Big storm and no power in SA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

This could be why the SA wind generators are supplying the market most of the time, while coal, rather than operating as traditional baseload, is being used to supplement the wind power to maintain the 50 hertz balance.

---

Where do you get this from?
All the reports I have read state Victoria are a net energy exporter and SA are a net energy importer (via the Heywood interconnector). Energy is predominately flowing from Victoria to SA most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Where do you get this from?
All the reports I have read state Victoria are a net energy exporter and SA are a net energy importer (via the Heywood interconnector). Energy is predominately flowing from Victoria to SA most of the time.

---

Exactly, as can be clearly seen on the KPIs freely available online.

Until the weather event that occurred it was well known that SA experienced rolling black outs during peak load periods in previous years where the interconnector and local (SA) generation was insufficient to maintain SA demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

A few words spring to mind such as straws and grasping.
It's all taken into account in the LCOE.

---

No, the issue is that environmental and health costs for fossil fuels aren't currently factored into the LCOE. The costs are picked up by the taxpayers, hence making fossil fuels seem cheaper than they really are in terms of total cost to the community.

If we started asking oil & coal miners and fossil fuel generation companies to start contributing to a fund that would cover the full potential cost of future mitigation of climate change, they would fold pretty damn quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinelli

No, the issue is that environmental and health costs for fossil fuels aren't currently factored into the LCOE. The costs are picked up by the taxpayers, hence making fossil fuels seem cheaper than they really are in terms of total cost to the community.

If we started asking oil & coal miners and fossil fuel generation companies to start contributing to a fund that would cover the full potential cost of future mitigation of climate change, they would fold pretty damn quick.

---

Climate change is a completely different debate. Climate has been changing since the earth acquired an atmosphere.
Why throw money supporting King Cnut's wave expedition?
We have to put a bit of logic into our plan before the passion and fervour take over.

Pretty sure we would see the same if total cost of Renewables, Lithium mining, concrete, vehicles etc was treated the same...

Then let's look at Nuclear medicines... same

Mitigating climate change is essentially impossible.. if you go by what's claimed then we've already crossed the tipping point...

Facts are - population is living longer therefore more humans are on this rock... less humans = less consumption and emissions...

Who wants to put their hands up for mandatory birth controls, reduced medical intervention and the like.... Soylent Green anyone?

Human life is a series of "fads", "trends" and patterns... you can see it throughout history..
What will the next one be?


Reality is "clean" coal remains a staple for those nations not wanting to go Nuclear, or those which don't have massive geothermal or hydro capability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Where do you get this from?
All the reports I have read state Victoria are a net energy exporter and SA are a net energy importer (via the Heywood interconnector). Energy is predominately flowing from Victoria to SA most of the time.

---

Because if you look at the AEMO reports most of the time the wind is supplying a significant part of SA's power needs and the amount being drawn from other sources is being varied to keep the system on the 50 hertz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Because if you look at the AEMO reports most of the time the wind is supplying a significant part of SA's power needs and the amount being drawn from other sources is being varied to keep the system on the 50 hertz.

---

It's amazing how we read the same reports and they tell us completely opposite things.
In fact, your current statement is at odds to your previous statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Wind and sunshine are obviously free, so the fuel input cost for wind and solar is nil and so overall operating costs, including maintenance and depreciation, are lower than for generators which require fuels. Coal and gas have to be mined, purchased, transported and burned, which are all significant costs. So, although their establishment costs have probably been depreciated long ago, their fuel cost is higher.
This could be why the SA wind generators are supplying the market most of the time, while coal, rather than operating as traditional baseload, is being used to supplement the wind power to maintain the 50 hertz balance.

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

---

Remind me to buy a sailboat, its obviously going to need less maintenanceand be cheaper than a tinny with a 20hp drop in . :p:p:p:p:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyG

Remind me to buy a sailboat, its obviously going to need less maintenanceand be cheaper than a tinny with a 20hp drop in . :p:p:p:p:p

---

The sailboat will certainly need less fuel than the tinny. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Climate change is a completely different debate. Climate has been changing since the earth acquired an atmosphere.
Why throw money supporting King Cnut's wave expedition?
We have to put a bit of logic into our plan before the passion and fervour take over.

---

Climate change has been going on forever. It has never, ever, ever happened as fast as it is happening now, and it is happening because we keep throwing more CO2 into the atmosphere (primarily). In any case, I talked about mitigating the effects of climate change, not about stopping climate change. Yes, we won't stop that now. We could, however, act to make the effects and the change less than it might be

I'd like to know what sort of externalities that you think that non-fossil fuel energy sources have that come even remotely close to the cost of mitigating climate change.