cobran20

Wind and solar are crushing fossil fuels

129 posts in this topic

This would have made good sense and Australia is in a prime position:

link

Quote

... you need gas to offset renewables until the cost of storage catches down enough to stabilise intermittent renewables. Otherwise prices skyrocket and you end up what we have: energy wars that trigger more support for “fair dinkum” coal....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never really understood why Australia didn't leverage it's gas reserves. I guess selling ore was already established and easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tor said:

Never really understood why Australia didn't leverage it's gas reserves.

That sadly requires common sense. Labor is all 'green' irrespective of the cost & consequences and the other side is all coal to protect vested interests.

That's why elections should be publicly funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, zaph said:

Lake batteries will solve the problem. We just need more dams and they're not pretty for politics. 

It will come to a head at some stage. Unless they solve the problem of reliability and cost with renewables, blackouts and crippling electricity costs will not be palatable at election time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already agreed the crippling costs were incompetent government types  and greedy corporations.

How do you tie that to engineering problems or reliability (which the rest of the world is seemingly dealing with and aren't exactly new problems, we had blackouts in australia before 2000 if I remember correctly)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tor said:

You already agreed the crippling costs were incompetent government types  and greedy corporations.

How do you tie that to engineering problems or reliability (which the rest of the world is seemingly dealing with and aren't exactly new problems, we had blackouts in australia before 2000 if I remember correctly)?

 

There were blackouts in the 1970's as they did not have enough power for the population. This is different as the underlying technology is unreliable by nature. Perhaps we need more cows farting in front of the windmills to ensure constant power for when the sun doesn't shine or there is no natural wind around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So engineering solved the 70's problems which were caused by sticking with the tech from the decades before...

And you want to stick with the tech from the decades before now....

Sounds like a winner to me buddy. You Stick To Your Guns!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tor said:

So engineering solved the 70's problems which were caused by sticking with the tech from the decades before...

And you want to stick with the tech from the decades before now....

Sounds like a winner to me buddy. You Stick To Your Guns!

I stick to what is proven to work and be cost effective. That's how society tends to progress until a better technology comes along that can stand its own ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell are you talking about?

"We do the same old stuff and don't try new stuff until the new stuff is completely ready"

You just make sh*t up when you want to feel safe right?

Nah I'm Kidding, You're A Great Role Model!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an example of how far past "oh those new technologies are scary".

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-coal-collapse-renewables-rise-da01ec7e6c45/

The best example of "I can't achieve sh*t" is actually unable to save coal as he promised because no one with money to invest cares about ideology. They care about profit.

Hey Cobran, Skin in the game? Still got none right? Don't worry when you get money you'll just lie here and invest wisely I am sure.

ahahahaha

I'm Kidding. I Am Sure You Are Doing Awesome. Probably Don't Want To Scare Us With Your Awesome Returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tor said:

Just as an example of how far past "oh those new technologies are scary".

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-coal-collapse-renewables-rise-da01ec7e6c45/

The best example of "I can't achieve sh*t" is actually unable to save coal as he promised because no one with money to invest cares about ideology. They care about profit.

Hey Cobran, Skin in the game? Still got none right? Don't worry when you get money you'll just lie here and invest wisely I am sure.

ahahahaha

I'm Kidding. I Am Sure You Are Doing Awesome. Probably Don't Want To Scare Us With Your Awesome Returns.

I asked you if you would support an free competition for any energy source to stand on its own merit, without any government subsidy. Only requirement is reliability.

I'm totally open to such concept as I'm agnostic to the matter and happy to let the market place decide, based on cost & reliability.

As I recalled, you declined. Why was that if you so believe that renewables would win?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you are a useless fool that doesn't know how to measure a damn thing. You want straw man arguments and simplistic answers to everything because you lack the skills you bemoan. When you are wrong, almost invariably, you run off into your f*cked up little world of words Krudd, Sheeple etc

Is energy complex? Yes.

Is technology getting better in almost every arena? Yes

Is almost all progress subsidised? Yes

Your bizarre libertarian fantasies aside government is a fairly good thing in general and less wasteful than everyone going it alone. All the things you complain about in society are the things which got us to where we are and will take us further.

If you had any courage you would stop your pointless bitching and move to a place which meets what you want.

