lee wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2024 at 7:54pm:


Didn't think so. Perhaps now we can get back to Dave explaining why he thinks we aren't allowed to use coal in Australia.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2024 at 9:35pm:


I did provide the link.
It is The Australian, not the Tele. And it's Chris Uhlman, not Bolt.


Reading the two long is excepts I provided, you should be able to think of something more substantial than a Bbwianesque yawn or an equally enervated 'I'm not talkin' to no Bolt'.

He feared an even bigger cost would come closer to home, if the poles and wires of the distribution system had to be rebuilt to cope with the growing stress placed on the system by rooftop solar and electric vehicles. Distribution costs make up 35 per cent of every electricity bill.

“Now that network of distribution is hundreds of thousands of kilometres across Australia connecting all the homes and businesses across this enormous country,” he said. “The need for more capacity and more infrastructure on the poles and wires along our streets is going to add to the cost of our bills.”

The government pledge also failed to account for the fact that the eastern grid, the National Electricity Market, is exactly as advertised: a wholesale electricity marketplace.

Daniel Westerman, chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator, told Sky: “Most people probably don’t know that energy in Australia is bought and sold every five minutes, and we manage the buying and selling and settle the trades just like the ASX.”

In that marketplace the highest cost of generation, not the lowest cost, sets the wholesale price of power. And because wind and solar leave large supply gaps in the morning and evening hours of peak demand, the price is more often than not set by more expensive forms of generation. As the low-cost generators of brown and black coal are retired, the wholesale price will, more often, be set by the higher prices of gas, hydro power and batteries.

Wholesale costs make up 35 per cent of every electricity bill.

And then there is a relatively new line in all bills, for green schemes. They make up 10 per cent of most bills, building money to subsidise large and small renewable energy schemes. Since 2013 Australian electricity customers have contributed $14bn to subsidise large-scale wind and solar developers, and another $11.5bn for households and businesses installing rooftop solar.

Jim Robb is chief executive and president of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Appointed by congress, his unique job is to oversee the reliability and security of the bulk power system across the entire interconnected American grid, which includes all of the US and parts of Canada and Mexico.

“There’s a line that a lot of people will latch on to that as we move toward more renewable sources of energy, that costs will decline because we don’t have to pay for fuel,” Mr Robb said. “But we do have to pay for the capital required to convert free wind and free sunshine into electricity. We’re going to have to pay for the capital to distribute it to customers, and we’re going have to pay for the creation of those reliability services.”
Woodside chief executive Meg O’Neill told Sky News that the real problem with the transition was that politicians and activists were not levelling with the Australian people and they were using aspirations, not data, to make their case.

“I actually worry about the Australians who are battling it out every day,” Ms O’Neill said. “Those are the ones who are going to feel the greatest impact from power price rises from blackouts. You know, those are gonna be the households that are struggling when their energy prices are rising.”

Belinda Jones is the face of that struggle. She is angry pledges of cheap green power turned out to be empty as she struggles to make ends meet and her family shiver through Canberra’s long, cold winters.

“It’s not just about me,” she said. “It’s not just about the budget, it’s about my family. I’m a mum, I’m the CEO of this family, and I’m responsible for putting food on the table, paying the bills, and keeping it all together.

“And it’s really full-on. My kids have grown up … and now I’m struggling to feed them. They’re embarrassed by me giving this interview because they feel shame. But I don’t. I see this as a political issue. I see it as a structural issue. I consider that when mothers are dumpster-diving to feed their families, that’s not okay.”

The Real Cost of Net Zero airs on Sky News Australia on Tuesday, November 19 at 8pm.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2024 at 10:29pm:


It’s my understanding we are in the process of closing down our coal fired power stations primarily because of there age and climate damage ( if you believe it).
This  assists us in meeting the Paris agreement.

The buzz wording is “ transition away from coal”.
So while coal cannot in the future be used to generate electricity in this country because it’s bad for the environment it’s perfectly ok for us to ship it overseas to be used to generate electricity.

Just like uranium, coal under goes some miracle at sea which means it’s no longer a dangerous pollution source?

Sorry the late reply, been walking the cat.

Matt Kean (gawdelpus) was the NSW energy minister and is now Climate Change Authority chairman. As recently as last month he said “people calling for gas to be included in the capacity investment scheme are trying to stop renewables”.

“That just seems like a recipe for much higher electricity bills for Australian consumers, and they’re bills that we can’t afford to pay,” Kean said.

So one of the key figures pushing for a weather-dependent grid appears not to have read, or does not understand, the future system plan he champions.

For his benefit we will return to Westerman: “What we know is that as we get to a net-zero system, it’s really expensive if we don’t have a dispatchable source like gas.”

Is it not just a tad disturbing that Kean’s views are so profoundly discordant with the analysis that underpins the system he is promoting? Again, for his benefit, his preferred grid does not work without gas. And, without gas, it will be even more expensive.

Kean also clearly has no knowledge of what’s happening in other countries attempting the same transition, unless he now believes that by subsidising gas the EU is “trying to stop renewables”.

It gets worse. Under questioning before a recent Senate estimates hearing, Kean repeatedly asserted that the system plan “is a look at the counterfactuals as to other sources of generation to provide the cheapest replacement cost of an existing system”.

