T1 Terry wrote:

---

Knight wrote:

---

T1 Terry wrote:

---

:lol: not bad, back it up with a quote from your own website :lol:

---

 Terry, it's not my website.

But if it was, so what? You must feel intimidated, and maybe considering all of the flip flops you should be, just one being you demanding that I show evidence of SA gas generators, you claimed there re none, and I did.

Interesting all those recharging points, the mud map is revealing, that so many so close to one another are considered necessary for EV country travel. That is if a driver has the time to spare for so many recharges. And how about that SA battery capacity that earlier you suggested was exportable energy?

-- Edited by Knight on Thursday 10th of October 2019 08:46:12 PM

-- Edited by Knight on Thursday 10th of October 2019 08:47:06 PM

---

 I believe you were telling us that your diesel powered MUX did big kms to a tank full, so why are there so many service station all selling diesel, even in the same town? Think you might have been grasping at straws on that one :lol:

As far as the gas turbines, your claim was they were used to back up the SA grid "when the sun didn't shine and the wind didn't blow" do you still stand by that claim or have you wavered a bit.

As far as quoting from a website that is set up to promote using it to attract people to ask for solar installation quotes, hardly peer reviewed information, maybe try govt websites or even Wiki which does require some peer review.

Anyway, this diversion from the original topic has become a bit boring, so I'll leave you to it.

.

T1 Terry

---

 Terry, you can't work out why there are many more diesel & petrol service stations than EV recharge stations?

It's the numbers again Terry, EV is a tiny fleet here by comparison with ICEV, and globally only around 1 per cent are EV with most in countries that subsidise EV and penalise ICEV. Norway, for example. But in Norway recent times EV subsidies were dropped and so did EV sales drop.

You claimed there were no gas or diesel generators, the SA Government disagrees, in fact gas and/or diesel turbine generators are now located in the old GMH factory at Elizabeth north of Adelaide.

It is ridiculous for you to be so obsessive about EV, it's only a technology developing, but so is Hybrid technology developing and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are already being sold in limited numbers and with refuelling stations in those locations/states/countries.

Maybe EV will become popular when the price is equivalent to an ICEV of the same capacity, people and luggage. And when recharging is faster without serious loss of battery pack life and when real range compares to ICEV. Or maybe like mobility scooters and chairs EV will be for local town or suburban city transport? And Hybrid will be the majority registered in Australia?

I don't know the answer, and neither do you.

By the way, the transition to so called renewable energy in SA (now VIC is following) raised electricity pricing to highest in Australia and world's highest level, from relatively cheap. And destabilised the SA grid placing strain on the interconnectors interstate and requiring remedial action: eg; gas and diesel back up generators and then the 10-minute jump starter, limited energy battery bank. Power stations were reliable and did not need "firming", back up generators, battery or feeder transmission lines to main grid.

 

When considering rooftop solar energy for your home, note on the bills that administration charges and GST are more than the average charge for electricity,.

Electricity costs will go the same way as mobile telephone costs.
Remember when mobile telephone calls were very expensive? But once the infrastructure was "mature", there is a monthly cost to maintain and administer the system and calls are essentially free.
The same will happen to electricity costs. After the capital cost has been absorbed, the marginal cost of using renewable energy is almost zero and that will guarantee that only renewable energy generation will be built in the future and it won't be long before there is plenty available along with pumped storage and hydrogen generation to use the surplus.
Cheers,
Peter

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

Electricity costs will go the same way as mobile telephone costs.
Remember when mobile telephone calls were very expensive? But once the infrastructure was "mature", there is a monthly cost to maintain and administer the system and calls are essentially free.
The same will happen to electricity costs. After the capital cost has been absorbed, the marginal cost of using renewable energy is almost zero and that will guarantee that only renewable energy generation will be built in the future and it won't be long before there is plenty available along with pumped storage and hydrogen generation to use the surplus.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 Wind and solar have not been successful anywhere in the world as stand alone essential baseload energy generators or sources.

Germany, the leader in wind revolution as they referred to it, are rushing to build a gas pipeline to Russia and in between time obtaining electricity from neighbouring countries. And have decided to no longer subsidise wind farms. The people and businesses have had enough of rising energy prices and economic damage resulting.

