals the estimation that the cost of the scheme will fall as each year passes.
So by the year 2020 itself, the increase will have reduced to just $7 a year. By the end of another 10 years, in 2030, the scheme is estimated to be actually reducing average household electricity bills by $91 a year, or $1.75 a week."
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
What a ridiculous statement.
Aiui no power station in Australia is located in suburbia, so why would a solar-power station need to be built there?
The idea that demolition of suburbs would be required is a scare tactic.
Solar works well in small scale because it can go on rooftops etc.
Comparing how solar is likely to be predominantly deployed to a coal fired station is just silly.
Comparing how solar is likely to be predominantly deployed to a coal fired station is just silly.
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Forget how the power is generated, the revolution in the next 30 years is going to be at what time it is used, followed by how it is stored in the long term.
Currently the utility power suppliers offer a discounted electricity rate if you use power throughout the night. Due to base load oversupply at night time, if you run the pool pump and washing machine you are saving money compared to running through the day.
With the rooftop solar revolution, the oversupply is moving to the day time and we should be reducing the amount of base load we have. Appliances should be run throughout the day and electronic devices charged throughout the day.
I believe that we should stop producing energy to satiate the wanton desires of the modern first world society. Electricity costs should be reasonable, up to a point. Like water bills, once your using more than the average household you start paying a premium for the excess usage, not a flat kWh unit rate. If you want to live in a McMansion, run 3 plasma TV's, two fridges, two freezers and 100 halogen down lights, outside feature lighting, etc, etc why should the people taking steps to reduce their energy consumption subsidise the reckless waste of energy by others.
It is seriously easy to reduce your energy consumption if you really want to.
In the long term, storage costs will drop and we will likely be able to use power as we want again when coupled with an ability to generate it carbon free. But people forget too quickly the realities that our grandparents lived with. Energy was a luxury and just because we are clever enough to access it in sufficient quantities in this era, doesn't mean we are clever enough to use it wisely.
Currently the utility power suppliers offer a discounted electricity rate if you use power throughout the night. Due to base load oversupply at night time, if you run the pool pump and washing machine you are saving money compared to running through the day.
With the rooftop solar revolution, the oversupply is moving to the day time and we should be reducing the amount of base load we have. Appliances should be run throughout the day and electronic devices charged throughout the day.
I believe that we should stop producing energy to satiate the wanton desires of the modern first world society. Electricity costs should be reasonable, up to a point. Like water bills, once your using more than the average household you start paying a premium for the excess usage, not a flat kWh unit rate. If you want to live in a McMansion, run 3 plasma TV's, two fridges, two freezers and 100 halogen down lights, outside feature lighting, etc, etc why should the people taking steps to reduce their energy consumption subsidise the reckless waste of energy by others.
It is seriously easy to reduce your energy consumption if you really want to.
In the long term, storage costs will drop and we will likely be able to use power as we want again when coupled with an ability to generate it carbon free. But people forget too quickly the realities that our grandparents lived with. Energy was a luxury and just because we are clever enough to access it in sufficient quantities in this era, doesn't mean we are clever enough to use it wisely.
This is quite interesting.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-of-the-day-why-experts-get-it-wrong-on-wind-and-solar-58816
It tracks the actual solar and wind electricity generation relative to predictions by both Greenpeace in 2001 and 1999 respectively and the IEA in 2000 and 2002.
The contrast is stark. Even Greenpeace who most would have considered were completely over the top with their predictions back in '99 and '01 failed to predict the growth in these areas. The IEA were so far off the mark it's not funny.
It should be a good lesson that the growth in these emerging areas can outstrip even the most bullish predictions.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-of-the-day-why-experts-get-it-wrong-on-wind-and-solar-58816
It tracks the actual solar and wind electricity generation relative to predictions by both Greenpeace in 2001 and 1999 respectively and the IEA in 2000 and 2002.
The contrast is stark. Even Greenpeace who most would have considered were completely over the top with their predictions back in '99 and '01 failed to predict the growth in these areas. The IEA were so far off the mark it's not funny.
It should be a good lesson that the growth in these emerging areas can outstrip even the most bullish predictions.
- Status