The gold-plated stars of our national grid are the old coal plants we’ve built and paid off.
A US report (thanks Lance) shows how fantastically cheap and bountiful old coal and nuclear plants are. The LCOE or the Levelized Cost of Electricity includes the costs of the concrete, turbines, car parks and coal, plus the maintenance and salaries. It reveals that thirty year old, and even fifty year old coal plants, are the gift from past generations — enormous infrastructure, built and paid for, and ready to churn out bargain electrons. Or in crazy-land, ready to be blown up.
Look how long it takes to pay off the capital cost of building them (the red sector in the graph), and look how wonderfully cheap that electricity is from a 30 year old plant. Watch the pea. All those “investigative news stories” that compare the cost of building new coal to the cost of solar or wind are hiding the most brilliant and essential assets on our grid. Reopen Hazelwood now. (!)
Both sides of politics are choosing to destroy the family jewels in the hope of controlling global weather.
….
From the report by Stacy and Taylor, of the Institute for Energy Research (IER):
Most existing coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation resources could continue producing electricity for decades at a far lower cost than could any potential new generation resources.
If anyone sees a 30 year old nuclear plant on ebay please call Josh Frydenberg:
…LCOE, Nuclear Power, Graph, EIA.
These old plants just go and go
Below, see the real world data on capacity factors (this is a reflection of how well that plant keeps working as it ages). There is very little decline, and maintenance costs are small (especially compared to fixing gears and wings in giant towers in windy locations far out to sea and that break after just a few years.)
These old US plants keep kicking along for decades without a loss of capacity:
In the US, these plants keep working as they age.
Old coal plants in Australia are working at even higher capacity factors
The cheap old brown coal plants in Victoria were running at 90% capacity year in, year out. Though here, the capacity factor partly reflects pagan energy policies. The carbon tax dinted the capacity factor of brown coal in 2012-2014. The RET takes a growing bite.
In the US coal competes with nuclear plants and cheap shale gas. In Australia, nothing bar anything, competes with Victorian brown coal (at least in a free market) which is why it is run virtually flat out all the time.
Source: Energy Council
Hazelwood is a national treasure.
Thanks to commenter Lance.
The summary from the report:
Our findings show the sharp contrast between the high cost of electricity from new generation resources and the average low cost from the existing fleet. Existing coal-fired power plants, for example, generate reliable electricity at an LCOE-E of $38.4 per megawatt-hour on average. Compare that to the LCOE of a new coal plant, which ranges from $80.0 to $97.7 per megawatt-hour depending on how frequently the plant operates. The analysis shows the same for existing natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric resources—each produces electricity at a substantially lower levelized cost than its forward-looking LCOE (as estimated by EIA) would indicate.
We also find that intermittent resources increase the LCOE for conventional resources through a similar mechanism, that is, by reducing their run time without reducing their fixed costs. We refer to these as “imposed costs,” and we estimate them to be as high as $29.94 per megawatt-hour of intermittent generation when we model combined cycle natural gas energy displaced by wind.
The LCOE-E framework allows for cost comparisons that are relevant for today’s energy policymakers. For example, when all known costs are accurately included in the LCOE calculations, we find that existing coal ($38.4), nuclear ($29.6), and hydroelectric resources ($34.2) are about one-third of the cost of new wind resources ($112.8) on average
CONCLUSION
Most existing coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric generation resources could continue producing electricity for decades at a far lower cost than could any potential new generation resources. At a coal-fired power plant, for example, when a component wears out, only the component must be replaced, not the entire plant. The same is true for nuclear plants, until they reach their regulatory end of life, which is currently defined to be 60 years but could be extended to 80.9 Under current laws, rules, and regulations, large amounts of generating capacity is slated to retire and will be replaced with new generating capacity which will produce electricity at a far higher average levelized cost. The Institute for Energy Research recently identified more than 110 GW of coal and nuclear generation capacity set to close as a direct result of federal regulations.
