Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

25 is the rule of thumb for the number of square kilometers of land you need to replace a 1GW power station (that runs 24/7) with solar panels and batteries.

No, 25km2 is what is needed to create a 1GW solar farm. That farm might produce 6GWh per day. To produce 24GWh in a day (during daylight hours) you will need 4 of them and then you have to store 18GWh of that and discharge it. ie 100km2, plus a 20% more to cover storage losses. So 120km2 of solar panels to replace a typical coal plant. Just for added context, SA's telsa battery was $172million for 129MWh. so thats $1.3billion per GWh. $23billion just for the storage.

So for one power station equivilant we need 120 square km of land and $23billion just in storage and you still have to pay for 120km2 of solar panels.

OK I misinterpreted the rule of thumb. It seems to be the optimistic way they rate solar farms. Maybe they should add the term "peak power" so we know they only do that for the brief period the sun is square to the panels.

Bhadla Solar Park, India - 2,245 MW
should be
Bhadla Solar Park, india peak power 2,245 MW average power 561 MW (Using Macro's 4 :1 ratio)

Why rate them with a term that does not allow them to be directly compared with their competition?

Yallourn Power Station www.energyaustralia.com.au/about-us/energy-generation/yallourn-power-station
"Powering Victoria and beyond, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."
peak power 1,480 MW average power 1,480 MW


This wouldn't be the first time a topic has gone on and on because the of the confusing nature of power and energy terms.
I recall trying to explain the difference to my opthalmologist who had one laser rated in watts and the other in joules. He just looked at me blankly. He still has no idea. My sister, a GP, was even worse. She had a laser for blasting off warts and things. Multiple 0-11 setting knobs on the front panel. I asked how she handled all the possible combinations and permutations. "Oh we just try it out beforehand with an icy pole stick in front of it. When it starts smoking that's about right."

Just had a look at that Bhadla solar park that Paradox cites.
Satellite imagery shows that it isn't wall to wall panels, so maybe it shouldn't be the root for a calculation of land area required for a solar farm because you might be counting a lot of land not being used

The latest thought bring me another idea.
Elon Musk proposed recently to build from scratch two major cities, megacities in fact.
1. One on the Mars of course
2.One in Texas. On pure dirt, rise from ashes, Design city like LAS VEGAS.

I wonder how long it takes for our billionaires magnate to imitate Elon.
Our Mr Forest could easy afford to cut piece of his >10,000km2 estate
to fund 100km2 and build completely new city.

Actually I am quite fascinated to see something new, design from scratch
for people to live,
Not just survive, Not just to sleep over.

I wish Mr Forest the best and will be happy to put deposit onto one of those beautiful homes ,
sold at low, but fair and moderate prices.

We could even vote, what facilities and arrangements we expect from completely new , designer city,.
I wish for plenty of bike paths !
( and a lake near by ) bit of forest obviously too...on another side, not to disturb wind over lake !
some wind turbines over lake , powered by solar panels green energy !!


Lets do some sums:
I guess that bulk manufactured house could cost $100,000 to build.


100km2 / 1000m2 = 100,000 new houses

100,000 homes by $100,000 to build = $10,000,000,000
$10 bln?? only
get a some roads
shops and supermarkets
shool and swimming pool
and obviously solar panel for every roof.
How much it cost to build new city for half a million people?

www.travelandleisure.com/travel-news/elon-musk-wants-to-build-a-new-city-in-texas-called-starbase

I think the Elon is practical guy and his people could sleep on the floor in Gigafactory at new Starbase City .
Save plenty time on commuting to work.

I hope for better for our Forest City !

What is your dream home ??





Gina City ? !!

Palmer Dream World?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Just had a look at that Bhadla solar park that Paradox cites.
Satellite imagery shows that it isn't wall to wall panels, so maybe it shouldn't be the root for a calculation of land area required for a solar farm because you might be counting a lot of land not being used

It's a fair comment, but when you are talking huge amounts of land like that you are going to get areas that are not suitable. Quite fankly just finding that amount of land is not simple.