You won't because you are a liar and a coward.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tor said:

Because you are a useless fool that doesn't know how to measure a damn thing. You want straw man arguments and simplistic answers to everything because you lack the skills you bemoan. When you are wrong, almost invariably, you run off into your f*cked up little world of words Krudd, Sheeple etc

Is energy complex? Yes.

Is technology getting better in almost every arena? Yes

Is almost all progress subsidised? Yes

Your bizarre libertarian fantasies aside government is a fairly good thing in general and less wasteful than everyone going it alone. All the things you complain about in society are the things which got us to where we are and will take us further.

If you had any courage you would stop your pointless bitching and move to a place which meets what you want.

You won't because you are a liar and a coward.

When the steam & internal combustion engines were introduced, what government subsidies were introduced?

Why should the public settle for technology that is still immature and unreliable because of a political doctrine? Why not at least put it to a vote.

Do get help and fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

When the steam & internal combustion engines were introduced, what government subsidies were introduced?

Why should the public settle for technology that is still immature and unreliable because of a political doctrine? Why not at least put it to a vote.

Do get help and fast.

Quote

Authorized by the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 and heavily backed by the federal government, the first transcontinental railroad was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line and was one of the crowning achievements of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, completed four years after his death. The building of the railroad required enormous feats of engineering and labor in the crossing of plains and high mountains by the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Central Pacific Railroad, the two federally chartered enterprises that built the line westward and eastward respectively.[12] The building of the railroad was motivated in part to bind the Union together during the strife of the American Civil War. It substantially accelerated the populating of the West by white homesteaders, leading to rapid cultivation of new farm lands. The Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific Railroad combined operations in 1870 and formally merged in 1885; the Union Pacific originally bought the Southern Pacific in 1901 and was forced to divest it in 1913, but took it over again in 1996.

FactCheck: do other countries subsidise their car industry more than we do?

Who builds the roads? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 8:45 AM, cobran20 said:

When the steam & internal combustion engines were introduced, what government subsidies were introduced?

Why should the public settle for technology that is still immature and unreliable because of a political doctrine? Why not at least put it to a vote.

You're f*cking kidding right? Do you know anything about the great engineers of that period? Like this really is so far out of your depth that even Flashman would laugh at you.

Railways were a hilariously amusing series of f*ckups based on stock market booms and burns, several of the engineers (including Robert) were obviously engineers with a speciality in another field (Robert was a canal guy, Go Manchester!! beats f*cking venice for miles of canal) and all the politicians burned serious quantities of public cash getting it sorted out.

I can't even remember when the UK finally sort of sorted out the gauge issue.

I forget which award Brunel got.

You obviously know nothing about engineering history or the fact that current day coal is subsidised.

Actually you do! We have discussed this before and you always run away from it.

So what is your skin in the game again? Ego on an Alt Right board that praises muslim murders? Pretty sure that is where you are hanging out currently.

Go Go Go you meme'd up f*cking edgelord hanging out with murders and the cowards for your bruised old guy ego.

do they tell you that you are perceptive? Is that what makes you feel good? Pretty sure that is what it is gonna be.

Except you can't use a search engine so I am guessing you maybe sit at the feet of the even more awesomely powerful that are carefully not encouraging murder.

You're a c**t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, tor said:

You're f*cking kidding right? Do you know anything about the great engineers of that period? Like this really is so far out of your depth that even Flashman would laugh at you.

Railways were a hilariously amusing series of f*ckups based on stock market booms and burns, several of the engineers (including Robert) were obviously engineers with a speciality in another field (Robert was a canal guy, Go Manchester!! beats f*cking venice for miles of canal) and all the politicians burned serious quantities of public cash getting it sorted out.

I can't even remember when the UK finally sort of sorted out the gauge issue.

I forget which award Brunel got.

You obviously know nothing about engineering history or the fact that current day coal is subsidised.

Actually you do! We have discussed this before and you always run away from it.

So what is your skin in the game again? Ego on an Alt Right board that praises muslim murders? Pretty sure that is where you are hanging out currently.

Go Go Go you meme'd up f*cking edgelord hanging out with murders and the cowards for your bruised old guy ego.

do they tell you that you are perceptive? Is that what makes you feel good? Pretty sure that is what it is gonna be.

