UN report rightfully shames Australia over fossil fuel plans
theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/un-r...
theage.com.auPosted Dec 3, 2020, 11:56 PM UTC
62764
theage.com.auThe LNP is shameless, but it won’t be long before the words become carbon tariffs which are harder to hand wave away.
37
Bingo. Pretty sure biden was looking at something like that for trading partners who weren't pulling their weight. Could even go the way of if you dont have a carbon tax in place you get slugged with a tariff.
26
Yep.
Carbon tarrifs on Australia are a win/win for the Biden administration because they placate the progressive base without disadvantaging their domestic industries.
Meanwhile, the EU has its own plans, which have been in the works since 2018 (at least) and they surely weren't dissuaded by Angus Taylor's behaviour at COP 25 in Madrid last December- in the midst of the worst bushfires on record.
21
Biden can even pander to their protectionist or nationalist elements with it too.
8
A cursory look at his almost 50 year long record (as well as that of the close associates that have been chosen for top jobs thus far) suggests that this is the just the sort of consideration that we're likely to see.
3
They're the gift that just keeps on giving.
6
Not to us though. Only to their donors. A number of which aren't even Australians.
3
I retract my previous statement. They're the gift that keeps on giving to their donors. ☹️
5
Figured I'd bury this in the comments to avoid watering down discussion, but happy cake day!
2
Thanks fam!
2
Look, I know this off topic but does Angus Taylor have a very punchable face?
22
It's very on topic. I don't advocate for violence, but his smug cunt face really is punchable. Especially after he speaks, I have a lot of respect now for journalists.
14
Yes, but not half as guillotineable as his neck.
13
As soon as Rupert says he's a believer then Scotty from marketing with have a Road To Damascus moment and have his spin doctors sitting up all night trying work out a way to say he believed it all along and blame the Labor party and the ABC's rabid lefties doing.
13
You mean just like with the NBN, and how this was the plan all along?
6
This is one where they're just gonna have to ask state governments to do their thing, just like with Covid.
1
“No I don’t accept that”
- Scott Morrison, 2020
1
Thanks Tony, you trilobite!
1
If only our government cared about any of this.
1
Fossil fuel interests will not be displaced until there is widespread adoption of a viable alternative. They are not scared of wind and solar (Gas loves greenwashing itself with 'backing-up' intermittent renewables), pumped hydro can make a contribution, but its limited on a flat, arid nation. Batteries are an expensive way to resolve grid stability issues introduced by intermittent supply, they are a long way from being able to supply seasonal storage.
Nuclear will need to be a significant part of this solution.
-13
Geez are you a nuclear or mining shill? Your posting history if full of it.
15
Understand that modern civilisation is built on steel and concrete and is powered by fossil fuels. I don't care how much you compost, use public transport or eat organic. If you live in such a civilisation, you are complicit in these activities.
Nuclear will be essential if we are going to decarbonise electricity generation, even more so if we want to extend that to transport and process heat.
People who blindly follow 20th century green ideologies while claiming moral superiority over those who have basic understanding of how industry works show ignorant hypocracy. In the words of Greta Thurnburg 'How dare you!'
2
LOL, nice speech, too bad it's mostly gibberish! Don't blow a gasket trying to respond next time.
1
If all you see here us gibberish, maybe you're too naive to have a valuable opinion on this topic. Don't worry about it, some things are better left to adults.
1
Nuclear is too slow to build and too expensive. There may be niche uses in the future perhaps, but the main arguments for nuclear are outdated. The AEMO and the CSIRO have confirmed that renewables are much cheaper even with added storage, and even the former head of our nuclear lobby (Ziggy Switkowski) said 'the ship has sailed' for nuclear power in Australia. The IPCC anticipates that over 60% of global electricity production (and perhaps well over 90%) will be renewable by 2050 if we're serious about keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees. Nuclear has a role to play, but not a leading role.
13
I love that that CSIRO exists and they do good work but they got caught with their pants down on their 2019 GenCost nuclear cost estimate during the Federal inquiry. Their 2020 follow up was - paraphrasing - 'We acknowledge we were wrong but we are not committing any additional resources to develop a reasonable estimate'.
