cobran20

Wind and solar are crushing fossil fuels

122 posts in this topic

On 3/20/2019 at 8:15 PM, staringclown said:

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.

So I ask you the same question I asked Tor - would you agree for all subsidies (monetary or otherwise) to be removed and just base the criteria on cost to the consumer and reliability? If renewable can stand on their own two feet and be the best option, then so be it.

BTW, of what use is the Paris accord when the our main competitors (eg. China) are choosing the reliable and cost effective options, giving Australia a competitive disadvantage?

Share this post


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

So I ask you the same question I asked Tor - would you agree for all subsidies (monetary or otherwise) to be removed and just base the criteria on cost to the consumer and reliability? If renewable can stand on their own two feet and be the best option, then so be it.

BTW, of what use is the Paris accord when the our main competitors (eg. China) are choosing the reliable and cost effective options, giving Australia a competitive disadvantage?

Sure. As I said in my last post the cost for new build power stations is higher for coal. So if market forces are in play then we wouldn't choose coal, regardless of any other considerations. But again it is not that simple. If I owned a carriage maker back at the turn of the century and I knew that automobiles were being developed and I ignored new tech I'd be out of business. Business hasn't changed. Adapt or die. 

I'd turn your argument on its head. If we, who've signed up to Paris can't be arsed sticking to it then what authority do we have to demand change from others? China has massive problems with pollution. They need an alternative. If we grok the technology and solution first, because we have the drivers we can sell it to them. Actually, more likely they'd steal it, but either way it's a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2019 at 9:01 PM, cobran20 said:

...

 

Meme'd up edgelord. Coward, Liar, Dissembler. Lives 5 km from where I am currently.

I have been busy obviously over the past few days, unlike your numerologist and astrologist because weird sh*t happened.

Weird sh*t happened some time after I announced I was moving back to Australia.

Why is it your predictors are never where interesting stuff is happening and I am?

I guess they suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, cobran20 said:

So I ask you the same question I asked Tor - would you agree for all subsidies (monetary or otherwise) to be removed and just base the criteria on cost to the consumer and reliability? If renewable can stand on their own two feet and be the best option, then so be it.

BTW, of what use is the Paris accord when the our main competitors (eg. China) are choosing the reliable and cost effective options, giving Australia a competitive disadvantage?

Meme'd up edgelord. Coward, Liar, Dissembler. Lives 5 km from where I am currently.

Why do fossil fuels get a hundred years of subsidies continuing until this day and anything else gets nothing?

Ahhh because you are a Meme'd up edgelord. Coward, Liar, Dissembler. Lives 5 km from where I am currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, staringclown said:

Sure. As I said in my last post the cost for new build power stations is higher for coal. So if market forces are in play then we wouldn't choose coal, regardless of any other considerations. But again it is not that simple. If I owned a carriage maker back at the turn of the century and I knew that automobiles were being developed and I ignored new tech I'd be out of business. Business hasn't changed. Adapt or die. 

I'd turn your argument on its head. If we, who've signed up to Paris can't be arsed sticking to it then what authority do we have to demand change from others? China has massive problems with pollution. They need an alternative. If we grok the technology and solution first, because we have the drivers we can sell it to them. Actually, more likely they'd steal it, but either way it's a win.

If renewables were a more cost effective & reliable option as you believe, then why hasn't China gone100% with it, rather than bother with coal, especially since it is pollution free (never mind the pollution manufacturing those solar panels make)? It would give them a comparative advantage to countries who don't. I'm sure the chinese would have crunched the numbers before deciding on the source of energy to use.

Share this post


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

Meme'd up edgelord. Coward, Liar, Dissembler. Lives 5 km from where I am currently.

Why do fossil fuels get a hundred years of subsidies continuing until this day and anything else gets nothing?

Ahhh because you are a Meme'd up edgelord. Coward, Liar, Dissembler. Lives 5 km from where I am currently.

I'm getting concerned for the Polish Princess. Is she on the receiving end when you have your manic attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/03/2019 at 8:43 PM, cobran20 said:

If renewables were a more cost effective & reliable option as you believe, then why hasn't China gone100% with it, rather than bother with coal, especially since it is pollution free (never mind the pollution manufacturing those solar panels make)? It would give them a comparative advantage to countries who don't. I'm sure the chinese would have crunched the numbers before deciding on the source of energy to use.

China are the world leader in renewable energy development

They haven't gone 100% for renewables for the same reasons we haven't, because it requires significant re-engineering of the grid.

When sanctions start appearing against countries who have not met their emissions targets the comparative advantage will belong to whom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2019 at 7:24 PM, staringclown said:

China are the world leader in renewable energy development

They haven't gone 100% for renewables for the same reasons we haven't, because it requires significant re-engineering of the grid.

When sanctions start appearing against countries who have not met their emissions targets the comparative advantage will belong to whom?

and who will apply the sanctions? Certainly not the largest world economy, at least not based on emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, staringclown said:

China is a net exporter.  They won't be applying sanctions. Sanctions will be applied against them.

