The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad

SaintsSeptember said:
I wouldn't , but AEMO provides the figures from the grid, and they have no way of knowing how much self used solar there is.
You can kind of guess when you see the dip in the charts on a sunny day compared to overcast.
Click to expand...

OpenNEM provides figures with rooftop included - I'm unsure how this is measured.

This is their take on SA at around the time you posted.

1727782526486.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SaintsSeptember said:
I'm reading it now, not finding the source but it must be an estimate.
I have solar on my roof, big brother knows how much i feed back into the grid, but they don't know how much i generate and use for myself.

They quote AEMO as one of their sources.
Click to expand...

Australian Solar Energy Forecasting System

aemo.com.au aemo.com.au

They use weather data, satellite images (to measure cloud cover), actual outputs from small scale utility solar and random sampling of household solar.
 
This is disappointing.

a) in many cases the cars with the worst reliability are electric ( some of them relevant to Australia ).
Sems that the drive train is robust enough, but often the other systems let them down.

b) I was going to help my son buy a car with a budget of 20K. Hard to find anything low mileage that isn't an MG.
The long warranty is a positive, but even under warranty it can end up being a shit fight. I really wanted to find out that the MG3 was a good option.

 
Aristotle Pickett said:
We have unlimited offshore wind and solar. There is no reason to open new coal and gas. Why can you not understand that ?
South Australia is close to 100 renewable now.
Why are you talking crap?
Click to expand...
We in SA are nearly 100% renewable now because we started in 2007 transitioning to renewables without a Greens politician in sight. You now Greens politicians, the ones that took the Australian Treasury Department figures for the world outlook for carbon emissions reductions based on world protocols in place at the time and passed them off as the Treasury figures on the CPRS? You know the ones I mean? The ones that dick-heads like me thought were credible in the things they said.

Here is what still appears on the the Greens web sight if I'm not mistaken:

2009: THE CPRS WAS BAD CLIMATE POLICY​

We voted against the CPRS because it was bad policy that would have locked in failure to take action on climate change.

According to Treasury modelling, under the CPRS there would have been no reduction in emissions for 25 years.

Here is what Treasury actually said:

Screenshot 2024-10-03 at 10.36.50 PM.png
The following is what the Greens passed off as what Treasury said about the CPRS:

Screenshot 2024-10-03 at 10.38.07 PM.png

In other words, the Greens lied and because of that lie and Rudd and the ALP's gutlessness to call an election after the CPRS had been rejected twice in the Senate, Australia did nothing. Treasury said that after a slight rise in the first year or so under the CPRS, our emissions would then plummet. Under the CPRS, it would not have taken 9, 14 years as some around here have said and certainly not 25 years as the brazen lie on the Greens website.

SA went to work under a Labor government over the last 15 years or so and SA gradually transitioned to almost 100% renewables with the help of coal and gas.

If we had done what the absolutist fools of the Greens want to do and shut coal and gas down immediately, the lights would have gone out in SA literally and the transition to renewables would have never ever, been possible or accepted by the SA population. As it is and it must have slipped your mind, when we here in SA need energy/electricity but it is not available, we get it from Victorian gas fired power stations!

Transitioning to renewables is not an overnight thing. It is not anywhere as simplistic as the Greens would have people believe. It takes time; it's a revolution not an overnight fix and we need gas and coal in the immediate short term to get rid of coal completely in the medium term. We need gas not only as a guarantee to keep the lights on in dire emergencies but also in the production of hydrogen energy.

As for approving new coal and gas mine, I am dead against that however, under the Kyoto Protocols and the Doha amendments, the of exporting coal and gas to other countries falls within those parameters as they are offset by those countries and us under our international and obligations and commitments.

If I were the Greens and luckily, I have seen the light and want nothing to do with the hypocrites, but if I were them, I'd be turning my attention to the catastrophic suggestion of Nuclear power stations as being pushed by dogwhistle-Dutton. That is far, far more significance than freaking out around the margins of coal and gas. Not that coal and gas mitigation isn't important but as I said, we meet our international obligations surrounding coal and gas, Nuclear whoever, is a real and cataclysmic threat to all of our flora and fauna, to human beings, the terrestrial and marine environment and what have the party for the environment said about that? Jack shit! Dogwhistle-Dutton is getting a free run at nuclear and the Greens remain silent.

By the way, it's not nice when people like Burge13 incessantly laugh at other's postings instead of trying to mount an argument, hey?
 
Northalives said:
We in SA are nearly 100% renewable now because we started in 2007 transitioning to renewables without a Greens politician in sight. You now Greens politicians, the ones that took the Australian Treasury Department figures for the world outlook for carbon emissions reductions based on world protocols in place at the time and passed them off as the Treasury figures on the CPRS? You know the ones I mean? The ones that dick-heads like me thought were credible in the things they said.