Packing them in tight reduces effectiveness and also effectively kills everything below it. When you are talking 120 square km of earth, do you really want to just completely destroy whats under it? Many solar farms deliberately space them to at least let the earth breathe and survive under it.

It's a trade off, but I like to use real world examples and that farm was the biggest for scale.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

OK I misinterpreted the rule of thumb. It seems to be the optimistic way they rate solar farms. Maybe they should add the term "peak power" so we know they only do that for the brief period the sun is square to the panels.

Bhadla Solar Park, India - 2,245 MW
should be
Bhadla Solar Park, india peak power 2,245 MW average power 561 MW (Using Macro's 4 :1 ratio)

Why rate them with a term that does not allow them to be directly compared with their competition?

I think you know very well why they only use Watts and not Watt hours. As my figures show, it presents are very favourable comparison of renewable energy against dispatchable power and the average public don't know the difference.

Science and facts went out the window a long time ago in these sorts of debates. Dig a little and you will find similar problems in every aspect of climate and renewable energy discussion in the media.

There is a massive amount of money behind the push for renewables and net zero. I am not 100% sure of the source for this, but I do see a lot of similar, this was just todays.

freebeacon.com/policy/swiss-billionaire-bankrolling-dark-money-group-pushing-for-biden-climate-initiative/

Personally, I reckon the grazing round a solar farm in inland Oz would be greatly improved. Partial shade combined with lowered air movement means less evaporation so plants grow a bit better

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

OK I misinterpreted the rule of thumb. It seems to be the optimistic way they rate solar farms. Maybe they should add the term "peak power" so we know they only do that for the brief period the sun is square to the panels.

Bhadla Solar Park, India - 2,245 MW
should be
Bhadla Solar Park, india peak power 2,245 MW average power 561 MW (Using Macro's 4 :1 ratio)

Why rate them with a term that does not allow them to be directly compared with their competition?

I think you know very well why they only use Watts and not Watt hours. As my figures show, it presents are very favourable comparison of renewable energy against dispatchable power and the average public don't know the difference.

Science and facts went out the window a long time ago in these sorts of debates. Dig a little and you will find similar problems in every aspect of climate and renewable energy discussion in the media. There is a massive amount of money behind the push for renewables and net zero.I am not 100% sure of the source for this, but I do see a lot of similar, this was just todays. freebeacon.com/policy/swiss-billionaire-bankrolling-dark-money-group-pushing-for-biden-climate-initiative/

Going conspiracy theory now? Why would people be putting their money into "expensive" renewables when the older cheap power could be continued with?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Personally, I reckon the grazing round a solar farm in inland Oz would be greatly improved. Partial shade combined with lowered air movement means less evaporation so plants grow a bit better

Probably the best solution. Many use goats I think as lots of weeds in the shade. You also need access to clean them. The dust is a major efficiency problem. But then of course you have a water issue washing a 100km2 of solar panels....

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

OK I misinterpreted the rule of thumb. It seems to be the optimistic way they rate solar farms. Maybe they should add the term "peak power" so we know they only do that for the brief period the sun is square to the panels.

Bhadla Solar Park, India - 2,245 MW
should be
Bhadla Solar Park, india peak power 2,245 MW average power 561 MW (Using Macro's 4 :1 ratio)

Why rate them with a term that does not allow them to be directly compared with their competition?

I think you know very well why they only use Watts and not Watt hours. As my figures show, it presents are very favourable comparison of renewable energy against dispatchable power and the average public don't know the difference.

Science and facts went out the window a long time ago in these sorts of debates. Dig a little and you will find similar problems in every aspect of climate and renewable energy discussion in the media. There is a massive amount of money behind the push for renewables and net zero.I am not 100% sure of the source for this, but I do see a lot of similar, this was just todays. freebeacon.com/policy/swiss-billionaire-bankrolling-dark-money-group-pushing-for-biden-climate-initiative/

Going conspiracy theory now? Why would people be putting their money into "expensive" renewables when the older cheap power could be continued with?

well , government sponsored domestic solar panels.....
to bring negative feed back to grid prices soon later + permanent fees
and have cash cow....