This is wrong. Examining the cost of coal and nuclear power is explicitly prohibited because the plan is confined by the guardrails of every state and federal policy, including the 82 per cent renewable target. What is being built is not the cheapest system for consumers, it’s the “lowest-cost pathway”. They are two very different things, which is why Westerman will not follow his political masters’ lead in promising lower power prices.

The thought that those leading the net-zero charge might be clueless has clearly occurred to another inhabitant of the real world, Woodside chief executive Meg O’Neill.

“One of the things that I think has been challenging is we’re not using data to have the conversation,” O’Neill says.

“We’re using aspiration. We’re using goals. But the fundamental data that will help us understand what’s required to get to the place we want to be, that’s not been laid up for the Australian people.”

And how much back-up of gas, batteries and pumped hydro will be needed to support the so-called net-zero grid?

“What we’ve seen is that you need to manage those zero output hours from wind and solar,” Caravaggio says. “Unfortunately they always happen. So you need essentially a hundred per cent back-up for different periods to cover that need. That is an evolving challenge to figure out the economics and how to make that affordable. Right now, what we typically see is a significant gas build out.”

One hundred per cent backup.

So we are building two systems. The one being advertised and the shadow system needed to ensure the security of supply. And, in a profound irony, the crucial second system has been actively undermined by those championing the first.

In an electricity system, the term for a catastrophic event is cascading system failure. It begins with an initial fault which amplifies through the grid and ends in a widespread blackout. The lights can go out within a minute.

If the mob wakes up to the fact that what was promised by Bowen can never be delivered, or the lights go out, then Labor will learn what a cascading system failure looks like when it is applied to politics. It will put the lights out on the government in a heartbeat.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-astonishing-cost-of-our-netzero-de...

Bowels and Keen - Gawd 'elp us.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24^th, 2024 at 11:03am:

You didn't understand any of it.

It doesn't matter what the topic, it is way over your head.

Australia is confronted by three big changes in our strategic circumstances that are making our steady-as-you-go approaches to security and economic development untenable.

We face a markedly increased risk of war in the Indo-Pacific; the global economy is restructuring rapidly in adverse ways; and the Australian economy has stalled with essentially zero productivity growth, declining international competitiveness and a flight of much-needed investment.

If we ignore these fundamental changes in our circumstances we will see Australia reduced to a weak and vulnerable backwater state within a decade. We urgently need to recalibrate, develop a new vision for our future and launch serious reforms.

...

The second strategic challenge is the rapid restructuring of the global economy, driven by China dumping its vast manufacturing surpluses into global markets.

This, in turn, is triggering tariff and other emergency protective measures to be taken by the US, most of Europe, democratic Asia and increasing numbers of developing countries. The origins of this global economic crisis lie in the decision of the Clinton administration in the US to support China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001. At the time it was widely assumed that Beijing would abide by the WTO rules, its economic opening would lead to political liberalisation and China would become a “responsible international citizen”.

In joining the WTO, China promised to lower its tariffs, eliminate non-tariff barriers, protect the property rights of foreign investors and open its markets to American and other international producers. However, China kept very few of these promises. Instead, it heavily subsidised its own industries and used a wide range of other mercantilist practices to penetrate, and ultimately dominate, key foreign markets.

This has led to the widespread de-industrialisation of the US, Australia, Britain and most other developed economies. Entire industrial regions in the US and elsewhere have collapsed, and millions of people have lost their jobs. The strategic impact of this vast industrial transfer has been huge. In 2004, US manufacturing output was double that of China. But by 2020 Chinese manufacturing output was double that of the US. This industrial imbalance has grown worse during the past three years. When China’s economy failed to recover fully from the Covid disruptions, its housing sector contracted, consumption fell and many Chinese businesses stalled. This led Beijing to stimulate the economy in part by encouraging many manufacturers to continue expanding production capacity.

In several key product categories, including electric vehicles and solar panels, China has now built more production capacity than is needed to supply the entire globe. However, with domestic demand weak, the only way for many manufacturers to stay afloat has been to send their growing production surpluses into overseas markets at low prices.

This dumping of China’s manufacturing surpluses is considered intolerable by the US, most of Europe and many other countries. The tsunami of cheap Chinese products is destroying the strategic industries of many countries, undermining their economies and rendering them more vulnerable to any new economic or geo-strategic shocks.

Not surprisingly, a strong fightback is under way. Western investment into China is at its lowest level in 30 years. Many American and European companies are reducing their footprints in China and some are leaving entirely.

Tariff and other protective measures are proliferating. The US already has 50 per cent tariffs on Chinese semiconductors, solar cells and medical products. It also has 25 per cent tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminium and batteries, and 25-100 per cent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. Trump’s policy is to impose a 60 per cent tariff on all Chinese goods, with a possible 20 per cent additional tariff following.

Nearly all of Europe is introducing 27-48 per cent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, and 20-48 per cent tariffs on Chinese steel and other metals are being considered. Canada has imposed a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and India has imposed 15-125 per cent tariffs on Chinese vehicles. India also has announced 30 per cent tariffs on most Chinese foods.

A rising number of developing countries also have joined the push back. Indonesia has imposed 200 per cent tariffs on Chinese textiles and other light manufactured goods, Turkey has introduced a 40 per cent tariff on Chinese electrical vehicles, and Brazil and Chile have announced tariffs on Chinese steel products.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/business-as-usual-on-china-will-ruin-u...