Also, unlike power stations (noting that they are really steam driven generators regardless of fuel used to heat the water), wind and solar are small units in multiples of many to provide in theory (because they are intermittent suppliers, no wind, no sunshine etc.). One power station has multiples of generators: eg; Liddell Power Station (coal fired) in the NSW Hunter Valley has 4 x 500 MW generators.

To provide 500 MW would require 12 Wind Farms like Capital Hill NSW, near Goulburn: 67 Wind Turbines, 140 MW theoretical "nameplate" capacity, AEMO average "capacity factor rating" 42 MW. And that Farm is on 15,000 acres/6,000 hectares. Then add feeder transmission line expense to main grid each farm and "firming" consisting of generators and storage for when the wind doesn't blow. A huge investment and Liddell could be replaced by High Energy Low Emissions coal technology for much less money ......... and have an accounted working life of 50-years (wind farm 20-25 years maximum) and technically achievable with maintenance plus 80 years working life.

The federal government has been trying with the AEMO to recover the almost out of control pricing increases of electricity since the transition to high profits and so called renewable energy was revealed as a profiteering investment field. Ask why the owner of Liddell will not sell it to interested buyers and plan to demolish it. Reason, it's worth more demolished and for the owner to replace it with renewables. The more intermittent supply renewables, apart from hydro, the less efficient power stations become because they are designed to operate all day and night non-stop apart from shutting down generators (no steam supply to turbine) for maintenance or other scheduled reason when other power stations takeover the generating capacity. 

In Australia our electricity auction system (AEMO) is a serious problem, highest bidder to supply electricity gets the order and all generators are paid the same price for that supply period. In VIC last summer for one period the price went something like ten times more than present time average pricing.

 

 

Electric vehicles stand at the center of every green energy initiative.

 

Multiple jurisdictions mandate and subsidize the inevitable transition to clean transportation. Some policymakers have gone further, setting deadlines for outright bans on the internal-combustion engine (ICE), and Green pundits regularly issue forecasts promising the imminent dominance of electric vehicles (EVs).

The EV is central to the notion that were on the cusp of a grand shift to a new-energy economy. In addition to its putative environmental benefits, the EV, were told, is a better machine than an ICE. Its easier to manufacture, uses less labor, and willeventuallycost less. Since consumers will soon demand an all-EV future, we should embrace policies to accelerate the transition.
Rarely have so many claims about a product been so wrong. The only unequivocal fact in the EV narrative is that more EVs exist todayapproximately 4 millionthan ever before. Lithium-battery chemistrythe inventors of which received the 2019 chemistry Nobel Prizealong with advances in power electronics, has made it possible to build practical, if expensive, electric cars. But everything else in the popularized EV storyline is deeply misguided. Advocates claim that EVs are far simpler machines than combustion engines. But the essential engine for both is similarly complicated. While the EVs electric motor is simple, its battery is a half-a-ton electrochemical machine with thousands of parts and welds, along with wiring, electronics, and cooling. Its every bit as complex asand far more expensive thanthe combustion-mechanical drivetrain that it replaces.
Manufacturing automotive batteries is surprisingly labor intensive. Teslas gargantuan battery factory in Nevada produces about 1,000 propulsion batteries per year per 12 workers. Meantime, a modern engine and transmission factory produces about 1,000 mechanical-propulsion systems per year per four workers. EVs dont reduce total labor requirements; they simply outsource American labor. Since most automakers arent capable of fabricating batteries, EV-battery jobs reside mostly in Asia. China alone produces 60 percent of the worlds lithium batteries. Theres no prospect of creating a domestic EV supply chain anytime soon, regardless of incentives.

To EV enthusiasts, U.S. job losses are beside the point because ending our reliance on fossil fuels and saving the planet takes precedence. But it requires the energy equivalent of about 100 barrels of oil to fabricate one battery capable of storing the energy contained in a single barrel of oil. Importing batteries manufactured on Asias coal-heavy grid means that consumers are just exporting carbon-dioxide emissions, along with jobs. It takes years to offset those emissions when the EV is plugged into our real-world power grid, where coal and natural gas still account for 70 percent of electricity generation.