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Mr Milk said..
Personally, I reckon the grazing round a solar farm in inland Oz would be greatly improved. Partial shade combined with lowered air movement means less evaporation so plants grow a bit better

Probably the best solution. Many use goats I think as lots of weeds in the shade. You also need access to clean them. The dust is a major efficiency problem. But then of course you have a water issue washing a 100km2 of solar panels....

bunny!
could eat the grass bellow
then used to swipe the panel dry
no need to water
and
finish in the can
Can bunny chew on high voltage cables?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

Going conspiracy theory now? Why would people be putting their money into "expensive" renewables when the older cheap power could be continued with?

No conspiracy unless you are looking for one I guess. The article was around unreported political donations. Massive amounts are being funnelled into political agendas and climate policy is currently the biggest political agenda there is.

I was merely highlighting the size of these fringe donations being poured into promoting those agendas (which include renewables), in response to Ian K's comment on the seemingly deliberate avoidance of a proper comparision of renewables to traditional power generation.

It can be explained by the money and political push behind it.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Paradox said..

Ian K said..

25 is the rule of thumb for the number of square kilometers of land you need to replace a 1GW power station (that runs 24/7) with solar panels and batteries.

No, 25km2 is what is needed to create a 1GW solar farm. That farm might produce 6GWh per day. To produce 24GWh in a day (during daylight hours) you will need 4 of them and then you have to store 18GWh of that and discharge it. ie 100km2, plus a 20% more to cover storage losses. So 120km2 of solar panels to replace a typical coal plant. Just for added context, SA's telsa battery was $172million for 129MWh. so thats $1.3billion per GWh. $23billion just for the storage.

So for one power station equivilant we need 120 square km of land and $23billion just in storage and you still have to pay for 120km2 of solar panels.

OK I misinterpreted the rule of thumb. It seems to be the optimistic way they rate solar farms. Maybe they should add the term "peak power" so we know they only do that for the brief period the sun is square to the panels.

Bhadla Solar Park, India - 2,245 MW
should be
Bhadla Solar Park, india peak power 2,245 MW average power 561 MW (Using Macro's 4 :1 ratio)

Why rate them with a term that does not allow them to be directly compared with their competition?

Yallourn Power Station www.energyaustralia.com.au/about-us/energy-generation/yallourn-power-station
"Powering Victoria and beyond, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."
peak power 1,480 MW average power 1,480 MW


This wouldn't be the first time a topic has gone on and on because the of the confusing nature of power and energy terms.
I recall trying to explain the difference to my opthalmologist who had one laser rated in watts and the other in joules. He just looked at me blankly. He still has no idea. My sister, a GP, was even worse. She had a laser for blasting off warts and things. Multiple 0-11 setting knobs on the front panel. I asked how she handled all the possible combinations and permutations. "Oh we just try it out beforehand with an icy pole stick in front of it. When it starts smoking that's about right."

That remined the the latest shopping for workshop tools.
for a hammer.
I have been comparing prices and Watts



suddenly I realized that I need to look at Jules rating !

Did you know that already?
I didn't.
There is only one country in the world that is
THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
and the second is :
yep just the second.
For a year already US is the second.

PS substitute richest for wealthiest if have any doubts

Now as thought exercise I was wondering under what circumstances:
Australia could become the wealthiest country in the world? !
If there is any path ( highly hypothetical but still possible) for a country of 25 mln people to become the wealthiest - greatest GDP in the world ?
Yep, I have few ideas already.
quite a few, actually maybe 10 or so paths

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Did you know that already?
I didn't.
There is only one country in the world that is
THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
and the second is :
yep just the second.
For a year already US is the second.

PS substitute richest for wealthiest if have any doubts

Now as thought exercise I was wondering under what circumstances:
Australia could become the wealthiest country in the world? !
If there is any path ( highly hypothetical but still possible) for a country of 25 mln people to become the wealthiest - greatest GDP in the world ?
Yep, I have few ideas already.
quite a few, actually maybe 10 or so paths

If this includes the cost of real estate, it should be Australia soon.

