The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad

It appears that, in recent weeks, Murdoch drones have been ordered to regurgitate stuff like solar panels being easily damaged by weather, and only lasting a fraction of what they actually do. I've seen it everywhere in the past 2 or 3 weeks. Posters on this board have been caught out regurgitating this crap and adding their own fake stories as "proof" 😂
 
PiCkLeJuiCe said:
What I'm saying is that you'll be getting 10 years before you need to replace panels, inverters and batteries. At scale, that's a huge reinvestment that needs to happen. Whole solar farms needing a complete tear down and re-build.
Click to expand...

They don't tend to die , so much as loose efficiency.
If you have a solar farm with huge tracts of land somewhere inland from Port Augusta, you probably just install new panels next to the old ones and leave the old ones running at 60% efficiency or whatever they drop down to.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

PiCkLeJuiCe said:
What I'm saying is that you'll be getting 10 years before you need to replace panels, inverters and batteries. At scale, that's a huge reinvestment that needs to happen. Whole solar farms needing a complete tear down and re-build.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is unsubstantiated rubbish.

1 x 500watt solar panel will produce about 16,881 WH in 25 years .. 1.6 Megawatts for $180.

WGAF if they need replacing. The cost is literally peanuts.
 
nut said:
What you are saying is unsubstantiated rubbish.

1 x 500watt solar panel will produce about 16,881 WH in 25 years .. 1.6 Megawatts for $180.

WGAF if they need replacing. The cost is literally peanuts.
Click to expand...

can you kindly show your maths?
 
PiCkLeJuiCe said:
What I'm saying is that you'll be getting 10 years before you need to replace panels, inverters and batteries. At scale, that's a huge reinvestment that needs to happen. Whole solar farms needing a complete tear down and re-build.
Click to expand...

compare and contrast numbers provided by nut vs full costing models per USD/MWh

1738489609816.png

 
Power Raid still posts! Thought he died many years ago from that terminal disease! I guess god give him that last bit of energy to continue to post screen shots of dishonest data to pretend whatever the local anti science stuff is legit. God bless! !
 
Power Raid said:
compare and contrast numbers provided by nut vs full costing models per USD/MWh

View attachment 2216939

Click to expand...

The grid could be completely renewable with sufficient storage and transmission at under 60 us dollar per mwh based off todays technology. Im seeing estimates from the middle east below 40 us dollars per mwh. And prices are only going to keep falling.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds said:
The grid could be completely renewable with sufficient storage and transmission at under 60 us dollar per mwh based off todays technology. Im seeing estimates from the middle east below 40 us dollars per mwh. And prices are only going to keep falling.
Click to expand...

yes storage is getting cheaper

what you won't get is a supplier or installer actually quoting the cost per mwh or kwh. There is a reason for that. You also won't get an all in cost.
 
Power Raid said:
yes storage is getting cheaper

what you won't get is a supplier or installer actually quoting the cost per mwh or kwh. There is a reason for that. You also won't get an all in cost.
Click to expand...
Not sure i see the relevance of the last point? It doesnt change the cost the capex is built for. My costs are accounting for the ridiculous amount of transmission and storage and storage efficiency losses you need to fully decarbonise a grid. And even after accounting for all that those are prices Im estimating using todays technology.

Nuclear costs aint falling. Battery and solar costs are going to keep falling and they dont even need to.

Nuclear had a massive role to play decarbomising the grid 10-15 years ago before the prices of solar and batteries crashed. It has no role to play now. Renewables and storage have won the economics debate. Its over. Renewables won.
 
Last edited:
Apparently according to the “experts” battery storage is too expensive .
You can but an EV that will support the house 2-3 days(50kwh) for $35k yet large scale batteries cost more? $700 LMAO.
Yet large scale batteries aren’t going to be cheap?
 
Last edited:
Seeds said:
Not sure i see the relevance of the last point? It doesnt change the cost the capex is bult for. My costs are accounting for the ridiculous amount of transmission and storage and storage efficiency losses you need to fully decarbonise a grid. And even after accounting for all that those are prices Im estimating usually todays technology.