When electricity from an existing electric generating plant costs less to produce than the electricity from the new plant technology expected to be constructed to replace it—and yet we retire and replace the existing plant despite the higher costs—ratepayers must expect the cost of future electricity to rise faster than it would have if we had instead kept existing power plants in service. An unprecedented amount of generating capacity is set to close due to ongoing renewables policies, undervalued capacity markets, currently low natural gas prices, and additional environmental regulations. In the absence of even some of these factors, most existing power plants would remain operational, helping keep electricity costs low for many years or decades into the future.
Spot the lie by omission: studies that compare the cost of new coal plants to wind and solar.
REFERENCE
Stacy, T. Taylor, G. (2015) The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Sources, Institute for Energy Research (IER), based on EIA figures in the USA.
I noticed also that there was no mention about 24/7 reliable power.
Being able to turn the power on when you want to, and expect it to be available, should guaranteed. The only way that unreliables can guarantee this is to have backup generators ready and running.
The greenies love to point to SA as their beacon of renewable energy. They fail to acknowledge that they are forever totally dependent on reliable power via the interconnector. Without this, the state would be in constant threat of brownouts and blackouts.
The green renewable movement is based on sloppy, untested ‘science’.
The doom and gloom that has been predicted ad nauseam for decades has failed to materialise. This surprises no one, and yet the claims of impending disaster keep rolling out. The MSM and ‘their ABC’ laps it up as well, even gleefully promotes and distorts any ‘catastrophic’ weather event.
430
It was good to see the headline in The Australian today about reliable power coming from coal.
“Backbench test for PM on energy.
Ginger group Calls for more Coal”
Twenty government MPs have formed a group called The Monash Group to push for HELE plants to replace Australia’s existing coal fired fleet. Some 10 Nationals have joined the group as well, including Barnaby Joyce (not before time either – although, now he’s out of the Ministry it is probably easier for him to publicly pronounce on his long held views).
Now just watch the Monash Group give Turnbull’s silly NEG a hard time a test whether it is really technologically neutral.
390
See also Dennis’ link at 5 below.
80
Thanks SS and Dennis,
I think this is great news. And I’ve notified my MPs, both state and federal, of my support for the new group.
I wonder what the ABC and SMH will say, and when. (I’ve not seen anything from them yet.)
Cheers,
Dave B
170
Letter writing from the long suffering prols required.
‘Twas ol’ King Coal that released us from slavery and we’re
not going back to a Minister-fer-Golden-Sacks-et-Big-Al-engineered
-energy-poverty any day soon! Long live the Industrial Revolution
‘n Magna Carta, NO ONE’s got divine right.
170
… ‘n some chocolate post Easter to Jo, a voice fer sanity
against the back to the Dark Ages Soras/Supra-state Movement.
160
Some of Sir John Monash’s descendants have protested at the use of his name. I wonder did they take a show of hands?
20
In the Australian today a little bit of useful information (apart from Morrison being up the creek).
While Mr Morrison this week called out the high costs of power from new HELE coal plants, The Australian has obtained an industry analysis based on a “Fuel and Technology Cost Review” conducted by ACIL Allen Consulting in 2014 for the Australian Energy Market Operator.
It suggests that, 10 years after it was opened in 2007, the Kogan Creek plant, one of only four supercritical plants operating in Australia, was producing cheap power at about $35/MWh.
The analysis estimated the cost of recouping capital expenditure was about $15.60/MWh while fuel costs were put at $8.0/MWh. Fixed operational and maintenance costs were put at $6.80/MWh while variable operational and maintenance costs were put at $0.50/MWh. The cost of tax paid to the state government was put at $4.10/MWh.
A separate 2017 analysis from Solstice Development Services and GHD concluded a HELE plant built in NSW’s Hunter Valley would cost $2.2bn and deliver electricity at about $59/MWh.