These solar farms make heaps of money from government grants and subsidies.

Wether they're profitable or effective doesn't matter, the real money has already been made.

Without government money they wouldn't build them

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..
Did you know that already?
I didn't.
There is only one country in the world that is
THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
and the second is :
yep just the second.
For a year already US is the second.

PS substitute richest for wealthiest if have any doubts

Now as thought exercise I was wondering under what circumstances:
Australia could become the wealthiest country in the world? !
If there is any path ( highly hypothetical but still possible) for a country of 25 mln people to become the wealthiest - greatest GDP in the world ?
Yep, I have few ideas already.
quite a few, actually maybe 10 or so paths

I bet they are some brilliant idea's, coming from one who apparently fails at all his grandiose money making ideas and then details his failures here on SB.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
These solar farms make heaps of money from government grants and subsidies.

Wether they're profitable or effective doesn't matter, the real money has already been made.

Without government money they wouldn't build them

Same same for most fuels, we subsidized the, because we like hot showers, running water, cars, planes and blah blah blah

Select to expand quote

Rails said..

Same same for most fuels, we subsidized the, because we like hot showers, running water, cars, planes and blah blah blah

Not really. Petrochemicals do not have subsidies. Solar especially is sitting in a very discounted and protected market by a lot of different avenues, both government and private sector now.

As mentioned, if it wasn't it would not survive commercially at the levels it is currently at.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Rails said..

Same same for most fuels, we subsidized the, because we like hot showers, running water, cars, planes and blah blah blah

Not really. Petrochemicals do not have subsidies. Solar especially is sitting in a very discounted and protected market by a lot of different avenues, both government and private sector now.

As mentioned, if it wasn't it would not survive commercially at the levels it is currently at.

yeh, only 7% of global GDP does to petrochemical subsidies 5.blahblah trillion

australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

Select to expand quote

Rails said..
australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21

I'm sure its all in the personnel interpretation, but 80% of their $10bn "subsidy", is made up of "not taxing" something.

I'm not sure you can say that not taxing something is a subsidy.


You don't pay road fuel tax on fuel you don't use on the road.

You don't pay income tax on income you don't earn.

I don't pay stamp duty on the registration for my tractor. My tractor doesn't drive in public places and I don't register it. Thus not paying stamp duty on the rego fees I don't pay isn't really a subsidy for my tractor is it ?

Not saying there shouldn't be a tax on burning diesel fuel, just that calling something that isn't taxed a "subsidy" is something that would seem to have no end, and when it makes up 80% of your argument it seems like you are a bit desperate to make a point.

I don't pay GST on fresh fruit in the supermarket. Does that mean apple farmers are subsidized by the government ?

Select to expand quote

Rails said..

yeh, only 7% of global GDP does to petrochemical subsidies 5.blahblah trillion

australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

Yeah, as mentioned thats just headline propaganda.

There are no subsidies in that and it clearly states the majority is road user fuel tax rebates that are available to all Australian businesses that use fuel in equipment that doesn't use a road. The rest is for infrastructure development and of all things, assisting investment into clean technologies.

None are subsidies, just headlines for those that choose not to exercise critical thinking.

Select to expand quote

Rails said..
australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/

Mmmm, delve a little deeper into the Australian Institute's numbers and it seems they have very interesting interpretation of "subsidy".

For example:

The government owned entity Australian Rail Track Corp (ARTC) runs (amongst other things) coal rail lines in the Hunter valley. In 2018/2019 ARTC made $450million profit. Yet if the ARTC has capital expenditure on rail lines used to predominantly transport coal then the Australian Institute seems (as best as I can see from the report) adds 100% of this cost to it's 'subsidy' number, but doesn't then subtract any profit made and paid back to the owner (Government) from that expense.

It classifies fossil fuel subside as "any instance where governments choose to allocate scarce resources to fossil fuel industries in a way that restricts use of those resources for other government priorities".