Here is what still appears on the the Greens web sight if I'm not mistaken:

2009: THE CPRS WAS BAD CLIMATE POLICY​

We voted against the CPRS because it was bad policy that would have locked in failure to take action on climate change.

According to Treasury modelling, under the CPRS there would have been no reduction in emissions for 25 years.

Here is what Treasury actually said:

View attachment 2130741
The following is what the Greens passed off as what Treasury said about the CPRS:

View attachment 2130742

In other words, the Greens lied and because of that lie and Rudd and the ALP's gutlessness to call an election after the CPRS had been rejected twice in the Senate, Australia did nothing. Treasury said that after a slight rise in the first year or so under the CPRS, our emissions would then plummet. Under the CPRS, it would not have taken 9, 14 years as some around here have said and certainly not 25 years as the brazen lie on the Greens website.

SA went to work under a Labor government over the last 15 years or so and SA gradually transitioned to almost 100% renewables with the help of coal and gas.

If we had done what the absolutist fools of the Greens want to do and shut coal and gas down immediately, the lights would have gone out in SA literally and the transition to renewables would have never ever, been possible or accepted by the SA population. As it is and it must have slipped your mind, when we here in SA need energy/electricity but it is not available, we get it from Victorian gas fired power stations!

Transitioning to renewables is not an overnight thing. It is not anywhere as simplistic as the Greens would have people believe. It takes time; it's a revolution not an overnight fix and we need gas and coal in the immediate short term to get rid of coal completely in the medium term. We need gas not only as a guarantee to keep the lights on in dire emergencies but also in the production of hydrogen energy.

As for approving new coal and gas mine, I am dead against that however, under the Kyoto Protocols and the Doha amendments, the of exporting coal and gas to other countries falls within those parameters as they are offset by those countries and us under our international and obligations and commitments.

If I were the Greens and luckily, I have seen the light and want nothing to do with the hypocrites, but if I were them, I'd be turning my attention to the catastrophic suggestion of Nuclear power stations as being pushed by dogwhistle-Dutton. That is far, far more significance than freaking out around the margins of coal and gas. Not that coal and gas mitigation isn't important but as I said, we meet our international obligations surrounding coal and gas, Nuclear whoever, is a real and cataclysmic threat to all of our flora and fauna, to human beings, the terrestrial and marine environment and what have the party for the environment said about that? Jack shit! Dogwhistle-Dutton is getting a free run at nuclear and the Greens remain silent.

By the way, it's not nice when people like Burge13 incessantly laugh at other's postings instead of trying to mount an argument, hey?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're talking about but I know that federal Labor are some of the world's biggest climate bastards that are expanding coal and using flawed environmental laws to continue to destroy Australia's envirinment.
If you believe Labor has better climate credentials than the Greens then you truly are a sucker.
Greens policy is based on expert advice and scientific fact, Labor's is based on political motive of being slightly better than Dutton.
Greens have no power to implement policy in the states.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
I don't know what you're talking about but I know that federal Labor are some of the world's biggest climate bastards that are expanding coal and using flawed environmental laws to continue to destroy Australia's envirinment.
If you believe Labor has better climate credentials than the Greens then you truly are a sucker.
Greens policy is based on expert advice and scientific fact, Labor's is based on political motive of being slightly better than Dutton.
Greens have no power to implement policy in the states.
Click to expand...
Like official treasury figures?

There is the most comprehensive terrestrial and marine Environmental protection legislation since white settlement, replete with millions of dollars of fines for those contravening these protection laws stuck in the Senate because the Greens continue to play putrid politics.

These proposed laws will always draw some criticism from various interests however: The Australian Land Conservation Alliance, The Wilderness Society who said that these laws are a serious step in the right direction, Humane Society International Australia, The Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Australia amongst others, although not completely overjoyed, have all given their unswerving support to these Bills as going a very long way, towards protecting our natural environment.

Unfortunately, because of the Greens intransigence, the Government is now talking with dogwhistle-Dutton's mob to try and come to an agreement to pass most of this legislation but you can bet your balls, that it will be much weakened, a prospect that the above organisations are extremely distressed about. As a government, the ALP must find ways of making things happen and if the Greens are to busy puffing their chests out showing their "credentials" to make rational and workable suggestions to amend the legislation, then they are forced to work with dogwhistle-Dutton's mob to get vital legislation, albeit greatly weakened, through the Senate.

The Greens climate credentials were blown to smithereens by their disgusting lies in 2008 as can be seen by the charts I have presented in my other post.

The Greens ideals are brilliant but because they are not a party of government, they sit on their high horse and say the most fantastic things without any deference to the reality of a capitalist world, without any thought of the communities and the workers who will be affected by there absolutist demands.