Nuclear costs aint falling. Battery and solar costs are going to keep falling and they dont even need to.

Nuclear had a massive role to play decarbomising the grid 10-15 years ago before the prices of solar and batteries crashed. It has no role to play now. Renewables and storage have won the economics debate. Its over. Renewables won.
Click to expand...

the relevance is, simply dividing the capacity of a battery by a number of cycles and applying a efficiency factor and a degradation factor alone will not provide an accurate figure (even negating land, buildings, grid, climate control etc.

Accounting for full costs of battery and solar, they do need to reduce in price and they also have to move away from PFAS (cancer, diabetes and foetal mortality) as PFAS bans are being rolled out globally starting with the EU and US. Even Australia has set up a committee to ban them which is a little inconvenient for electrolysers.
 
nut said:
Apparently according to the “experts” battery storage is too expansive.
You can but an EV that will support the house 2-3 days(50kwh) for $35k yet large scale batteries cost more? $700 LMAO.
Yet large scale batteries aren’t going to be cheap?
Click to expand...

The costs speak for themselves when solving the bigger picture of decarbonising our economies

1738538641326.png

you are confusing slapping a battery down in ones garage and panels on a roof vs decarbonising economies
 
Power Raid said:
yes storage is getting cheaper

what you won't get is a supplier or installer actually quoting the cost per mwh or kwh. There is a reason for that. You also won't get an all in cost.
Click to expand...

I suspect a lot of people are hesitant to engage with the solar industry like myself. I will eventually, and I’m telling myself if I wait, the tech will be improved

Maybe in 2035 I’m putting an iultra small scale nuclear reactors behind my garage (closer to neighbours than to me)
 
Power Raid said:
you are confusing slapping a battery down in ones garage and panels on a roof vs decarbonising economies
Click to expand...

Huh? So me and millions of people going completely off grid will be cheaper than staying on grid? Yet you don’t see the mechanics in that?
If I wasn’t making money from the grid I’d disconnect tomorrow.
 
Gough said:
PFAS chemical concerns now is it? Coal huggers will pretend to be worried about anything to kill off renewables.
Click to expand...

The Australian government is concerned enough to ban from 1 July 2025, the Australian Government
is banning the manufacture, importation, exportation or use of PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS or
any products containing them.


If you are pro cancer, diabetes and foetal mortality perhaps join a lobby group and over turn the decision. Otherwise as I have suggested batteries, electrolysers and other industries that currently rely upon these chemicals will need to find alternatives.

Electrolysers and batteries may want to consider carbon and silicon.
 
nut said:
Huh? So me and millions of people going completely off grid will be cheaper than staying on grid? Yet you don’t see the mechanics in that?
If I wasn’t making money from the grid I’d disconnect tomorrow.
Click to expand...

no

I would suggest, as represented previously, commercial scale roll outs will be more affordable than residential. The difference between commercial scale and "slapping them in a garage or on a roof" is a business needs to account for all costs and the actual performance rather than sales pitches.

The numbers you believe to be true are simply not a reflection on reality.


Can you provide the maths again for 1.6 megawatts? This maths question highlights just part of the massive gap
 
nut said:
The plan is working … no wonder the coal-ition wants to stop it.

Open Electricity

An open platform for tracking Australia's electricity transition
openelectricity.org.au
Click to expand...

what is the CO2 per kwh?

changing technology doesn't mean we are close on a CO2/kWh basis unless of course we adopt one of the two technologies that actually deliver low CO2 outcomes
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The war against renewable energy


Write your reply...

Similar threads

nut
The war against employment
Replies
4
Views
734
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
Gavin Excell
The disgrace that is the Senate
Replies
10
Views
727
Rob R
R
J
Debate for Australia, and the next election.2025.
Replies
4
Views
247
kickazz
kickazz
nut
The Big Miners: When do we get our fund?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
nut
nut
anchor man
Gina the politician.
Replies
17
Views
1K
Kram
Kram
Bunk Moreland
The major parties versus social media
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
peetoo
peetoo
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
128
Views
7K
Ice-Wolf
Ice-Wolf

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top