Hence the capital invested by ARTC could, by the AI's definition, be spent instead on a hospital. They appear to ignore any net financial impact of spend and also group any government entity into 'government' even if it operates and finances itself independently of general government budgets.

Likewise for coal and gas power stations. It adds any capital expenditure to "subsidy" but ignores any revenue from that expenditure.

If you added the $450m profit made by the ARTC and all the similar things I suspect the $10bn 'subsidy' would be a negative number.

Not something the AI or many people really wants to hear.

Select to expand quote

Rails said..
australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fuel-subsidies-hit-10-3-billion-in-2020-21/

.... and then they also appear to just make some crap up.

from the media release :
Further examples of state subsidies
Queensland ...., ran a 'mine dozer replacement program'

What is that all about ? The government giving mining companies free dozers in exchange for old ones ? Can I get one ? should Macro go buy an old pile of scrap and swap it for a new free bulldozer ? I want in on this one, so I go look further and find :

Well, from the full AI report, page 31 :

Mine dozer replacement program
The Budget allocates $3.8 million to a Mine Dozer Replacement Program, which has a capital value of $28.9 million. No information is available on the program and so is classified as partly dedicated to fossil fuels.

Right-o, they don't know what it is so they just added it in to the total anyway 'cause it makes the total sound better for their pre-conceived conclusion.

Read that again :

No information is available on the program and so is classified as partly dedicated to fossil fuels

Think about that. They don't know so it gets added in. Who 'classified' it ? Some idiot without a clue.


I don't what it is either, but I would suspect it is replacing machines owned by some Qld government entity. A Cat D10 dozer costs about $3.8M, so I suspect it is one machine being replaced or purchased for some reason.

What if this is a new gen hybrid dozer working to rehabilitate and make safe abandoned gold mines from the 1890's using money from the mine development environmental bond system ? Is that still a 'fossil fuel' subsidy ? Well, who cares let's just add it to the number anyway.



This crap is what makes me skeptical of anything else the AI publishes.

And the hyperbolic bollocks nincompoops like Tim Flannery spout on about.

And unfortunately in the long term it doesn't do the cause any good.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
...road user fuel tax rebates that are available to all Australian businesses that use fuel in equipment that doesn't use a road...

It's an interesting paradox, Paradox.


If I build a new solar PV power station I get a rebate on the diesel fuel tax spent on building it.

If I build a new gas power station I get exactly the same rebate on exactly the same diesel fuel tax spent on building it.


Why classify one as a subsidy ? Why classify either as a subsidy ?

What about Adani?

ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/IEEFA-Note_Billionaire-Adani-Being-Subsidised-for-Carmichael-Thermal-Coal-Mine_29-August-2019.pdf

Figure 1: Capital and Operating Subsidies for the Carmichael Coal Mine
Timeframe Subsidy offered to Adani Value
7 years A 7-year Royalty Holiday $900,000,000
30 years Fuel Tax Credit Scheme $2,400,000,000
30 years 22 Billion Litres of Water Annually $19,000,000
Upfront A 90km Private Road $100,000,000
End of mine life Rehabilitation $1,000,000,000
30 years Corporate Tax Shields (open-ended) unquantifiable
TOTAL $4,419,000,00

Personally, I don't get the fuss about the diesel rebate on mines. Presumably it's a cost of doing business, so the price paid for diesel is fully tax deductible. If it gets rebated it just reduces the cost that can be deducted from revenue by the amount of the rebate

^^ See, but even those numbers are very subjective, and they don't really make the argument that is being proposed in:

Adani is relying on Australian taxpayer dollars in the form of subsides to both construct and operate

A 7-year Royalty Holiday $900,000,000
- but payable at 2 to 3% interest in 7 years. This is not unique to this project, other mines (fossil fuel and others) get similar royalty deals and thus you would similarly argue all resource projects "rely on the Aussie taxpayer", whilst at the same time the Aussie taxpayer also "relies on resource projects". Pilbara iron ore mines got a massive discount on fines product for 30 years, but without them the initial trade to Japan would have been uneconomical. With them they added far more to the economy than they removed.