The Green's ideals are brilliant, unfortunately, their pathway to realising these great ideals DO NOT WORK IN A CAPITALIST WORLD! I had to use capitals to get this inviolable piece of information across to you as forcefully as I could.

I am as green as green can be but I don't go around with my brain at half mast. It is not only people like us, that is, people like you and me that a Government has to satisfy. A party of Government must take into account the many constituent parts of the country, (I wont try and rattle through them but you know what I mean) and what they must do, is aim for the best possible outcome, in this case, the environment, within the confines of a capitalist system/world and without sacrificing scores of people, communities, workers in pursuit of the ideal. They cannot sacrifice the good, they cannot abandon the good for the perfect!

The Greens are in a fabulous position to make a massive contribution to the environment, to the community, to the well being of of the country but they are taking extreme, perfectionist positions at best but also, as Chandler-Mather admitted in the Fabian article, are not averse to using the plight of those looking for housing to score political points.

All political parties play politics, it's only the Greens who deny doing so.

It was a Labor Government free from Green absolutist obstruction that has been able to achieve near 100% renewables in South Australia. What does that tell you? Maybe it says that ideals can be achieved with methodical, sensible action without Greens type absolutism? Maybe the Greens should just stop obstructing for political reasons and start contributing in a rational and sensible way taking into consideration the capitalist world we live in. Wonderfull things can happen if the Greens and the ALP can work in good faith.

I have absolutely no problems whatsoever if once ALP voters migrate to the Greens, no problems whatsoever so long as they do so for altruistic reasons and not because they have been whipped up into a frenzy of angst and despair by a Greens Party whose overriding priorities are politically driven. If once ALP voters migrate to voting for the Greens because they feel comfortable and appreciative for the contribution the Greens are making to betterment of the country by working with the ALP, then bloody brilliant! What it would mean, in my view, is that the votes the ALP lose to the Greens for the right reasons, they will pick them up from the "swingers" because the electorate will feel good about it's lot and that things are being done but most importantly of all in my view, it would mean that Dutton and the Liberal and National Parties will be further destroyed. It is the Duttons and the extremist LNP supremacists that are the blight on this country and if we can push them to the margins, what a wonderful country we would live in and yes, we could then start inching closer to an economy and civilisation in this country that well and truly has put a bridal on capitalism: that's my ideal, waste the anti-Labour (notice the spelling), born to rule supremacist LNP bastards.

How will you feel Aristotle if dogwhistle-Dutton and his Trumpian Party win the next election?

Apologies for the length of this reply Aristotle but I don't get much of a chance to get on Big Footy these days so I need to get things off my chest as much as possible when I get the chance.
 
Cmarsh said:
Is net zero ever really going to be achieved?

www.abc.net.au

Hopes for green hydrogen fading as energy giant Origin walks away from flagship project

A project held up as a flagship for Australia's fledgling green hydrogen industry loses its biggest backer as Origin Energy abandons plans for the fuel.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...

Hydrogen generation is related to electricity prices.
Its another form of storage, only we can store it in a more portable manner.
It will have a use, a Hydrogen Jet is far more viable than a Lithium battery plane.

Some of the dodgy means of producing Hydrogen have been found out. Hydrogen from Coal is simply producing the emissions up front ( lots of them ), so that the end user can claim to be low emission.

I'd suggest that in the future when there is an absolute glut of solar power during daylight hours , that this electricity could be used for Hydrogen Generation.
It also makes sense to design plant like Water Desalination in a manner that allows them to switch on and off with electricity availability.

They need to ban carbon offsets, it allows companies that use electricity at night to buy the solar electricity from the day, but its only on paper. You are just shuffling the carbon onto the accounts of those who don't pay.
We need to increase the demand for "real" storage.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Hydrogen generation is related to electricity prices.
Its another form of storage, only we can store it in a more portable manner.
It will have a use, a Hydrogen Jet is far more viable than a Lithium battery plane.

Some of the dodgy means of producing Hydrogen have been found out. Hydrogen from Coal is simply producing the emissions up front ( lots of them ), so that the end user can claim to be low emission.

I'd suggest that in the future when there is an absolute glut of solar power during daylight hours , that this electricity could be used for Hydrogen Generation.
It also makes sense to design plant like Water Desalination in a manner that allows them to switch on and off with electricity availability.

They need to ban carbon offsets, it allows companies that use electricity at night to buy the solar electricity from the day, but its only on paper. You are just shuffling the carbon onto the accounts of those who don't pay.
We need to increase the demand for "real" storage.
Click to expand...
A few comments on your post.

I understood that jets would more likely be fuelled by manufactured fuel, of which clean hydrogen may be a part, rather than just hydrogen.

I think desalination is a good use for excess midday generation as it is low capital, high energy cost. At this point I understand that electrolysis processes are capital intensive and cannot be economically utilised only 30 or 50% of the day. They need to be 24/7 things.

