Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
I'm referring to AEMO's own projections for the transition to renewables. You talk as if this is a figment of someone's imagination, when in truth it's happening right before our eyes.

According to the AEMO, by 2050 under business as usual most Australian energy generation will be renewables. Not coal. Not nuclear. Not gas.

Right.... are you just making this stuff up??

Can you point to where in that report it says that renewables will provide the majority of the network power? For any scenario, not just business as usual??

I can find no mention in those reports of the % of renewables v non-renewable except in the context of government targets, none of which are more than 50%.

The report is a model of possible scenarios of power network development, the more aggressive of which depends heavily on certain investments and technological development breakthroughs in areas that are very uncertain. They are not projections, they are 5 possible scenarios. There is a key difference.

I will also highlight that even the most aggressive scenerio for reductions in carbon emmission still rely heavily on hydro and gas. You know, some of the ones I said would be needed to maintain network stability....

You are part of the problem. Stop making stuff up.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
I'm referring to AEMO's own projections for the transition to renewables. You talk as if this is a figment of someone's imagination, when in truth it's happening right before our eyes.

According to the AEMO, by 2050 under business as usual most Australian energy generation will be renewables. Not coal. Not nuclear. Not gas.

Right.... are you just making this stuff up??

Can you point to where in that report it says that renewables will provide the majority of the network power? For any scenario, not just business as usual??

I can find no mention in those reports of the % of renewables v non-renewable except in the context of government targets, none of which are more than 50%.

The report is a model of possible scenarios of power network development, the more aggressive of which depends heavily on certain investments and technological development breakthroughs in areas that are very uncertain. They are not projections, they are 5 possible scenarios. There is a key difference.

I will also highlight that even the most aggressive scenerio for reductions in carbon emmission still rely heavily on hydro and gas. You know, some of the ones I said would be needed to maintain network stability....

You are part of the problem. Stop making stuff up.

How does the AEMO know when new technology will be discovered/invented? Solar panels don't work at night.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
I'm referring to AEMO's own projections for the transition to renewables. You talk as if this is a figment of someone's imagination, when in truth it's happening right before our eyes.

According to the AEMO, by 2050 under business as usual most Australian energy generation will be renewables. Not coal. Not nuclear. Not gas.

Right.... are you just making this stuff up??

Can you point to where in that report it says that renewables will provide the majority of the network power? For any scenario, not just business as usual??

I can find no mention in those reports of the % of renewables v non-renewable except in the context of government targets, none of which are more than 50%.

The report is a model of possible scenarios of power network development, the more aggressive of which depends heavily on certain investments and technological development breakthroughs in areas that are very uncertain. They are not projections, they are 5 possible scenarios. There is a key difference.

I will also highlight that even the most aggressive scenerio for reductions in carbon emmission still rely heavily on hydro and gas. You know, some of the ones I said would be needed to maintain network stability....

You are part of the problem. Stop making stuff up.

Hydro is renewables...and I'm not making stuff up.

Like I said, we'll see by 2040 who was the problem.

AEMO has even modelled 100% Renewables...
www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d67797b7-d563-427f-84eb-c3bb69e34073/files/100-percent-renewables-study-modelling-outcomes-report.pdf

Additionally, the CSIRO (I know, they're in on the conspiracy too) have shown a 2050 plausible scenario of about 90% renewables and net zero emissions.

www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electricity-network-transformation-roadmap-final-report/

But as we know, the CSIRO are deep state operatives... who make stuff up

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..How does the AEMO know when new technology will be discovered/invented? Solar panels don't work at night.

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
I'm referring to AEMO's own projections for the transition to renewables. You talk as if this is a figment of someone's imagination, when in truth it's happening right before our eyes.

According to the AEMO, by 2050 under business as usual most Australian energy generation will be renewables. Not coal. Not nuclear. Not gas.

Right.... are you just making this stuff up??

Can you point to where in that report it says that renewables will provide the majority of the network power? For any scenario, not just business as usual??

I can find no mention in those reports of the % of renewables v non-renewable except in the context of government targets, none of which are more than 50%.