Ziggy Switkowski says nuclear has sailed for conventional nuclear new build, but is confident in Small Modular Reactors (SMR) having a place in Australia. I think he's right about Western built nuclear at the moment, but not about current China, Russia or South Korean capability.
I'm not against RE, but any kind of Australian or global net zero scenario will need significant nuclear. Those high penetrations of RE will need an enormous storage medium and such technology is far from proven.
Then there's transport fuels (petrol, diesel) and process heat (typically gas), each of which is roughly equal to electricity demand. RE advocates often do not appreciate the size of the challenge we face.
1
Last I heard there were a decent number of sites in the mountain range where it could be used with regards to hydro. In terms of the batteries cost is dropping all the time and they're still cheaper than gas peaking plants due to the other services they offer as well.
As for nuclear it would have been ideal back a few decades ago but now it takes too long to buildand costs too much considering how cheap the alternatives are. Plus with the cultural hurdles to it the fossil lobby loves spruiking it as they know it wont get off the ground but helps to slow the change to alternate sources.
On top of all this is the household solar take up which is already helping to ease the load on generators and is displacing coal plants due to biting into their most profitable period.
8
There are some mountain options, but not that many in the context of the Australia's total landmass. We are not geographically similar to Yukon, Canada or Scandanavia, nor do we have their rainfall.
The whole nuclear takes too long argument is nonsense. Barakah in the UAE just is starting to come online after 10 years and it is sufficient to power Victorian electrical demand. No-one is even pretending RE is going to achieve that.
RE cheaper on cost is also misleading. RE is cheaper on LCoE and wholesale price, but such tech elevates broader system costs. Australia has some of the highest retail costs on electricity in the world and additional RE is only going to exacerbate the problem.
-7
Nuclear will need to be a significant part of this solution.
My dude/ette, I would rather say bloody Mary the times into the mirror than talk about Nuclear with anyone in Australia. That word is political and social suicide in this country.
But you're correct regarding current storage methods, they're either expensive, not possible due to terrain, or not seasonal. We're not moving to Hydrogen for seasonal storage let alone Nuclear with the current lot (Fuck you Angus Taylor) pushing for gas. Industry has no confidence and is stalled, anyone can see that.
5
[removed]
1
Many think that, but there is plenty of evidence that such opposition has far more bark than bite.
We just had three government inquiries into whether we should lift the legislative bans. Federal said yes, NSW said yes, Victoria (showing a remarkable lack of courage, IMO) and said neither support nor oppose and we will wait for a Federal decision.
I'd say there is scope for more conversation, and this will continue so long as RE continues to under deliver on its (many ridiculous) claims. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8144-nuclear-power-in-australia-september-2019-201910070349
-4
How long does it take to start a fossil fuel powered grid generator?
Could the batteries be the first stage and then fossil generators kick in later if necessary?
1
Many overestimate the capability of today's battery technology, and what it actually does.
A grid like the NEM in Australia is designed to run at 50 Hz (there is some wiggle room). If there is too much or too little electricity on the system, it this stresses the system. Too much energy and breakers will trigger to protect the infrastructure, too little and the operator has to cut off part of the system to prevent the whole network going down (called load-shedding)
If you look at the Hornsdale Battery Reserve (the South Australia big battery) 70% of its capacity is contracted to the government to provide FCAS (Frequency Control and Ancillary Services) which is a service that can be utilised to maintain the frequency on the grid at 50 hz, and it can respond to such anomalies very quickly (sub 1 second). FCAS can respond to problems originating from anywhere on the grid, whether its a tripped generator from a coal plant (our fleet is old and tired) or when sun or wind supply drops (high levels of intermittent generation plays havoc on a system that constantly needs to be balanced). As this is a Government contract, that is easy revenue generated by the battery.
The other 30% is available to trade electricity on the NEM like any other resource, in a classic buy when power is cheap and sell when power is priced high. Since power prices fluctuate daily from negative values when there's lots of sun and wind, to the capped value of ~$14000 MWh, when gas is doing the heavy lifting, you would have to be an idiot not to be able to make money.