Interestingly, I understand that clean hydrogen can be more economically produced by a nuclear power plant than by renewables as the nuclear waste heat can be used to make the electrolysis process more efficient.
 
dockerfemme said:
A few comments on your post.

I understood that jets would more likely be fuelled by manufactured fuel, of which clean hydrogen may be a part, rather than just hydrogen.

I think desalination is a good use for excess midday generation as it is low capital, high energy cost. At this point I understand that electrolysis processes are capital intensive and cannot be economically utilised only 30 or 50% of the day. They need to be 24/7 things.

Interestingly, I understand that clean hydrogen can be more economically produced by a nuclear power plant than by renewables as the nuclear waste heat can be used to make the electrolysis process more efficient.
Click to expand...

I know Hydrogen is feasible as a jet fuel, but you may well be correct that there are better options.

I just read a bit about electrolysis, and yes you are correct, its something that needs to be researched. I don't think its something that can't be overcome. But it would be typical if he French ended up having a chokehold on world Hydrogen production.
research.csiro.au

Evaluation of renewable intermittency on electrolysers for hydrogen LCOH in Australia - Hydrogen Energy Systems

We are examining the impact of intermittent renewable energy sources on hydrogen production through electrolysers, focusing on efficiency, feasibility, and environmental implications of solar powered electrolysis.
research.csiro.au research.csiro.au
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dockerfemme said:
A few comments on your post.

I understood that jets would more likely be fuelled by manufactured fuel, of which clean hydrogen may be a part, rather than just hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Kinda, biofuels can run a jet engine which you could mix with a certain amount of hydrogen. It's inconsequential if you don't severely ration jet use though, would require half the worlds corn fields or something

Hydrogen is pretty much the first tried chemical reaction, acid and a metal. It's a pain to contain, impossible to store long term, and takes a large chuck of it's internal energy to liquefy. A shit fuel unless produced on demand....even then
dockerfemme said:
I think desalination is a good use for excess midday generation as it is low capital, high energy cost.
Click to expand...
Desal low capital? at scale, I don't think so
dockerfemme said:
At this point I understand that electrolysis processes are capital intensive and cannot be economically utilised only 30 or 50% of the day. They need to be 24/7 things.
Click to expand...
The storage thing is the biggest hurdle, internal gold plating for heavy steel tanks is apparently the best tech atm, expensive needless to say
dockerfemme said:
Interestingly, I understand that clean hydrogen can be more economically produced by a nuclear power plant than by renewables as the nuclear waste heat can be used to make the electrolysis process more efficient.
Click to expand...
Feels like nuclear propaganda, not like it's bad but there's a lot of futurists for which nukes are the only hope. Could improve it by a few percent but compared to methane extraction I don't think it's a game changer
 
Captivating said:
Amber users were also paying to use electricity on the same day, If I was to guess, I'd say they had to pay for 22 or even 23 of the hours of that day.
Click to expand...

I have a friend ( in Victoria ) used Amber, without having the Solar Infrastructure or battery.
He had an expensive winter.
I can't see why it wouldn't work doing it the way Nut suggests, you are basically paying for the infrastructure the government/electricity companies don't have.

Individuals will put up with longer payback periods than most organisations.
Individuals are paying off against the cost of "retail" pricing whilst commercial electricity producers are paying off based on wholesale prices they get.
 
Last edited:
Captivating said:
Amber users were also paying to use electricity on the same day, If I was to guess, I'd say they had to pay for 22 or even 23 of the hours of that day.
Click to expand...
The price was negative …. So people we getting paid to use electricity …. Ie turn the Kettle on and get paid, charge your car and get paid.
 
Captivating said:
Amber isn't as good as Tango's current retail offer in Victoria.

Amber have an average rate of 33c and average FIT of 1.7c
Tango are 18.5c for first 15kWh and FIT of 3.3c
Click to expand...

My average feed in with Amber was about 30 cents during winter.
$400 credit during winter compared to a cost of about $700 last year…

The $400 credit was due to spike periods… $230 in 2 hours on one occasion.

Unfortunately/fortunately spike periods Are going to disappear when large battery farms can with stand the evening peaks and snowy 2 is online.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The war against renewable energy

Similar threads

nut
The war against employment
Replies
4
Views
716
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
Gavin Excell
The disgrace that is the Senate
Replies
10
Views
636
Rob R
R
anchor man
Gina the politician.
Replies
1
Views
441
Aristotle Pickett
Aristotle Pickett
Bunk Moreland
The major parties versus social media
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
peetoo
peetoo
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
6K
peetoo
peetoo
anchor man
The Nightly
Replies
8
Views
821
anchor man
anchor man
nut
The Nuclear debate
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
823
Views
29K
Not Important
N

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top