The report is a model of possible scenarios of power network development, the more aggressive of which depends heavily on certain investments and technological development breakthroughs in areas that are very uncertain. They are not projections, they are 5 possible scenarios. There is a key difference.

I will also highlight that even the most aggressive scenerio for reductions in carbon emmission still rely heavily on hydro and gas. You know, some of the ones I said would be needed to maintain network stability....

You are part of the problem. Stop making stuff up.

Come on. The technology exists now. It requires development and mass deployment. Energy from the sun and wind can be stored in batteries, pumped hydro and in the near future, massive hydrogen banks.

The USA didn't know how to put a man on the moon in 1961 either, but they managed less than a decade later.

...and you think we can't find a way to store renewable energy on a large scale....LOL

Naysayers.....

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Come on. The technology exists now. It requires development and mass deployment. Energy from the sun and wind can be stored in batteries, pumped hydro and in the near future, massive hydrogen banks.

The USA didn't know how to put a man on the moon in 1961 either, but they managed less than a decade later.

...and you think we can't find a way to store renewable energy on a large scale....LOL

Naysayers.....

I think we certainly can find a way to store energy on a large scale. It's not in the near future though.

What is problematic, is finding a solution that actually works on a large scale from a cost, efficiency and practical perspective. Most importantly, one that causes less impact than what we are already doing.

Batteries are not feasible on a large scale, they are too costly in manufacturing, mining, lifecycle and other impacts.

Pumped hydro is not feasible in the scale we need the majority of places in the world, especially in Australia. Even if we could build that many dams (most in national park so good luck with that) how would we find the water to keep them filled. Not possible as most storage dams would not have any meaningful inflow and evaporation/leakage is a significant issue.

Hydogen is useless on a large scale. It's a low density energy source.

Australia spends $10billion a year on this stuff, globally an order of magnitude more. Call people whatever you want, but there is NO practical solution to large scale energy storage anywhere near being available for use. Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Hydro....I am repeating myself for a reason.

NASA put a man on the moon because it was feasible. The technology and science needed was known and solid, they just had to develop, build and test practical hardware solutions from the theory. The amount of money being spent globally on trying to find energy storage solutions puts the Apolo Program in the bargin basement bin and that was scrapped nearly 50 years ago.

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..

Come on. The technology exists now. It requires development and mass deployment. Energy from the sun and wind can be stored in batteries, pumped hydro and in the near future, massive hydrogen banks.

The USA didn't know how to put a man on the moon in 1961 either, but they managed less than a decade later.

...and you think we can't find a way to store renewable energy on a large scale....LOL

Naysayers.....

I think we certainly can find a way to store energy on a large scale. It's not in the near future though.

What is problematic, is finding a solution that actually works on a large scale from a cost, efficiency and practical perspective. Most importantly, one that causes less impact than what we are already doing.

Batteries are not feasible on a large scale, they are too costly in manufacturing, mining, lifecycle and other impacts.

Pumped hydro is not feasible in the scale we need the majority of places in the world, especially in Australia. Even if we could build that many dams (most in national park so good luck with that) how would we find the water to keep them filled. Not possible as most storage dams would not have any meaningful inflow and evaporation/leakage is a significant issue.

Hydogen is useless on a large scale. It's a low density energy source.

Australia spends $10billion a year on this stuff, globally an order of magnitude more. Call people whatever you want, but there is NO practical solution to large scale energy storage anywhere near being available for use. Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Hydro....I am repeating myself for a reason.

NASA put a man on the moon because it was feasible. The technology and science needed was known and solid, they just had to develop, build and test practical hardware solutions from the theory. The amount of money being spent globally on trying to find energy storage solutions puts the Apolo Program in the bargin basement bin and that was scrapped nearly 50 years ago.

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

Same tired old nonsense from fossil fuel and nuclear proponents. Of course they want to discredit renewables because renewables are a huge threat to their/your interests. I love the way you say gas will be part of the transition, but hydrogen is no good, despite it being carbon neutral and zero pollution to burn.