10
And I have just been watching the Drum on ABC – yes I am a masochist – John Hewson former Lib Leader promoting RE’s – “the way ofthe future” – what a …….? (can someone find the the right word here without being gonged).
30
Surely it is time we moved away from LCOE? LCOE assumes that every kWh that is produced is equally useful. But unreliable sources aren’t penalised for the cost of having a reliable energy source being available as backup (whilst the reliable source is not generating revenue or indeed any kWh)?
240
Why should the intermittent generators be punished when it is so much easier to punish complacent consumers either unwilling or unable to make their own electricity.
There are three classes of electricity consumers in Australia:
Intermittent consumers who now make their own some of the time,
Those consumers paying higher prices, unwilling or unable to make their own, and
Would be consumers who are unable to use power because they have been disconnected.
I made post 4# at the same time. I agree that LCOE is an abused, misused term.
120
Ah, yes. Bingo there, CharlesM.
The validity of LCOE analysis depends upon what is included and what isn’t, how each element is apportioned, and the timescale of the analysis. Without knowing all of those things, LCOE can be misleading or downright lying.
The point of the article is that existing coal/nuke plants have been paid for. There is no longer an amortization of construction costs included in the price of the generated power. So, they roll on and on, producing power at a fuel cost of $25-30, reinvestment of $20, and overhead/maintenance of $10, for a total of some USD 55 to USD 60 / MWH, all-in.
Greens want to ignore the issues of “who pays for the transmission lines out to remote wind and solar sites” by politically forcing utilities to make the consumer pay for it. They also want to hide the fact that forcing existing thermal generation to ramp down their output in order for the grid to “take” the unreliable power, the unreliable power is displacing power that could be sold by the thermal plant and doing so without reducing the thermal plant cost of operation. In other words, the greens want all and every benefit without eversomuch as having to accept any responsibility or penalty for their intermittent tantrums and subsidized cost of production and delivery.
Truth be told, unreliable power “should” be priced as the amortized sum of initial cost of plant, operations, maintenance, reinvestment, transmission line subsidy, thermal plant capacity displacement penalty, etc over the life of the solar/wind farm in question. Thermal plant pricing ought be similar, but without penalties for transmission and displacement of unreliable power over a different lifetime. Then the aggregate present worth of each MWh should be compared. That is the only way to actually see what you are comparing. Otherwise, LCOE is kind of worthless. It isn’t a properly analyzed present worth scenario.
Transmission line costs are around AUD 930,000 to 1.24 M / km. Thus, a 50 km feeder leg to a wind farm costs about AUD 45 Million – 60 Million. That cost should be amortized at the prevailing capacity factor of some 30% over 20 years. That means amoritizing a 150 Million dollar component as it is only delivering power 1/3 of the time. This cost must be borne by the unreliables because the transmission line wouldn’t be needed except for the demand by the unreliables crowd. It is a dedicated sunk cost for the sole benefit of the solar/wind farm that needs continuing maintenance.
The corona and resistive losses for that 50 Km segment are some 0.34% of the total power delivered. Add that in as a cost because what is delivered is not what was input to the extension line. ( 3.4 kWh loss / MWh input )
Ramping a thermal plant down to accept intermittent power pushes off a penalty of some AUD 30-40 / MWh onto the thermal plant. Because the thermal plant is being operated and fired, but not being allowed to operate at economic full capacity. That cost ought be borne by the unreliables.
In sum, unreliables hide their actual costs through subterfuge and political Bovine Feces. The true cost of thermal power is on the order of USD 50 down to 40 / MWh over the life of the plant, while unreliables crank out power at a true cost of some USD 90 – 120 / MWh over their life if costs are apportioned properly.
That is why your utility bill is so high. You are paying once for the reliable power plant to exist and be run poorly, while paying again for infrastructure to support a subsidized gizmo that works perhaps half the time at twice the cost. That leaves you paying 3 times what the power is provisionally worth.