Then theres the array of primary mineralslithium, cobalt, manganese, carbon, nickel, copper, aluminumneeded to produce a 1,000-pound automotive battery. Accessing the necessary minerals for that one battery entails mining, moving, and processing some 500,000 pounds of raw materials. Embracing batteries at automotive scales would lead to an unprecedented global expansion in mining, with all the accompanying negative environmental effects that tend not to be palliated in developing countries.
None of this seems to concern China, which boasts 60 percent of global EV sales. There, the EV supply chains labor intensity is a feature, not a bug. After all, Western nations have largely given up on the related manufacturing, as well as materials-mining and chemical-refining industries. China has spent $60 billion cumulatively in domestic subsidies in order to become the dominant global player, but it ended the EV gravy train this year, cutting subsidies by 65 percent, with plans to eliminate them entirely next year. The result? Chinas vaunted EV sales growth went negative. Having abandoned direct subsidies, China will now simply require that EVs make up 3 to 4 percent of all domestic car production. Policymakers in democracies and autocracies find mandates appealing because they are a de facto hidden tax wherein industries, rather than government, get blamed for resulting higher costs.
Mandates and bans can enhance EV sales for as long as markets and consumers tolerate them. But that approach makes a lie of claims that EV sales are accelerating. Capitulating to a mandate, much less one set to a mere 4 percent, means that were miles away from seeing a new-energy transportation system. Sales data show what consumers actually want. Light trucksSUVs and pickupsmake up 70 percent of all vehicle sales in America. This trend accelerated after the Great Recession, during a period of supposedly rising climate awareness and the emergence of the millennial car buyer. There isnt a battery option for SUVs at a price that consumers, rather than governments, will pay. The few successful EV-SUVs are strictly for the 1 percent crowd.

In reality, 96 percent of Americas consumer vehicles are gasoline-fueled ICEs, and 3 percent have the diesel option, the latter outselling electrics. The ratios are similar globally. Odds are the EV option will eventually do far better than the venerable diesel, but the jury is out on how much better. And arithmetic reveals that even a 100-fold growth in EVs wouldnt displace 10 percent of world oil.
In one of historys ironies, the Tesla Model S was introduced in 2012, exactly 100 years after Studebaker ended production of its lineup of electric cars. Back then, EVs had dominated car sales for nearly 25 years. Its taken one century since then to invent a useful battery. But an EV is still a car with the same features consumers focus on when making buying decisions: body style, paint, seats, cup-holders, cool touchscreens, and so on. Changing a cars fuel source is about as revolutionary as changing the feed for a horse.
Choosing a battery over an ICE isnt a revolution. Its an optionan expensive onethat reduces neither total labor nor environmental impacts.
Mark P. Mills, a Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow, is author of the just-released The New Energy Economy: An Exercise In Magical Thinking.

-- Edited by Knight on Sunday 13th of October 2019 10:57:52 AM

Greystone wrote:

---

Sounds similar to arguments horse and cart drivers put forward when the first automobiles were introduced. Look where that got them.......

---

 Hi 

Yes ! And why would you want a newfangled car thingy when they are so expensive and use some dangerous fuel and keep stopping !! AND you could run a horse by growing the food. 

BUT it still did not stop the move foward .... 

Jaahn 

Jaahn wrote:

---

Greystone wrote:

---

Sounds similar to arguments horse and cart drivers put forward when the first automobiles were introduced. Look where that got them.......

---

 Hi 

Yes ! And why would you want a newfangled car thingy when they are so expensive and use some dangerous fuel and keep stopping !! AND you could run a horse by growing the food. 

BUT it still did not stop the move foward .... 

Jaahn 

---

 Maybe, but try to imagine the Horse poo-lution issues.

So Terry the world's largest interconnected electricity grid would be the world's first to have only renewable energy supply?

Of course small grids can be energised with renewables when hydro is viable and endless water supply, of course timber can be burnt (biomass) instead of coal or gas (many more tonnes needed to achieve the same thermal value from biomass), and wind and solar, etc.

But not cost effectively here for many reasons, and the higher the cost of supply the higher the price of electricity.

It is simply ridiculous to replace a cheap and reliable electricity grid supplied by power stations along the transmission lines with much small capacity "farms" and then essential back up generators, storage and feeder transmission lines to main grid that all operate intermittently and cover enormous extra land areas. The baseload of the grid is essential, domestic electricity demand is a minor consideration compared to governments, industry, commerce demand for energy.

Your recommendations would not pass the business cost-benefit analysis test.

In fact no private sector investors would risk their money in a wind or solar farm project without the additional to company taxation deductions on costs incurred in operational expenses taxpayer funded RET specific subsidies.