See ya at 2040 ish.... Keep up the good work for fossil fuels / nuclear.

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

Ahem indeed. Just imagine how many storage solutions there are!

Nice idea .Will it work when its windy and not get to much of a swing up.

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

I would rather made tunel down to Earth , Then use water storaged in straigh deep shafts.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

I would rather made tunel down to Earth , Then use water storaged in straigh deep shafts.

Where are you moving that water to? Creating deep straight, wide wells is not going to be easy.

No doubt I am being too critical though

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

Sure, great initiative, and I hope they work. Stuff like that in conjunction with renewables will help allievate some of the issues.

Note I mentioned they have to meet cost and scale - ie any solution has to completely replace power stations and provide constant equivilant supply at a realistic cost....

People don't get the scale we are talking about. Lets do some very rough sums around replacing a 1GW power plant (medium size) that runs 24/7 with a solar and energy vault solution.

You would need 200 of those vaults operating at once to replace one power station in real time discharge. And thats at discharge so you need renewable supply to recharge that as well as operate during the day feeding power while they are recharging.

So lets say these vaults operate from 4pm to 8am when the sun isnt doing much, thats 16 hours, with the sun working for 8 hours via panels to recharge. That immediately forces us to double the vaults as they only discharge for around 8 hours. So now we have 400 vaults needed.

Typically a 1 GW solar farm would occupy 30 square kilometers and cost about $1billion...but now we need 3x as many solar panels as 2/3rds will be charging the vaults while the sun is shining....so thats 90 square kilometers of solar farm at around $3 billion to build.

So we need 400 of those vaults and 90 square kilometers of solar panels to replace one power station for one day. I have no idea what one of those costs, but it's going to be in the millions each surely so lets say another billion for the 400 vaults.

So to replace a power station with solar and storage like that for one day, we are talking massive footprint, huge amounts of infrastructure and in excess of $4billion.

$4billion and we have not even looked at storage beyond one day, Maintenance, reliability or any of that. If we want to store energy for a week you would need 4200 Energy vaults.....do those sums on cost...

Great idea to assist small scale renewable projects provide power 24/7, but its not a solution to replace power plants. We still need them.

$4billion will give us a Nuclear plant that goes for 30 years and take up one square kilometer....

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

People don't get the scale we are talking about. Lets do some very rough sums around replacing a 1GW power plant (medium size) that runs 24/7 with a solar and energy vault solution.

I did that, thought I must have left out a couple of Zeros somewhere. For even 8 MW I came up with having to drop the 35 tonne block on a pulley at 23 m/sec . That's a lot of blocks/tall tower combination to be dropped from a height for 8 hours? Surely not.

So I checked my sums against the figures for the Tumut power station. Dropping water or concrete is all the same. They're dreaming.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumut_Hydroelectric_Power_Station
Tumut 2 Power Station is situated approximately 5.91 kilometres (3.67 mi) north of north-west from Cabramurra, under Goat Ridge Rd, some 244 metres (801 ft) below ground level.[7]
The conventional hydroelectric power station has four Francis turbine generators, with a combined generating capacity of 286.4 megawatts (384,100 hp) and a net generation of 787 gigawatt-hours (2,830 TJ) per annum. The power station was completed in 1962, and has 262.1 metres (860 ft) rated head. Water flows through the turbines at the rate of 118.9 cubic metres per second (4,200 cu ft/s).[7]

Select to expand quote

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

Using mechanical cables and gears to shift mass is more efficient than using pumps to shift mass of water.

Select to expand quote

DelFuego said..

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

Using mechanical cables and gears to shift mass is more efficient than using pumps to shift mass of water.

Hydro is ~ %80. Possibly, but you can't beat a dam for storing mass at a height. How many 200 metre towers are you planning on building?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

It wouldnt take long to invent various energy storage solutions for renewables. The SB brains trust is already on the case

Select to expand quote

DelFuego said..
Using mechanical cables and gears to shift mass is more efficient than using pumps to shift mass of water.