However, in terms of total energy the battery can store, SA demand would run it dry in something like a minute. It is not a 'seasonal storage' system that can supply hours, days or weeks (or overnight, for that matter) and that's because batteries are not energy dense (sub 1 MJ/kg) compared to coal (15-30 MJ/kg) or gas (55.6 MJ/kg) or uranium (8000000 MJ/kg), and consequently, still ridiculously expensive.
2
1
Scenario assumes 90% wind and solar usage. This is a massive IF. Currently these intermittent sources entrench gas usage for backup and the level of interconnection required to make this remotely possible will be astronomical.
1
The key outcome of our modelling is that the cost of balancing supply and demand on an hourly basis for 100% renewable electricity supply is relatively small... In the view of the authors, it will be difficult for any other low emission technology (such as nuclear, solar thermal, geothermal, ocean and biomass) to become competitive, neither on the basis of competitive supply of energy alone nor on the basis of supply of both energy and ancillary balancing services.
Also, an enormous PHES scheme (Snowy 2) is going ahead and the paper doesn't even consider novel storage technologies.
1
Well, South Australia has the highest penetration of wind and solar in the country, which delivers some of the cheapest wholesale electricity which somehow delivers some of the most expensive retail prices once it gets to the consumer. Similar scenario plays out in Germany, however French electricity (70% nuclear) is much cheaper.
Maybe the future will show that I am wrong today, but the assertion that balancing the load will be small cost is not currently being played out, the opposite is true.
1
Its funny/sad how boomer era "greenies" were so vehemently against Nuclear that modern environmentalists, even with renewables not quite living up to expectations, can't/won't ever talk about Nuclear.
-5
What do you mean ‘not living up to expectations’?
Renewables are doing far better than any mainstream scenario predicted.
11
Scenarios I remember envisaged 100% of power coming from renewables - unlikely.
Rare earth metals being mined (read diesel and destruction) by third world slaves with no concerns for the local environment is a concern...
Ability to recycle solar panels is a concern. Ditto batteries.
Hydro electric sounds great until you realise how much environmental destruction is involved building the "green" facility.
There's no such thing as a free lunch and renewables are no exception - you can't capture sunlight without first abusing the planet.
-1
Rare earth mining is a bogey man. We have tons of it here in Australia. It’s far less destructive than mining coal, oil, or uranium.
Solar panels are almost 100% recyclable.
And no one ever predicted 100% renewables by 2020.
No one thought renewables would solve world peace and scratch your balls for you. But the more of it there is, the greener it becomes to make more. And that’s a good thing.
7
The conversation has been happening again over the last two years, I suspect it will become more popular going forward. The amount of spin inthe energy debate cannot be maintained among the compounding problems we are facing.
1
[deleted]
-5
Shellenburger is a strong advocate for nuclear power but he does have some controversial opinions on nuclear weapons which, which I wish he wouldn't vocalise. Not because I think they are without merit (nuclear deterrence and how they affect the geopolitical landscape is a fascinating field of study), but because even broaching the topic of weapons makes it way too easy for anti-nuclear interests to pivot the discussion into an emotional appeal to discredit a pro-nuclear power stance.
1
A nice little snippet that summarises why we're an embarrassment:
Edit: Michael West has done some great research on revolving doors. Have a look at some well known ministers:
And they continue to get up in question time and ignore the reality of our reputation thinking they can spin their way around the international condemnation that isn't influenced by Murdoch. Smh
Question time is a fucking joke. Loaded questions, chest thumping, and marketing tactics. This is what Australian politics has degenerated to.
TBF it's always been a bit of that, but I think the tell is the speaker. Go back on YouTube and compare the speaker of the house in the 90's and 2000's to the current one.
He's too buddy buddy and jovial. It's a serious part of the bloody democracy and he's having jokes. The old ones were steelly and not to be fucked with. They also weren't so liberal with interpretations of "relevance" which now gives MPs the ability to take a wide fucking road around any question.
That is what pisses me off the most, there is no answering of questions at all. Questions are asked, but never actually answered, just responded to with waffle.
Game of Mates
I'd also recommend Game of Mates: How Favours Bleed the Nation.
If people still think we live in a democracy, idk what to tell them.
Plutocrats, kleptocrats, oligarchs, corporatists, and crony-capitalists make the laws.