Recently VicGov announced a new wind farm, the biggest yet in Australia, and as usual they used the theoretical installed or nameplate capacity rather than AEMO capacity factor that each electricity source is assessed with: for wind 30-35% average output of nameplate capacity. After applying the top 35% factor that new wind farm will not have the capacity of even one of the four NSW Liddell Power Station generators. And the cost would buy at least one new HELE (High Energy Low Emissions technology) power station, far better value for money and far superior and reliable electricity supply.

By the way, the first and only geothermal project failed here in Oz. And again, consider the problems of distance to cover with feeder transmission lines to connect to the main grid.

It is good to be enthusiastic about new technology but in the real world, ignoring government intervention and subsidies-penalties, no board of directors and their advisors would approve capital expenditure on a project unless the Return On Investment was beneficial to the shareholders over the project life. Wind and solar, geothermal, wave generators and even pumped hydro do not stand alone as desirable investments.

Power stations using coal or gas are the lowest operating cost options, at the other cost end nuclear energy power stations (or nuclear fission and thorium molten salt reactors). But nothing compares cost effectively and reliability with power stations including hydro when water supplies are reliable.


In the real world of big business the best professional advice possible to obtain is the basis for major capital expenditure approvals, unlike the Greens who are reported consulting fairies down the bottom of their former leader's garden in Tasmania.

-- Edited by Knight on Thursday 17th of October 2019 09:50:26 AM

Yes, once the subsidies for coal are removed, coal fired power is far more expensive. If coal fired power was cheaper than wind/solar power, they would be peaking and the renewables would be taking up the excess .... but it is the other way around isn't it?
I see the Snowy 2.0 was just another federal govt wrought to siphon money into "feasibility study" participants pockets, can't produce what they had claimed it could and way too expensive to build. How many batteries could be installed for the crazy $$ Snowy 2.0 would really cost?
Do you have a link to the failed geothermal power station Knight?
As far as hydrogen transport, if the CSIRO can get the whole ammonia soaking idea to scale up then it could be a method of moving a renewable energy generation output to the grid without using poles and wires, but I still think the LNG pipelines is a better option.

T1 Terry

blaze wrote:

---

Hi Knight
I don't know for sure but I would think tassie hydro would be a far cheaper power producing option than your coal or gas and a lot cleaner. Some of the water flows through 4 different power stations before it runs out to sea. I am not totally anti coal and gas but when you decree that they are the cheapest I think you loose any moral high ground you may have had, they to are heavily subsidized.

I will stay outa this personal debate now as it is only going in circles

cheers
blaze

---

 Hi Blaze

 

Coal and gas subsidised? Not true, what the opponents claim relates to tax concessions all company taxpayers can apply on expenses incurred in earning taxable profit, and rebates like fuel tax for vehicles not used on public roads, farmers and others have this concession, not only mining industry.

But wind and solar farm businesses have the tax concessions too plus industry specific taxpayer funded subsidies for "renewable energy" wind and solar. The coal and gas opponents muddy the waters by using tax concessions and fuel rebate as if they are subsidies. They also try to pass off revenue as taxable profit and claim not enough company tax is paid. Revenue is of course income before paying operating expenses, and what is left is operating or taxable profit.

I understand that hydro power stations and related piping/tunnels and dams is similar to the cost of coal or gas power stations with the essential water supply facility, but in Australia its the notable exception of Tasmania there are few additional to Snowy Mountains Scheme suitable sites and average rainfall potential. Pumped hydro is inefficient with 20-30% of electricity generated needed to operate the pumps to pump the water back to the holding dams. New Zealand has a substantial hydro generation system. Apart from the Snowy Hydro, our biggest by far, there are several small hydro generators, AEMO lists them.

If hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction was not banned and/or limited by our state governments then maybe gas would be cheaper than coal for power stations, as now in the US since the Obama era bans were lifted by Trump. Germany is fast tracking a gas pipeline from Russia for power stations now that their wind revolution of 30 years has become a handbrake on the German economy.

Often when countries like Denmark are put forward as a wind energy success story the fact that most of their electricity is generated in Sweden is left out, hydro and nuclear power stations.

Debate is always good, people have opinions which they are entitled to have, but having done a lot of research including being involved in internet discussions with engineers, scientists and many other professions I have no doubt whatsoever that our world's largest electricity grid cannot provide cheap and reliable electricity based on wind and solar with all the add on accessories needed like back u generators and storage.

