Coal is on the way out. Don't tell the Government

Quote:

---

Am I being accused of playing the man not the ball? All I have done is provide evidence of the dubious reliability of some of your sources.
I am not trying to get you into a debate about climate change. I am just trying to get you to look more closely at the reliability of sources of information that you are quoting.

---

My impression after reading the above is that you have not read any of the articles in WUWT.

WUWT is a FORUM , somewhat like This one where the owner Anthony Watts publishes contributions and then vigorous debate follows from both Pro and con sides.

There are many eminent scientists that publish articles including Professor Judith Curry who has testified before congress, Dr Susan Crockford who is a world authority on The Climate Change poster child Polar Bears , Dr Roger Pielke, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Tim Ball and many others.

Of course there are some crazies as there is on this forum, but do you not contribute because of some crazies? Do you not trust yourself to have the intelligence to separate fact from fiction?

Did you believe that lemmings jumped over a cliff? Did you believe David Attenborough that walruses did the same without some external threat?
Regards PhilipA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

I read somewhere ( I think in this thread) that 91% of new electricity capacity in the World is from renewables.

I have attached this article which demonstrates that of that 91% claimed it is probably only 10% as renewables exponents are always quoting "nameplate rating" which I hope we all know is a totally inadequate way of measuring renewable capacity seeing that wind for example rarely contributes more than 30% of "nameplate rating" and very often much less.

We Should Not Compare Electricity Sources Using Nameplate Ratings – Watts Up With That?

Regards PhilipA

---

With wind wound down often as other wise we would have too much power your right of course Phillip.

Noted that often when driving past hundreds of Wind generators which now exist along the Hamilton Highway ( VIC)

A whisper plus is more than every drop of the wind and solar power wasted currently as it cannot be used or stored fast enough just might have a few options coming to fix that issue? Shell news

"thyssenkrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers recently signed a supply contract with Shell for the large-scale project Hydrogen Holland I in the port of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Under the contract, thyssenkrupp nucera—formerly thyssenkrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers—will engineer, procure and fabricate a 200 MW electrolysis plant based on their large-scale 20 MW alkaline water electrolysis module.
First construction work for the electrolyzers will likely begin in Spring 2022. Shell’s final investment decision to build the Holland Hydrogen I is expected in 2022, after which the intended start of production will be in 2024."


What might be interesting about a "200 MW" electrolysis plant (or 2) is it "would" supply enough Hydrogen from otherwise wasted Solar, wind power for the storage and generation to eliminate all coal used today and have a lot spare to sell? Just musing not suggesting everything is perfect[biggrin]

Did you guys know that wind power sites actually use power when they aren't producing? Cherry Tree near Seymour uses 1.5mw a day when not producing

Wind power is great for supplementary load, but not base load. My understanding is the only other suitable alternative for base load at the moment is nuclear. Everything else can't produce the reliable base load we need.

Interestingly a mate who works in the industry did the sums and we would need over 1,000 of the South Australian mega batteries to run peak summer load in Victoria. So that's not really an option either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

My impression after reading the above is that you have not read any of the articles in WUWT.

WUWT is a FORUM , somewhat like This one where the owner Anthony Watts publishes contributions and then vigorous debate follows from both Pro and con sides.

There are many eminent scientists that publish articles including Professor Judith Curry who has testified before congress, Dr Susan Crockford who is a world authority on The Climate Change poster child Polar Bears , Dr Roger Pielke, Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Tim Ball and many others.

Of course there are some crazies as there is on this forum, but do you not contribute because of some crazies? Do you not trust yourself to have the intelligence to separate fact from fiction?

Did you believe that lemmings jumped over a cliff? Did you believe David Attenborough that walruses did the same without some external threat?
Regards PhilipA

---

Eminent scientists indeed: to take the example of Professor Judith Curry;

"Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. ......Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.^[3]

Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism: On the one hand, she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand, she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.^[4] Despite the broad consensus among climate scientists that climate change requires urgent action, Curry has testified to the United States Congress that, in her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.^{[5] "}

Make that eminent-climate-change-denying-or-contrarian-experts.

Quote:

---

Make that eminent-climate-change-denying-or-contrarian-experts.

---

See there you go name calling again.
You lose.
Have you actually listened to her testimony to Congress and the utter drivel put forward by Mann at the same time and his attacks on her character?`
I suggest that you do.
And perhaps be a little more skeptical in what you accept to be unbiassed .
Regards PhilipA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gusthedog

Did you guys know that wind power sites actually use power when they aren't producing? Cherry Tree near Seymour uses 1.5mw a day when not producing

Wind power is great for supplementary load, but not base load. My understanding is the only other suitable alternative for base load at the moment is nuclear. Everything else can't produce the reliable base load we need.

Interestingly a mate who works in the industry did the sums and we would need over 1,000 of the South Australian mega batteries to run peak summer load in Victoria. So that's not really an option either.

---

Nuclear got a huge jump after a Canadian Company new yesterday. Here in Vic not a chance of Science only based discussion I assume ( Australia not AULRO gurus I mean)

"AGL brings forward coal power exit by at least three years" 2040s [bighmmm][bighmmm] Suspect given some other Canadian/Western Australian news may shake that up a lot- Yet to be proven!! 'H' not just U308 is interesting. (MOU for Hydrogen Production Project in Canada) HZR

99% of Batteries are still tiny and expensive and very short term. No chance they do much more than shot term load balancing I suspect. I love my work UPS batteries[thumbsupbig] Great for that small role.

AGL is interesting to watch I think.

Coal is up 221.26% for the Year!!! The price increases in carbon fuels, oil, gas and coal inflicts on Japan, Germany and others who have the option to restart nuclear will be interesting to watch.

The price increase makes it cost more to generate power with coal and does NOT make it more attractive[biggrin]

Some $$$$$$$$$$$$$ are burning!

Seeing there are sunk costs for coal powered stations and potential capital requirements for wind or solar it is difficult to see how demand Far in excess of supply can be seen as negative for coal.
regards PhilipA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Seeing there are sunk costs for coal powered stations and potential capital requirements for wind or solar it is difficult to see how demand Far in excess of supply can be seen as negative for coal.
regards PhilipA

---

Sunk might be the right word Phillip? Question of Future costs is far more relevant to investors. No doubt you can buy /use coal here. Not one new or replacement scheduled? The NSW natural gas one is also Hydrogen ( Noted 11 billion+ in Hydrogen take overs and investments counted just today)

ACT, NT, SA and Tas have no coal power. "capital requirements" at a cost is apparently much cheaper thank coal is and has been for a few years now. 2019 report on that if you want to read it.


Make hay while the sun shines is very true and while coal price is massively impacted by Russia and also the significant gas price increase it might be a great time to take profits if your in that sector. I am think it likely there will be signifcant increase in costs on fossil fuel emission locally and also internationally sooner than may be expected.

Yes we must rush into the GREEN electricity supply, just like the UK.

There electricity bills have risen 800% in two years, electricity suppliers are going bust, and this winter has be particularly difficult for the UK to supply electricity because it was one of the most WINDLESS winters on recored, so the fantastic wind generators could not supply what was needed ( or promised ).

This garbage that GREEN power is cheaper, has not been the case with any country that has gone down that ditch.

I saw the a picture the other day, of the first load of coal on the new Bowen Railway, up in north Queensland.

So much for the coal industry dying.

It was a great picture of another train load of Organic Electric Car Fuel.