The Citizenry are being fleeced by charlatans and demagogues. That’s what is happening.
290
A very readable, clear and concise outline of the situation Lance. Thanks.
We have become slaves because as voting communities we have been outmaneuvered by the political class.
The trust we have placed in our elected politicians and paid government employees has been abused and changing that is going to be very hard.
It still amazes me that an elected member of parliament can dynamite a huge piece of expensive public infrastructure and get away with it.
To the informed, the sole reason for that destruction was votes and had nothing at all to do with electricity generation.
And there is no penalty???
We live in interesting times.
KK
120
Thanks, Keith.
One of the biggest scams on earth is how generation cost is compared.
In the “real world”, engineers use “Overnight Cost” which is saying, “What if we could magically produce a coal/nuke/gas plant “Overnight”, then we could instantly compare them at a common point in time.
What the Greens do is say that “Wind generation Overnight Cost is X which is Cheaper than Coal Overnight Cost Y”.
And they are correct. IF the basis is nameplate rated subsidized Wind vs. nameplate rated thermal AND the Coal plant had to be built.
If the coal plant already exists, its “overnight cost of construction” is ZERO. Nothing is cheaper than ZERO.
So, the Greens then use political influence to create a “study” that says “Well, now. We need to put advanced scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators on that existing coal plant to reduce the possible preventable deaths from mercury poisoning from 1 in a million to 0.1 in a million and if you don’t agree with us, we will call you uncaring, irresponsible, greedy, capitalistic, murderers”. Then they put the existing, fully compliant coal plant, out of business to force the utility to build a new plant. Thereby proving that the installed cost of X capacity is cheaper with Wind. Even though Wind only produces 16% to 25% of nameplate rating on average and even then unpredictably and unreliably.
Tails I Win, Heads, You Lose. or “Wrong Rock, Every Time, No Matter What You Say”.
Greens use “Lawfare” and Propaganda to enrich their friends, punish their enemies, and fleece the taxpayers and ratepayers. I believe this to be true. Experience supports that view.
110
Thanks Lance; where did you get the connection costs for renewables? In addition you would need all the cost of the infrastructure which ‘evens’ out the surge nature of renewable energy to make it compatible with a 50 hz grid.
50
You mean the transmission line cost to connect to the renewables? That comes from
https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-electrical-grid-infrastructure-in-the-US-cost
https://www.xcelenergy.com/staticfiles/xe/Corporate/Corporate%20PDFs/OverheadVsUnderground_FactSheet.pdf
for 69 KV to 230 KV. and 1 US Mile = 1.6093 KM . 1.3 AUD = 1 USD (as of yesterday’s fund rate)
Is that what you wanted?
40
“Otherwise, LCOE is kind of worthless”.
It is, however, a new word and a new acronym to add to the confusion!
30
Yes, it is and that is not good news. Greens think that ANY LCOE analysis is “equal” and “defensible”. But they are not. Most don’t allow for existing thermal plants at zero cost. They usually require the newest, best, most expensive plants with commensurate dreamscape emissions controls for thermal plants, then compare that cost to the installed nameplate rating for a wind or solar farm. They also use a 20 year comparison period, because the renewables have to be replaced after 20 yrs, but the thermal plant life is 50 years. It is actually a form of propaganda and should be treated as such. LCOE without all the loopholes closed is nothing but salesmanship.
60
Lance there are courses at university now which teach communicators how to cover the inconvenient truths with pertinent verbalisation.
No wonder Joe blow can’t see what’s going on.
30
The carbon dioxide molecules from the old coal-fired power plants have still failed to melt the snow. Children are still finding out what snow looks like in vast perts of Europe and North America and even as far south as Morocco. Is it possible that our world-renowned climate scientists have been wrong?
300
Errr—parts.
70
I had to reread it to find the typo 🙂 funny how the eye/mind self corrects at times
110
“I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.”