That was my question. Who will apply the sanctions against China (my original statement could have been worded better :-( ). I doubt the current US government will and they're the biggest economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2019 at 9:36 PM, cobran20 said:

That was my question. Who will apply the sanctions against China (my original statement could have been worded better :-( ). I doubt the current US government will and they're the biggest economy.

Not the US at the moment I agree. Not yet anyway. And maybe not for a few years. A change of government is required.

Japan on the other hand seems to be withdrawing support for new thermal coal projects faster than expected.

Japan to oppose new or expanded coal-fired power plants in blow to Australian exports

Quote

Tim Buckley, the director of energy finance studies for the Institute of Economics and Financial Analysis, said the next decade would be critical for those most heavily dependant on thermal coal.

Buckley said the Australian economy, mining communities and workers would be at greater risk if governments failed to understand the changing sentiment of global financial markets, particularly Japan, and ignored the need to implement effective transition strategies.

“We have a decade to prepare, and that’s the decade that is critically important to building the industries of the future,” Buckley said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 7:16 PM, staringclown said:

Not the US at the moment I agree. Not yet anyway. And maybe not for a few years. A change of government is required.

Japan on the other hand seems to be withdrawing support for new thermal coal projects faster than expected.

Japan to oppose new or expanded coal-fired power plants in blow to Australian exports

 

No current shortage of demand:

Global demand on the rise for NSW coal

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/04/2019 at 7:43 PM, cobran20 said:

They homogenised the polar vortex in record time!

Using raw data seems to give a different graph.

So a half page blog with selection of 9 weather stations from the Japanese BOM trumps a major scientific report now. Why not the Canadian BOM? Must have taken him ages to find those cherries to pick!

Turns out Pierre Gosselin the author has a bet on climate change  Pierre seems to have gone quiet on the subject in the last few years after crowing earlier

I had to go here to check the current state of play (very slow loading for some reason but worth the wait)

Short of an asteroid strike he's done his (and his supporters) dough. But it's not too late for you to get in on the action. Get some skin in the game. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, staringclown said:

So a half page blog with selection of 9 weather stations from the Japanese BOM trumps a major scientific report now. Why not the Canadian BOM? Must have taken him ages to find those cherries to pick!

Turns out Pierre Gosselin the author has a bet on climate change  Pierre seems to have gone quiet on the subject in the last few years after crowing earlier

I had to go here to check the current state of play (very slow loading for some reason but worth the wait)

Short of an asteroid strike he's done his (and his supporters) dough. But it's not too late for you to get in on the action. Get some skin in the game. :)

Well Socrates is so far very much on the money (and so is the snake oil salesman). That mild northern winter has rolled into a mild spring

Global Warming Hits London

and the birds agree

Cold weather takes toll on smaller species in UK birdwatch

Edited by cobran20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the winter in the US is officially over, time to recap on that prediction from the Dept of Settled Science...

Winter 2018: What will the US winter be like this year? Shock MAP shows WARM winter ahead

Quote

Americans across the Pacific Northwest, Northern Plains and the Northeast might have to ditch their scarves and winter coats this season.

Weather maps compiled by the US Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) forecast warmer-than-average temperatures between December and February.

Thermometers are most likely to spike further up north in Alaska and down south in the Hawaiian Islands....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After spending a day in Beijing renewables don't seem so bad even if more expensive. I'd hate to live there, but commentary is for the travel thread when I get around to it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mr Medved said:

After spending a day in Beijing renewables don't seem so bad even if more expensive. I'd hate to live there, but commentary is for the travel thread when I get around to it. :)

Sure. But that is also related to China's 'high standard' of environmental standards. I don't think using the latest technological standards is of high priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A year old article, but most likely still relevant

Are solar and wind finally cheaper than fossil fuels? Not a chance

Quote

...After the German government decided to reduce subsidies to the solar industry in 2012, the industry nose-dived. By this year, virtually every major German solar producer had gone under as new capacity declined by 90 per cent and new investment by 92 per cent. Some 80,000 workers — 70 per cent of the solar workforce — lost their jobs. Solar power’s market share is shrinking and solar panels, having outlived their usefulness, are being retired without being replaced.

Wind power faces a similar fate. Germany has some 29,000 wind turbines, almost all of which have been benefiting from a 20-year subsidy program that began in 2000. Starting in 2020, when subsidies run out for some 5,700 wind turbines, thousands of them each year will lose government support, making the continued operation of most of them uneconomic based on current market prices. To make matters worse, with many of the turbines failing and becoming uneconomic to maintain, they represent an environmental liability and pose the possibility of abandonment. No funds have been set aside to dispose of the blades, which are unrecyclable, or to remove the turbines’ 3,000-tonne reinforced concrete bases, which reach depths of 20 metres, making them a hazard to the aquifers they pierce....

 

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