The $900m is the total value of the deferred royalty, to be paid later at interest. It is not the "subsidy" amount. If you wanted to asses a real "subsidy" then the amount should be the financing cost of funding $900mil over 7 years.

I do doubt Adani would get many offers of such finance, and not at 2 to 3% interest. They could sell $135m corporate bonds each year and pay the royalties with that funding and then repay the bonds at 7 years - but I bet the bond holders would want way more than 2-3%.

So, yes I'd assess as a government subsidy, but not $900m.

30 years Fuel Tax Credit Scheme $2,400,000,000
As above posts, this is not unique to this mine or to fossils fuel industry. Every solar project gets same deal. Every farmer gets same deal. Every Australian business gets same deal. Not a subsidy. Assessed at $0 when considering the argument of subsidies given to make Adani viable as opposed to a solar farm or something else.

30 years 22 Billion Litres of Water Annually $19,000,000
$19m over 30 years. Seems like small fry in the grand scheme of things.

And based on $2000/Ml, a number derived from thin air. In the Murray Darling basin open water market is costing somewhere around $100 / Ml. $2000 might be cost of exploration, extraction, storage, treatment and distribution, all of which are still Adani's cost.

So, given free water by the Government and not have to buy groundwater rights in open market at say $100 / Ml is 20 times less than stated, so $1million over 30 years, $33k per year - which would probably cost a government more to administer than it would gain.

Upfront A 90km Private Road $100,000,000
Didn't happen, was only ever discussions and aspirations. Actual real subsidy value is $0. Still, its a good story.

End of mine life Rehabilitation $1,000,000,000
Interesting calculation and assessment. Using same metric this anywhere between $1bn and $0. I'd assess $0 'subsidy' is being given as they have the same rehab requirements for every resource project, fossil fuel or not. If you use the argument in the report then what is the rehab costs of returning Sydney airport or Port Melbourne back to pre-colonization condition, or the government is subsidizing your house because you don't have to rehabilitate it to natural at some point in the future

30 years Corporate Tax Shields (open-ended) unquantifiable
Not unique. Same for everybody. One law being applied equally. Not a "coal subsidy", not a Adani unique subsidy. Just screwed up corporate tax laws we have in Australia.

TOTAL $4,419,000,00
So actual subsidy unique to Adani to assist Adani construct and operate is probably more like the difference in open market bond / finances interest costs on $900m over 7 years to Government offered 2 to 3%, assuming nobody else gets 2 to 3% interest on deferred royalties (which is incorrect anyway). Even at say 5% difference (so open market would want say 7.5% return for the risk) is a total of about $200 million, not $4,420 million.

And the cost to government of that would be the government bond payments on $200 million over 7 years, which with historical low interest rates is ....

...I don't know so lets just arbitrarily call it nowhere even remotely close to $4.4bn, as that is what we can do (apparently).

Anyways - back on topic :

April 25th 2005 :
...says Tim Flannery, director of the South Australian Museum......

If the computer models are right then drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia."


ABC News 22nd November 2021 :

BOM warns forecast storms and rain for Queensland could cause flash flooding, break rainfall records

November rainfall records could tumble as parts of Queensland prepare for another week of storms and wet weather.

www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-22/qld-wet-week-ahead-for-queensland-november-record/100638910

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
...I don't know so lets just arbitrarily call it nowhere even remotely close to $4.4bn, as that is what we can do (apparently).

But thats the way it works these days. Facts and critical assessment are irrelevent, it is a battle for hearts and minds and emotions. Throw the figures out there and the propaganda machines grab onto it and push it into every narrative until it becomes "the science" and cannot be questioned.