Prime Minister Tony Abbott
2015
261
Yes but too many people do stand for it and vote accordingly; LNP, ALP or Greens so in the end it makes little difference. We get the government we elect and deserve.
140
john karajas,
The carbon dioxide molecules from the old coal-fired power plants have still failed to melt the snow.
That is because carbon dioxide molecules do not heat the atmosphere!
However many people believe (for that is all they have) that CO2 can by some mysterious process, a process that has NEVER been observed, heats the lower atmosphere.
There is NO experiment, or observation, that has shown that CO2 heats water vapor and thus warms the atmosphere — it is a mere conjecture with no observed reality.
NO experiment has ever shown CO2 being able to heat water vapor by the action the IPCC advocates proclaim.
So just for clarity — There is NO observation that shows CO2 can warm this planet’s troposphere.
People may show you spectrograms of the IR radiation from the planet, remember these spectrograms do NOT tell you at what height the CO2 signature is occurring. There certainly is not any equatorial upper tropospheric hot-spot. CO2 warming the atmosphere is a myth.
The other myth is that on this planet energy in (from the sun) equals energy out.
For that to be true the Earth would have to be dead! No life!
This planet has an expanding human population, that with all their requirements for food (grown in sunlight), and all the necessities for human life, however this assertion (energy in = energy out) requires all this to happen without energy. Solar energy that is transformed into chemical bonds in newly made organic substances. It requires all these people grow-up from infancy to adulthood without a net energy use.
And in the seas the continual cascade of dead matter raining down from the surface (from life that used the sun’s energy to bond elemental chemicals into new complex structures) to the cold depths of the ocean floor, where it’s locked away for centuries, or millennia as a thick sludge, or the slow build-up of peat on heathland (sunlight long retained in peatlands complex chemistry), or the complex build-up of vegetative matter becoming soils over centuries. All these processes happen across the globe without sequestering any SOLAR energy on this planet, because science says, energy in = energy out.
It’s Laughable nonsense. It take no account of the totality, or timescale, upon which nature works. Trenberth energy cartoon is indeed the work of a comedian!
280
Good comment, Tom.
Arguing with warmists is a weary business, and their mental processing will likely be unable to grasp your points.
I prefer briefer encounters – when I can’t escape such debates I go for the sucker punch:
(1) CO2 is the same the world over, night and day. Right?
(2) Consider a desert. You fry by day and freeze by night. Right?
(3) How come?
If they have a basic education, I might go to a little more bother and point out that it’s a natural experiment, performed every single day, IN THE REAL WORLD. Also, since CO2 is a constant, this equation has only 2 variables, insolation and ambient temperature. So what’s the obvious relation between them?
(It’s a desert, so no confounding variables like clouds and moisture.)
They generally exit rapidly, shaking their heads, stamping their feet, and with glazed eyes.
90
You should read some of my old comments. There are plenty of other energy transforms, for example take heat, evaporate water move it to 10km up condense it and let it fall down. Now the heat energy that went into raising the water ends up either radiated to space and the potential energy component slams into the earth, moving the earth slightly in an inelastic collision. Many people make the mistake that all energy ends up back as heat. Nope, some of it just changes the earth’s orbit or rotation slightly. When you drive your car, the wheels don’t dissipate energy all by friction, most of the energy end up pushing the earth around by tiny bits.
Wind, waves and many other forces are dissipated as kinetic energy. Then there are the other massive energy inputs, gravity (tides, diurnal bulge) centripetal forces that drive the ocean currents and the equatorial bulge. Gravitational forces that flex the surface. Yet mysteriously none of that ends up radiated as heat according to climatologists. Radiant energy out = radiant energy in is the biggest bit of bovine excrement in the whole so-called science. That error alone should invalidate it.
Note: the kinetic energy of the earth alone is 200 billion times the annual influx of radiant energy from the sun.
50
Good outline Bob.
