Thread: Renewable energy exploding

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Low-carbon energy makes majority of UK electricity for first time

Low-carbon energy makes majority of UK electricity for first time | Environment | The Guardian

£557 Million in subsidies to get to that and only a minuscule increase in renewable energy supply. No noticeable decrease in Nuclear or convention generation either which suggests increased energy consumption.

Green power fills half of Australia's biggest energy grid for first time
Renewable energy supplies more than half of Australia's national electricity market for first time - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Green power fills half of Australia's biggest energy grid for first time
Renewable energy supplies more than half of Australia's national electricity market for first time - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

10 minutes.

I can run at 100km/h - for the first step......

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Green power fills half of Australia's biggest energy grid for first time
Renewable energy supplies more than half of Australia's national electricity market for first time - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Sure, thats a step in the right direction,but an average or a graph, over 12 months,would give a much better idea of the real statistics.

Reality for the wind farms around us - when peak power is required - high demand, high temperatures - they are either parked due to the excessively high winds and doing nothing or it’s dead still and they’re doing nothing.

The solar farm going in may be more useful, it’s destined to primarily supply power to the Blast Furnace, BOS and Caster.

Originally Posted by PhilipA

I just had another look at the output and wind was around 6% at 5 PM yesterday.

It is 36% now so poor old coal will have to spin reserve or shut down gen sets.
.
How much backup must the system have to cover peak demand time when you can only rely on the wind proportion to cover 6% of capacity.

It boggles the mind that the wind promoters are allowed to sell anything they produce but have no responsibility to provide electricity 24-7.

This should have been written into the original legislation but then nobody would have invested in wind to get the subsidies would they. Money for jam.

Regards Philip A

Wind is subsidised to the tune of about $1b per year, through RETS, but coal is subsidised much more. Even the proposed government support for just the Adani mine (which needs it because it is otherwise what we call "unbankable") would be higher than that.


The IMF estimates that annual energy subsidies in Australia total $29 billion, representing 2.3 per cent of Australian GDP. On a per capita basis, Australian fossil fuel subsidies amount to $1,198 per person.

Global fossil fuel subsidies reach $5.2 trillion, and $29 billion in Australia | RenewEconomy


And then there's this:

https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk...ents/12912.pdf


Key findings• Support for coal mining and coal-fired power production is a recurring theme in statements fromAustralia’s government.• Australia remains one of very few Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentmember states promoting investment in new domestic coal-fired power production and expandingboth thermal and coking coal mining for export.Prominence of fossil fuels and subsidy phase-out commitments• Despite strong government support for coal mining and coal-fired power, no new coal-fired plant hasbeen commissioned in Australia in almost a decade and 10 coal-fired plants have closed in the pasteight years.• Over this period, Australia has installed over 17 gigawatts (GW) of renewable electricity capacity(Quong, 2019), largely driven by market forces rather than by government policy to transition awayfrom coal.• Australia still obtains 85% of its electricity from fossil fuels, with coal alone accounting for 64%(IEA, 2019).• As a member of the G20, Australia has committed to the phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidiesover the medium term, as agreed in 2009 (G20, 2009). As a signatory of the Convention onBiological Diversity (Aichi Target 3), it has also committed to phasing out environmentally harmfulsubsidies, including those to fossil fuels, by 2020 (UN, 1992). But the government continues toprovide significant support towards the production and consumption of all fossil fuels and fossil fuelpowered electricity.

Gosh, that report is not biassed! Sarc
who decides what the cost of air pollution is?
who decides the mortality from air pollution?
This is just gobbledegook.
How about they count the mortality from cold weather if there were no pollution caused by coal heaters that warm houses in China in winter?
How about they offset any cost by considering the 40 percent increase in plant growth from increased co2?
regards PhilipA

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Gosh, that report is not biassed! Sarc
who decides what the cost of air pollution is?
who decides the mortality from air pollution?
This is just gobbledegook.
How about they count the mortality from cold weather if there were no pollution caused by coal heaters that warm houses in China in winter?
How about they offset any cost by considering the 40 percent increase in plant growth from increased co2?
regards PhilipA

Didn't you read it?
The International Monetary Fund calculates those things, based on information published by governments.
I assume the ABS probably collects our information, using internationally agreed methods. The ABS has a high reputation for the quality of its data.

Our mortality rate from air pollution is 2.6 per 1000 deaths, which is relatively low.

The future of energy production will be different to the past. We are moving from centralised, government-owned systems based on dirty processes to a decentralised system in which numerous producers bid to supply into a national market. Currently, renewables have the lowest operating costs because their fuel sources - solar and wind - are free. Batteries will store surplus energy for release when it is needed, which is already happening. Gas is cheaper than coal to it will progressively provide baseload power as coal stations wear out and shut down. No one will finance new coal stations because they will become stranded assets in the future.
That's the reality.