Theoretically on a small scale maybe. On a large scale hydro is very reliable with little relative wear and tear. Water and steel and concrete work well together in a controlled environment.

Gears, cables, motors and gantry's continually moving 35 tonne blocks, on a large scale with hundreds of them working..... efficiency would be horrible due to failure/breakdown.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Hydro is renewables...and I'm not making stuff up.

Like I said, we'll see by 2040 who was the problem.

AEMO has even modelled 100% Renewables...
www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d67797b7-d563-427f-84eb-c3bb69e34073/files/100-percent-renewables-study-modelling-outcomes-report.pdf

Additionally, the CSIRO (I know, they're in on the conspiracy too) have shown a 2050 plausible scenario of about 90% renewables and net zero emissions.

www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/reports/electricity-network-transformation-roadmap-final-report/

But as we know, the CSIRO are deep state operatives... who make stuff up

I know you are passionate, but passion doesn't help make stuff real. I've said it before, just posting links with sweeping statements just shows your ignorance. You need to read and understand it, otherwise you are just a mouth repeating rubbish that you think is "solid science".

Models or wishful thinking don't make stuff real either. You need to look at the model and see if it actually is based on reality.

That energy networks report is ludicrus. It models a 400% uptake in rooftop solar by 2026...plus another 3x again by 2050, plus huge amounts of household battery uptake to make households self sufficient. It's 90% renewable "reality" for the network has 50% wind farm and 30% household solar by 2050. No mention of how our new windfarm overlords are going to supply when the wind isn't blowing. Also not to mention the massive cost both $ and to the environment for household batteries.

If that isn't bad enough, the report even highlights on it's huge rooftop solar forecast that everyone will need to buy a deisal generator if they want to actually keep power on all the time:

" Analysis shows that the required size of both solar PV cells and batteries to ensure the high levels of reliability demanded by customers would generally preclude standalone operation without a significant change in customer expectations of their power supply, or the inclusion of an active generation source (e.g. a diesel generator) that could operate to relieve the shortfall. This is based not only on the excessive costs that would be involved in providing the necessary capacity, but the physical limitations on roof space and within buildings for batteries. This is further exacerbated by the need to site a diesel generator in an environmentally acceptable manner."

I shudder to think that whoever did this report got a significant grant from our government.

Sorry mate, but this stuff is rubbish. You and many others are being misled and are happily following along because it fits with your view of "what would be nice" . I support the development of renewables and would like to see the phase out of fossil fuels, but renewables have limitations and no amount of smoke and mirrors will negate the fact that we still need dispatchable power sources unless we are happy to sit in the dark on a regular basis.

^^ All that relies on the ludicrous presumption that our knowledge and technological skill will stop developing today.

You also appear to presume that I'm advocating 100% renewable energy worldwide and overnight. I'm not. I'm advocating the end of subsidies for fossil fuel projects and systems, including fuels For transport. I'm advocating for the phasing out of coal fired power worldwide by 2050. I counsel against the knee jerk nuclear option.

It's obvious you think nuclear will solve all our energy needs, but except for a few select examples like France, it's fallen far short of the enthusiastic 1950's-60's marketing bull. There's no reason to believe suddenly nuclear is the solution. Nuclear' s had 70 years to do that and failed.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

DelFuego said..

nebbian said..

Paradox said..

There is no theory available to develop practical and cost effective methods of storing and then accessing energy on a scale large enough and repeatable enough to remove the need for.....yep...Coal, Gas, Hydro and Nuclear. We don't have it, and that is why the vast majority of the worlds power still comes from those sources and will for a long time to come.

*Ahem!*

energyvault.com/

Using mechanical cables and gears to shift mass is more efficient than using pumps to shift mass of water.

Hydro is ~ %80. Possibly, but you can't beat a dam for storing mass at a height. How many 200 metre towers are you planning on building?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Interestingly the problem of pumped hydro you could solve in second in sixties.Experiments with nuclear explosions under ground where often.Hydrogen bomb were used to create gigantic underground caves. Plans where drawn for geoengineering - like redirecting rivers and even create continental passage - next to Panama canal, by using nuclear explosions. One may say still safer option then use all those nuclear charges to target populated cities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannikin




www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/amchitka.html

If you want to know AEMO's latest view, you should be looking at the Draft 2020 ISP. What, you didn't get an invite?


