Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Power Generation. The Weekend Australian. "Inquirer" June 15/16.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,505

    Power Generation. The Weekend Australian. "Inquirer" June 15/16.

    I was talking to my "Nuclear physicist" brother in law yesterday, about power generation etc, and he gave me this article in the Weekend Australian, (page 15) very interesting, probably the best I've read.
    Sorry I can't put it up, but maybe someone on here is clued up on computers & can do it,....VERY enlightening.
    A couple of snippets,.."currently, solar & wind energy deliver only 1% of global energy, and the International Energy Agency estimate that even by 2040, the figure will be only around 4%".
    "To replace a 1Ha gas fired power plant, society needs 73 ha of Solar Panels, 239 ha of on shore wind turbines or an unbelieveable 6000ha of biomass".
    A very revealing article,that many won't want to know about, but they do say don't they that "the truth often hurts".
    Pickles

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    14,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Pickles2 View Post
    A very revealing article,that many won't want to know about, but they do say don't they that "the truth often hurts".
    Pickles
    Yep, revealing that the Murdoch press has an agenda.

    I'd be double checking every supposed 'fact' in any article from The Australian.

    It isn't the newspaper it was even ten years ago, these days it's merely propaganda. Power Generation. The Weekend Australian. "Inquirer" June 15/16.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    11,620
    I do tend to agree that there is an agenda there. a plant is a small part of the total foot print to start with aside from all other related issues.

    No mention of what modern concerned countries are doing and percentages used.

    Its like if you cant get 100% renewables then don't bother. That article should be framed to promote the increased urgency required with non-fossil fuel based energy production..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    608
    it's Murdoch so there is an agenda and I'm pretty sure everything in it will be not correct, or distorted, or rubbery or deliberately misread - how, for example, did they count "global energy"?
    Arapiles
    2014 D4 HSE

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    608
    Nice of them to point us to the IEA though ... first thing I saw was this:


    Higher average oil prices in 2018 pushed up the value of global fossil fuel consumption subsidies back up toward levels last seen in 2014, underscoring the incomplete nature of the pricing reforms undertaken in recent years, according to new data from the IEA.
    The new data for 2018 show a one-third increase in the estimated value of these subsidies, to more than $400 billion. The estimates for oil, gas and fossil-fuelled electricity have all increased significantly, reflecting the higher price for fuels (which, in the presence of an artificially low end-user price, increases the estimated value of the subsidy). The continued prevalence of these subsidies more than double the estimated subsidies to renewables greatly complicates the task of achieving an early peak in global emissions.
    The 2018 data sees oil return as the most heavily subsidised energy carrier, expanding its share in the total to more than 40%. In 2016, electricity briefly became the sector with the largest subsidy bill.


















    billion dollars, 2018
    dollars per barrel, 2018












    Economic value of global fossil-fuel consumption subsidies by energy sourceOilGasCoalElectricity

    IEA average2010201120122013201420152016201720180200400 600080160240IEA. All rights reserved.



    2011● Oil: $248 billion

    Fossil fuel consumption subsidies are in place across a range of countries. These subsidies lower the price of fossil fuels, or of fossil-fuel based electricity, to end-consumers, often as a way of pursuing social policy objectives.
    Arapiles
    2014 D4 HSE

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Logan
    Posts
    19,485
    Subsidies don't have to be cash either, they can be things like building a road, rail line or port to move the fossil fuel.
    2009 Defender 110 2.4. ARB bulbar, Ironman winch, Safari snorkel, Steinbauer chip, AP HD clutch, Lightforce spots, larger tank, Off Road Systems drawer, Traxide 160 controller, Tekonsha brakes, Mulgo seat runners, Uniden UHF, Nuggetstuff seat corners, breathers, Polaris GPS.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Warwick Qld
    Posts
    1,867
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoMick View Post
    Subsidies don't have to be cash either, they can be things like building a road, rail line or port to move the fossil fuel.
    And,of course, those roads, rail lines and ports are never used to transport, or transship components and/or services for renewable generation, are they?
    -----
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
    -----

    1999 Disco TD5 ("Bluey")
    1996 Disco 300 TDi ("Slo-Mo")
    1995 P38A 4.6 HSE ("The Limo")
    1966 No 5 Trailer (ARN 173 075) soon to be camper
    -----

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    195
    Hi

    I wonder how many saw the announcement a few months ago ....
    "In April, renewables eclipsed coal generation in the US for the first time. The Energy Information Administration estimates renewables outperformed coal by 16% in April and will generate 1.4% more in May."

    The Australian looked at total global energy of all forms. If you look at residential energy and individual industries it's a different picture. Renewables are surging ahead in first world countries. And industry is getting in on it despite the nay sayers. The Nuclear Industry engineers are still hopeful :-) It isn't greenies anymore that they need to worry about. It's plain simple economics - capital cost, money to back it, and operating cost.

    PS. I haven't bought The Australian now for decades, but occasionally see some of their articles. It's so biased and one eyed that I can understand why they give away a years subscription to Uni students and passers bys at Central. They are desperately trying to get subscribers for their Murdoch rag.

    Mike
    My car: Fuji White MY13 D4 SDV6 SE 3.0 Litre, 8 spd auto.
    Wife's car: Series 2a, LWB, ex. mil., 1966. To be restored.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by donh54 View Post
    And,of course, those roads, rail lines and ports are never used to transport, or transship components and/or services for renewable generation, are they?
    I suppose they don't move the coal to make the steel either.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    65

    Murdoch Misinformation Empire

    The 'Fifth Estate' (the free press) has basically been shifted from 'keeping the bastards honest by telling the truth' to 'keeping the bastards in power who will make us richer'.
    The New York Times published a remarkable article recently - showing how Rupert has magnified his influence to the extent that governments do his bidding.
    The Australian - once the most balanced and challenging of the broadsheets - has become a mere vehicle for vested interests.
    In the US those who aren't out-foxed regard Fox News as a vehicle for the hard right in the same way that Pravda was once the vehicle for the Communist totalitarians.
    We've come to a dangerous place in Australian history - we've got Spymaster Dutton now at the apex of all policing and intelligence organisations of the Federal Government. The conservatives hate balance - witness what they're doing to kill the ABC.
    Sorry to wax political - NOT my favourite topic of conversation! - but 'don't trust me' - look into it - find out where we were and where we are. It's getting harder and harder to find anything like balance, truth, anything that's genuine reporting rather than Op-Ed - fewer facts and more opinions.

    Overseas we're seen as 'the most secretive democracy in the English-speaking world'.
    Did you know that you can be sued for defamation for telling the truth?
    That's how the politicians retire rich. Lawsuits. Again - don't trust me - look into it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!