An extract from a US power industry report ...

ur report has two principal findings:

First: that, on average, continuing to operate existing natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric resources
is far less costly than building and operating new plants to replace them. Existing coal-fired power plants, for example, can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $41 per megawatt-hour, whereas we project the LCOE of a new coal plant operating at a similar duty cycle to be $71 per MWh. Similarly, we estimate existing combined- cycle (CC) gas power plants can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $36 per MWh, whereas we project the LCOE of a new CC gas plant to be $50 per MWh.

Second: is a calculation of the costs that non-dispatchable wind and solar generation resources impose on the dispatchable generation resources which are required
to remain in service but are forced to generate less in combination with them. Non-dispatchable means that the level of output from wind and solar resources depends on factors beyond our control and cannot be relied upon to follow load fluctuations nor consistently perform during peak loads. Wind and solar resources increase the LCOE of dispatchable resources they cannot replace by reducing their utilization rates without reducing their fixed costs, resulting in a levelized fixed cost increase.

Our calculations estimate that the imposed cost of wind generation is about $24 per MWh (of wind generation) when we model the cost against new CC gas generation it might displace, and the imposed cost of solar generation is about $21 per MWh (of solar generation) when we model the CC and combustion turbine (CT) gas generation it might displace.

FOOTNOTES: INTRODUCTION
existing coal ($41), CC gas ($36), nuclear ($33) and hydro ($38) resources are less than half the cost of new wind resources ($90) or new PV solar resources ($88.7) with imposed costs included.

Knight wrote:

---

An extract from a US power industry report ...

ur report has two principal findings:

First: that, on average, continuing to operate existing natural gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric resources
is far less costly than building and operating new plants to replace them. Existing coal-fired power plants, for example, can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $41 per megawatt-hour, whereas we project the LCOE of a new coal plant operating at a similar duty cycle to be $71 per MWh. Similarly, we estimate existing combined- cycle (CC) gas power plants can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $36 per MWh, whereas we project the LCOE of a new CC gas plant to be $50 per MWh.

Second: is a calculation of the costs that non-dispatchable wind and solar generation resources impose on the dispatchable generation resources which are required
to remain in service but are forced to generate less in combination with them. Non-dispatchable means that the level of output from wind and solar resources depends on factors beyond our control and cannot be relied upon to follow load fluctuations nor consistently perform during peak loads. Wind and solar resources increase the LCOE of dispatchable resources they cannot replace by reducing their utilization rates without reducing their fixed costs, resulting in a levelized fixed cost increase.

Our calculations estimate that the imposed cost of wind generation is about $24 per MWh (of wind generation) when we model the cost against new CC gas generation it might displace, and the imposed cost of solar generation is about $21 per MWh (of solar generation) when we model the CC and combustion turbine (CT) gas generation it might displace.

FOOTNOTES: INTRODUCTION
existing coal ($41), CC gas ($36), nuclear ($33) and hydro ($38) resources are less than half the cost of new wind resources ($90) or new PV solar resources ($88.7) with imposed costs included.

---

Umm.... We are in Australia, not the US, what the ..... has a US report written by people with vested interests got to do with Australia and comparing nuclear  power generation .... John Gorton discovered what happens when you support such silliness in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant_proposal . It has been another great method for syphoning off money to mates to do more feasibility studies on something that would never get off the ground, a bit like the Maldon-Dumbarton rail link west of the Illawarra NSW.

You must be getting desperate if you start quoting this sort of nonsense

 

T1 Terry  

Terry that website is full of fake information, fuel rebates are for off-road vehicle fuel, mining, farming, machines and vehicles.

To refer to the fuel tax rebate as a subsidy is deceitful, meaning the website.

Fuel tax (and the inevitable replacement if EV replaced the ICEV fleet) is for maintenance of roads and bridges infrastructure, so obviously when fuel is not used on public roads there should not be a road user tax, so for off road users the fuel tax is a tax deduction from operating profit before tax is levied.

By the way, repeating myself again, all businesses and even sole traders can apply tax deductions for expenses incurred in earning taxable income. Including so called renewable energy businesses. However, in addition to legal tax deductions the wind and solar farm businesses receive subsidies, not rebates of fuel tax, subsidies for profit for shareholders that adds to the increasing electricity cost for consumers.

Anyway Terry, this is my final post on this thread.