And by state...


For storage, all bets seem to be on pumped hydro, with grid-scale batteries barely getting a guernsy...


Even the 'slow change' scenario has 50% renewables by 2042.

^^ Looks on the money. How odd, there's no mention of nuclear anywhere.

So 16GW dispatchable storage by 2042 in the Central Scenario. Right. I thought Paradox said it's just a pipe dream and the only way to deliver dispatchable power is with coal, nuclear, gas and hydro.....

I note by 2042, NSW is down to about 10% coal and QLD down to about 30% and still no nuclear - again doesn't seem controversial.

Fair to say, by 2050 when our longest range forecasts for these sectors go, coal would be of little import other than QLD and Vic and still no nuclear.

No money in renewables either?

First RCR went belly up and now Downer are out too.
reneweconomy.com.au/were-out-big-contractor-dramatically-quits-australian-solar-sector-33796/

The action the world took to counter the damage we did to the ozone layer is a great example of how man made problems can be solved with agreement. The key, is to accept the science and not deny the reality and then act. Without the Montreal Protocols, we'd be getting sunburned in minutes.

Downer goes down ..why ... because they adopted the American model of using a Labour hire company , Melbourne based "Zoom" ... to supply all their labour requirements .
All Downer supply are management /supervisors Engineers , instead of building a winning culture with their workforce they used ZOOM to grind down conditions and pay rates , the experienced tradesmen leave or don't bother to even apply as its no longer lucrative to be in the industry , and their projects suffer ... speaking from experience .
The smart operators retain experience and & pay accordingly .

www.facebook.com/bbc/videos/431390004299989/

www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-15/power-bills-to-fall-aemo-political-stoush-over-coal-continues/11966652

Despite the rhetoric from nutter National politicians and conservative propagandists, solar power in the NEM is driving prices down - not up.

' "...former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, whose leadership was bedevilled by the climate change issue, did not mince words at a lunch in Canberra. "Those people who are advocating that the Government should fund coal-fired power are basically making a case for higher emissions and higher power costs," he said."

And that is nuts," Mr Turnbull said, emphasising each word.'

Developing a nuclear power industry from scratch would be even worse, driving prices through the roof.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Chris 249 said..

TonyAbbott said..
Climate warrior ship of fools happened

You must believe the earth is flat and science is settled with a show of hands

What a liar you are. You've shown no evidence for any claim about a "ship of fools". You just believe whatever BS some denier throws at you. To just say "it happened" without showing any evidence is just childish.

No, I don't believe the earth is flat - I believe in the science that shows it's not.

You're lying. The scientists did NOT say that there would be no ice. The computer models did NOT say there would be no ice.

Why are you do dishonest? Why are you a compulsive liar? Is it just because you are ignorant and biased, or is it a deeper problem?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

TonyAbbott said..

Chris 249 said..

TonyAbbott said..
Climate warrior ship of fools happened

You must believe the earth is flat and science is settled with a show of hands

What a liar you are. You've shown no evidence for any claim about a "ship of fools". You just believe whatever BS some denier throws at you. To just say "it happened" without showing any evidence is just childish.

No, I don't believe the earth is flat - I believe in the science that shows it's not.

You're lying. The scientists did NOT say that there would be no ice. The computer models did NOT say there would be no ice.

Why are you do dishonest? Why are you a compulsive liar? Is it just because you are ignorant and biased, or is it a deeper problem?

this is the problem faced by all deniers and conservatives. At some stage you get to the point where actual facts can't be denied any more. The denier then has 2 options. To become a troll.....because you don't need the facts any more OR you become a conspiracy theorist or fantasist...again you can then hide behind facts that you've just made up...that aren't really facts at all.

Nothing conspiratorial about believing that meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to quote "the end of western civilisation".