Except you can't use a search engine so I am guessing you maybe sit at the feet of the even more awesomely powerful that are carefully not encouraging murder.

You're a c**t.

I only answer your post, for the time being at least, is to highlight the state of your delusions. If you knew your history about steam engines, it was commercialised long before the steam locomotive. Did governments introduce barriers against any alternatives from competing against the steam engine, like they do now against fossil fuel based options?

 

1330838153_straightjacket1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, cobran20 said:

I only answer your post, for the time being at least, is to highlight the state of your delusions. If you knew your history about steam engines, it was commercialised long before the steam locomotive. Did governments introduce barriers against any alternatives from competing against the steam engine, like they do now against fossil fuel based options?

 

1330838153_straightjacket1.jpg

No they didn't introduce barriers to alternatives because the British gave James Watt a monopoly by act of parliament on steam power in 1775.

To what alternatives do you refer?

"An Act for vesting in James Watt, Engineer...the sole Use and Property of certain Steam Engines...of his Invention... throughout his Majesty's Dominions for a limited time"
  • Title: "An Act for vesting in James Watt, Engineer...the sole Use and Property of certain Steam Engines...of his Invention...throughout his Majesty's Dominions for a limited time"
  •  
  •  
  • Date : 1775

  • Catalogue number : Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/PU/1/1775/15G3n83

  • Description : 

    The first steam engine had been invented as early as 1698, by the English engineer Thomas Savery, and was developed and improved in the early 18th century by Thomas Newcomen.  These engines were not very efficient and were only used in mines.  It was not until James Watt and Matthew Boulton developed a vastly improved version by 1778 that the steam engine could be put to a wider variety of uses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 9:50 PM, staringclown said:

No they didn't introduce barriers to alternatives because the British gave James Watt a monopoly by act of parliament on steam power in 1775.

To what alternatives do you refer?

"An Act for vesting in James Watt, Engineer...the sole Use and Property of certain Steam Engines...of his Invention... throughout his Majesty's Dominions for a limited time"
  • Title: "An Act for vesting in James Watt, Engineer...the sole Use and Property of certain Steam Engines...of his Invention...throughout his Majesty's Dominions for a limited time"
  •  
  •  
  • Date : 1775

  • Catalogue number : Parliamentary Archives, HL/PO/PU/1/1775/15G3n83

  • Description : 

    The first steam engine had been invented as early as 1698, by the English engineer Thomas Savery, and was developed and improved in the early 18th century by Thomas Newcomen.  These engines were not very efficient and were only used in mines.  It was not until James Watt and Matthew Boulton developed a vastly improved version by 1778 that the steam engine could be put to a wider variety of uses.

 

Watt took out a patent for his improved version, which gave him monopolistic power on the use of the steam engine. But there was no a barrier to any other technology competing against it. It was like giving one company monopolistic power on the use of solar panels, whilst wind, fossils, etc could compete against it.

With renewables, the government has actively suppressed the use of fossil fuels via methods such as carbon taxes or explicit request an energy mix that requires renewables.

Furthermore, the Watts' steam engine effectively had no competition as it was vastly superior in terms of value for money. With renewables, you can ask the people of Melbourne and Adelaide how much they enjoyed the blackouts and higher costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah nah. If there wasn't a risk of stranded assets leaving the taxpayer on the hook, fossil fuels might be competitive. You are right to say that existing fossil fuels without any carbon price are competitive however the evidence supports the contention that new build coal plants versus renewables are not competitive.

If we are letting market forces determine energy policy then let it roll. Negative externalities are always a part of business risk. CO2 emissions are a negative externality. We have signed up to the Paris agreement so how does the legislative risk look? Pretty high. That's why banks aren't lending for new coal projects. That's why the RBA have warned that CC is being factored into their models. That's why insurance companies have been factoring CC into their models and ceasing to insure high risk properties. All of these people have skin in the game too.

Government policy is often used to influence behaviour. Smoking is discouraged using higher taxes. 

There are engineering problems that need to be solved to store energy for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow after a 40% renewable generation figure. The existing infrastructure can cope up until that point. It doesn't matter if you agree with the facts - they exist anyway. They don't require your belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now