Thread: Big storm and no power in SA

http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and...ontinue-25263/

http://www.sunwindenergy.com/news/wi...w-fossil-fuels
https://theconversation.com/wind-sol...0-report-51306

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Solar and wind energy's stunning cost falls to continue : Renew Economy

Wind energy cheaper than new fossil fuels | Sun & Wind Energy
https://theconversation.com/wind-sol...0-report-51306

Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app

LOL!!!!
Mate, if you want ANY credibility at all, please quote a BALANCED source,...even the names of these sites, and who runs them, "gives them away".
Pickles

http://theconversation.com/how-much-...he-myths-43710

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

I would think by and large that The Conversation is a pretty reliable publisher (although I've seen one shocker on education)

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

I have seen no evidence supporting that view. Perhaps you would like to supply some?
In the news reports I have read on Hazlewood, they cited part of the reason for closing was because taxes on coal had risen 300%.

RE: Coal being subsidised. Ignoring infrastructure built by state governments from time to time (some rail etc, for the use of coal companies), then the subsidies come from what economists call 'externalities', that is, the impact of coal mining and burning external to the business, that results in costs to the community or taxpayers. Primarily, this will be the cost of climate change to the community.

Energy companies, at the moment, don't pay for the costs the community will have to bear in future due to their economic activity. This is considered a subsidy.

Originally Posted by Pinelli

RE: Coal being subsidised. Ignoring infrastructure built by state governments from time to time (some rail etc, for the use of coal companies), then the subsidies come from what economists call 'externalities', that is, the impact of coal mining and burning external to the business, that results in costs to the community or taxpayers. Primarily, this will be the cost of climate change to the community.

Energy companies, at the moment, don't pay for the costs the community will have to bear in future due to their economic activity. This is considered a subsidy.

For example the health impact of low level frequency by wind farms

Originally Posted by AndyG

For example the health impact of low level frequency by wind farms

It's a funny thing, it only seems to be 'evident' in Australia. A bit like RSI in the 90s. It was endemic here, but didn't exist anywhere else in the world, until they took it off the list of illnesses that made one eligible for worker's compensation. Then it pretty much disappeared here as well.

Wonder how all them farmers used to survive when it was windmills pumping water for them?

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