You see it every day on so many levels, the world is awash with missinformation.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
^^ See, but even those numbers are very subjective, and they don't really make the argument that is being proposed in:

Adani is relying on Australian taxpayer dollars in the form of subsides to both construct and operate

A 7-year Royalty Holiday $900,000,000
- but payable at 2 to 3% interest in 7 years. This is not unique to this project, other mines (fossil fuel and others) get similar royalty deals and thus you would similarly argue all resource projects "rely on the Aussie taxpayer", whilst at the same time the Aussie taxpayer also "relies on resource projects". Pilbara iron ore mines got a massive discount on fines product for 30 years, but without them the initial trade to Japan would have been uneconomical. With them they added far more to the economy than they removed.

The $900m is the total value of the deferred royalty, to be paid later at interest. It is not the "subsidy" amount. If you wanted to asses a real "subsidy" then the amount should be the financing cost of funding $900mil over 7 years.

I do doubt Adani would get many offers of such finance, and not at 2 to 3% interest. They could sell $135m corporate bonds each year and pay the royalties with that funding and then repay the bonds at 7 years - but I bet the bond holders would want way more than 2-3%.

So, yes I'd assess as a government subsidy, but not $900m.

30 years Fuel Tax Credit Scheme $2,400,000,000
As above posts, this is not unique to this mine or to fossils fuel industry. Every solar project gets same deal. Every farmer gets same deal. Every Australian business gets same deal. Not a subsidy. Assessed at $0 when considering the argument of subsidies given to make Adani viable as opposed to a solar farm or something else.

30 years 22 Billion Litres of Water Annually $19,000,000
$19m over 30 years. Seems like small fry in the grand scheme of things.

And based on $2000/Ml, a number derived from thin air. In the Murray Darling basin open water market is costing somewhere around $100 / Ml. $2000 might be cost of exploration, extraction, storage, treatment and distribution, all of which are still Adani's cost.

So, given free water by the Government and not have to buy groundwater rights in open market at say $100 / Ml is 20 times less than stated, so $1million over 30 years, $33k per year - which would probably cost a government more to administer than it would gain.

Upfront A 90km Private Road $100,000,000
Didn't happen, was only ever discussions and aspirations. Actual real subsidy value is $0. Still, its a good story.

End of mine life Rehabilitation $1,000,000,000
Interesting calculation and assessment. Using same metric this anywhere between $1bn and $0. I'd assess $0 'subsidy' is being given as they have the same rehab requirements for every resource project, fossil fuel or not. If you use the argument in the report then what is the rehab costs of returning Sydney airport or Port Melbourne back to pre-colonization condition, or the government is subsidizing your house because you don't have to rehabilitate it to natural at some point in the future

30 years Corporate Tax Shields (open-ended) unquantifiable
Not unique. Same for everybody. One law being applied equally. Not a "coal subsidy", not a Adani unique subsidy. Just screwed up corporate tax laws we have in Australia.

TOTAL $4,419,000,00
So actual subsidy unique to Adani to assist Adani construct and operate is probably more like the difference in open market bond / finances interest costs on $900m over 7 years to Government offered 2 to 3%, assuming nobody else gets 2 to 3% interest on deferred royalties (which is incorrect anyway). Even at say 5% difference (so open market would want say 7.5% return for the risk) is a total of about $200 million, not $4,420 million.

And the cost to government of that would be the government bond payments on $200 million over 7 years, which with historical low interest rates is ....

...I don't know so lets just arbitrarily call it nowhere even remotely close to $4.4bn, as that is what we can do (apparently).

You missed the point the for those mere 4.4 bln in subsidies government created 150 permanent local jobs!

Maybe that deal is not as good as promised well paid position for emergency workers that could pickup the sludge from beaches
in the case of oil spill from our offshore drilling.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montara_oil_spill

I guess that the best wages earn Royal commission members. 10 years of investigations diets, communications and commuting, PR etc

How it compare to wages you could ean on investigating blade turbine blade falling or or solar panel crack on hail?


I was amazed to learn that for typical mining project it usually takes 15 years to develop.

From that 11 years takes consultations and project designs and remaining 4 years to build infrastructure and start exporting goods/

We sure could do with a bit of global warming in Sydney right now.