1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Renewable energy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by boyo, May 12, 2014.

  1. wilful Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    117
    I don't make the rules. But if it's the last or only frog population, that's not the same as a few dead birds.

    But this is simply wrong and a myth, as has been proven by basically all the economists time and time again. Even Dick fucking Warburton's RET review couldn't bodgy up the figures enough to say that they were expensive. Wind turbines, as part of the mix, not the entire mix, are cheap and effective. Sure they're more expensive in direct current dollars than coal, but full cost accounting blows that figure out of the water.

    My perfect energy mix for Australia is nuclear 50%, wind 30%, solar thermal 15%, hydro 5%.
  2. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    I think you might find the Europeans have a different view on costs and I think I posted it here awhile back.

    Out of the above, a nice list, only one can provide long term baseload power and our out of date value systems stop us from using it.
  3. wilful Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    117
    Yeah but baseload isn't the be all and end all of a power system. We need it, sure, but it's not all we need. Nuclear is more expensive than wind or solar, that's why I don't have it at 100%.
  4. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    You go on about subsidies, but you conveniently forget about the subsidies to the coal industry and to coal-fired power.

    Queensland has realised that coal royalties gained are less than the cost of the infrastructure provided to the coal industry- hardly an anti-coal state government.
    wilful, Ruggo and Pfitzy like this.
  5. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    The subsidy for coal is cost effective as it provides power on demand for 100% baseload.

    Paying a much higher subsidy to solar, wind etc that can't provide power on demand nor enough for baseload is the major point.

    France has 80% nuclear and meets its green house gas limits easily.
  6. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Australia has 0% nuclear, so your point is irrelevant.
  7. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693
    I once was pro nuclear in my view. Then I learnt more about it began questioning the legacy issue. It is the biggest polluter of all.
  8. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Nuclear energy is non-renewable, therefore doesn't belong in this thread.
  9. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
    Neither is coal, hydro -- will go if you believe Tim Flannery's predictions on rainfall. So the whole blog should just be about solar, thermal and wind.
  10. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693

    Well let's rename the thread sustainable energy and have a mature discussion about it.
    Runner and wilful like this.
  11. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Putting hydroelectric energy in the same group as coal demonstrates the ridiculousness of your argument.
  12. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  13. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693
    That's a good article Boyo. Germany is the classic example of a conservative country being able to adapt with the times.

    We are so stuck on ideology that we are letting good R&D ans subsequent economic investment slip by.

    It is very frustrating.
    boyo likes this.
  14. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
  15. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,693

    I feel a bit sorry for Ian McFarlane. I rate him but it is hard to saw like an Eagle when you are surrounded by Turkey's. I have no idea how he is going to take a good stance on the issue back to cabinet.
  16. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138
  17. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404
    "Solar panels where the sum doesn't shine"? Wtf? What a ridiculous attestation.

    All places have sunshine some of the time.
  18. wilful Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    117
    Yes but that's the most moronic thing of all. The RET will have LOWER prices for consumers over time. What he secretly wants/know is that the people who will do worse out of this are the multinational power companies. Not the consumers. It's the biggest scam. Tony Abbott wants people to pay more money to big businesses (and State owned monopolies), that is exactly what he wants. Scumbag.
  19. Runner Nev Cottrell (35)

    Likes Received:
    138

    Was taken form the article quoted in your above comment
  20. boyo Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    1,404

    One policy analyst said that. It's still a ridiculous attestation.

Share This Page