Thread: Taste of things to come?

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

You really shouldn’t need to default to insults to make a point Tins.

I wasn't insulting the individual, I was insulting the logic.

Originally Posted by Tins

For the record: I do not believe there is any need to "offset" CO2. Carbon, maybe, but CO2 ain't carbon, it's a colourless, odourless trace gas that all life depends on. The quantities it is measured in are of lower value than the stuff in homeopathic remedies, and I wonder how many people value those. It has been present in far, far higher quantities than currently exist, even when humankind walked the earth. It's increase is already being mitigated by the greening of the planet ( eg, the Sahara ), and if people would desist from cutting down rain forests it would probably just stabilise. The arrogance of thinking WE can control it by driving Teslas is mindblowingly hubristic.

I believe the only way to satisfy our needs going forward, while at the same time placating all but the most swivel eyed of zealots, is to go nuclear. Clean, efficient, reliable, we have more fuel for it than most of the rest of the world, and we are already dealing with the waste, ironically from the rest of the world.

Just my two bob's.

Ah the good old mid-Pliocene days. Back when the planet was 3 degrees Celsius warmer, ocean levels 25m higher, and giant camels roamed the forests of the High Arctic.

We are on track to go back to those days within this century.

Good times.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

Renewables are more cost competitive, even without subsidies, and coal (and nuclear) is now more expensive.

In the last 10 years, solar energy costs has declined by over 80%, and wind energy by 70%, with both now being at least half the cost of coal energy. Only combined cycle gas remains competitive with renewables.

From a pure financial return point of view, you would invest in renewables and gas power.

If, IF all that is true, then why are we still subsidising renewables? Let 'em stand or fall on their own merits, or lack of them.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

Without government and taxpayer support, coal power (and in particular brown coal) would have shutdown a long time ago.

To be replaced by what, exactly. "Long ago" we had stable, affordable energy in this country. AND much lower taxation. The SECV was OWNED by Govt. Are you saying they subsidised themselves? Funny just how attractive those brown coal plants were to the likes of AGL, long before there was any mention of "renewables". The Kennett Gov't bailed the whole State out on the proceeds, and it was an economic basketcase. There was absolutely no talk of shutting down brown coal then, and it was only 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

And no - you can’t try to blame green ideology for why you had no power for the last few days. It was purely an act of nature sending cyclonic winds that toppled power lines and took out other infrastructure.

Can't I just. There has been an ongoing campaign in Vic to wind back on the existing infrastructure in favour of the new stuff needed to get tricity from the various locations of the "renewable" generators. Ideology here goes back as far as the Wonthaggi White Elephant, which cost megabillions and refused to work when it was switched on, once again for ideology. AND it can't run on wind or solar.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

Something you will need to get used to seeing more of in the future.

Just because you believe the sky is falling does not mean that it is. Every model, every prediction that it is has so far been proven wrong, and will probably continue to do so.

Oh yeah. That link? well, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Economist have used Our World in Data as a source. I probably will take that with a large pinch of salt as well. No hidden agendas there, right? I can provide just as many links as you, stating the complete opposite.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

We are on track to go back to those days within this century.

According to James Hansen, Michael Mann and Al Gore, that was supposed to happen before the end of the last century. It didn't. It still isn't. The science is NOT settled and the models are wrong time and time again. But then, modelling is NOT science, no matter how much the NYT and CNN want you to believe it is.

Originally Posted by Tins

If, IF all that is true, then why are we still subsidising renewables? Let 'em stand or fall on their own merits, or lack of them.




To be replaced by what, exactly. "Long ago" we had stable, affordable energy in this country. AND much lower taxation. The SECV was OWNED by Govt. Are you saying they subsidised themselves? Funny just how attractive those brown coal plants were to the likes of AGL, long before there was any mention of "renewables". The Kennett Gov't bailed the whole State out on the proceeds, and it was an economic basketcase. There was absolutely no talk of shutting down brown coal then, and it was only 30 years ago.



Can't I just. There has been an ongoing campaign in Vic to wind back on the existing infrastructure in favour of the new stuff needed to get tricity from the various locations of the "renewable" generators. Ideology here goes back as far as the Wonthaggi White Elephant, which cost megabillions and refused to work when it was switched on, once again for ideology. AND it can't run on wind or solar.


Just because you believe the sky is falling does not mean that it is. Every model, every prediction that it is has so far been proven wrong, and will probably continue to do so.

Oh yeah. That link? well, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Economist have used Our World in Data as a source. I probably will take that with a large pinch of salt as well. No hidden agendas there, right? I can provide just as many links as you, stating the complete opposite.

The answer is in your post.

The government should never have privatised an essential service like Energy.

We only have Loy Yang coal power in Victoria because the government made the investment. And private industry happily bought it because it was backed by subsidised long term base load energy deals. They just don’t want to reinvest in these aging assets without more subsidies.

To get any private investor to fund new energy, be it coal or renewables needs to be subsidised, and in many countries fossil fuel still receives more subsidies than renewables to give us energy security.

I personally believe we need to go back to state owned power generation but with long term thinking governments prepared to invest in infrastructure projects, and then yes - build what makes economic sense. Renewables backed up by combined cycle gas plants.

As far as climate change denialism goes - you are entitled to your view. I doubt you or I will be around to see if you are right or wrong. I am backing Mother Nature to win either way.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

The answer is in your post.

The government should never have privatised an essential service like Energy.

I agree in principle with that point. Trouble is, Victoria was going to be bankrupt if something was not done.

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

To get any private investor to fund new energy, be it coal or renewables needs to be subsidised,

The LaTrobe valley is quite capable, left to its own devices, of providing for the energy needs of Victorians for the foreseeable future and beyond. "New energy" is not needed, but could come in the form of nuclear, without the need of these stop gap "renewables".

Originally Posted by DiscoDB

As far as climate change denialism goes - you are entitled to your view. I doubt you or I will be around to see if you are right or wrong. I am backing Mother Nature to win either way.

I knew it was only a matter of time before you or another trotted out that particular attack. It's beneath you. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years, nobody denies that. But there is precious little REAL scientific evidence that supports the modelling, and plenty that doesn't. Calling people deniers, or -ists, or -phobes won't change that. And while I agree that I am unlikely to get the chance to see if I am right or wrong, I'm confident I will be here to see the grid collapse. Seems that around 90,000 customers had already been cut off BEFORE the storm hit. Working well then.

You are right Tinns, Loy Yang went off line before the storm hit causing the load shedding.

With any privatised government essential service if it such a good investment why does it then require an ongoing subsidy from government after it is sold on to a new owner? I do not have to support the operating costs of my car once I have sold it to a new owner

There are plenty of different ways to generate electricity. As there is an existing industry they are looking to maintain their position in the market. Any alternative method will of course require changes to the grid to accommodate them. It is these changes to the grid where the real battle is going on. To handle the increased loads will no matter how the electricity is generated requires a massive upgrade to the network as it cannot handle the expected demand. People talking about air conditioning causing problems are looking at a small increase which just goes to show how much work has to be done