There is no way that any “Climate Scientist”™ could envision the basics of accounting for all the mass, heat and momentum transfers that occur on and around the Earth in one day, let alone carry out a balance on it all.
KK
20
Discussing levelled cost of electricity opens the door for bizarre comparisons between intermittent generation with dispatchable generation using that nonsense metric. The term is so abused that it should be avoided by anyone trying to give or gain an appreciation of the cost to produce dispatchable electricity. Just state what the unit cost is without any reference to LCOE.
100
What we need is an “Equivalent Cost” which clearly states the actual cost that each type of generation would incur over a 24 hour period; Guaranteed.
The cost of providing guaranteed Megawatts would presumably do away with the benefit given to renewables in having traditional generation available as backup.
Is that right Rick?
I’m not 100% sure what’s covered by LCOE, but guessing from your comment that it may not cover additional line costs and payment for backup of the intermittents.
Even good news gets complicated.
KK
70
LCOE assumes the grid is a big bucket that is never full or empty. It can always accept what is produced and can always supply consumption if there is nothing produced. Essentially treats the grid with near infinite storage that over long periods will eventually run empty if under supplied or fill up if oversupplied.
The true cost of intermittent supply can only been assessed if the pattern of the intermittent supply is known and has some repeatability and there is 100% reliable back-up.
As observed in most networks intermittent generation achieve negative value at even low level of market share. Australia has added a huge amount of wind and solar capacity in the last decade and it has caused a massive increase in costs.
My off-grid solar has had a flat battery twice in just over 1500 days of operation. It operates a fridge and freezer and I reverted to grid power for less than 4 hours both times. No food would have spoiled if I waited for the battery to charge because there is only a problem on the coldest days and they are well insulated. The panels operate at 4% capacity factor to achieve that level of reliability. A potentially more economic system would be to have a small generator to top up on the days of sequential poor sunshine but that would make it more complicated. That battery has capacity to supply the load for 48 hours in the winter demand, which is 10 to 20% lower than summer demand.
I do not have a good handle on wind reliability but I do know that there are long periods of little wind. Look at the middle of April 2017:
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2017/april
Average capacity factor was around 10% for the whole week so that would be a reasonable start for a reliable supply plus a battery of 24 hours supply.
So for wind our 30GW NEM load would require around 300GW of wind generators and a 720GWh battery. There is currently 4.92GW of wind so we would need 60 times more than what now exists. A $2/W that is $600bn. Snowy2 has a potential rating of 2GW so would need 15 of those to buffer the wind supply. They would work out at $67bn if there were locations for them. Then the cost of transmission improvements of say $30bn extrapolating estimates for Snowy2. Battery would be more expensive than hydro; at $0.5/Wh they would work out at $360bn. These could be located near loads so little need for grid upgrades other than needed for the wind generators.
There is enough historical generating data across Australia to do a proper analysis of the bets option for a predominantly wind, solar, hydro and battery grid bit I would not expect much change from $1.5tr. That works out to be $69,000 for every person in the eastern States. It is an extraordinarily high cost to supply some workplaces. For example Boyne smelters uses about 3% of the NEM demand. So the capital cost to keep the pots hot there is $45bn or $4.5m per employee.
Little of this is economically feasible but until that is recognised, those who are not making their own electricity will be paying much higher prices. Hence my comment about three types of consumers.
Intermittent consumers who now make their own some of the time,
Those consumers paying higher prices, unwilling or unable to make their own, and
Would be consumers who are unable to use power because they have been disconnected.
100
Thanks Rick,
An opinion backed up by actual experience from your own system. Created by You at considerable cost.
60
My grandfather installed a 32V generator and battery system on his farm about 75 years ago. It was a big improvement on candles and gas lamps. That was just for lighting.
58 years ago he paid for a 1km line from the main power line to his house and wool shed. He and his family had lighting, heating, hot water, washing machines etc.
Now we are faced with an expensive undergrouding of part of the line. I am wondering if it is time to go Off Grid again and generate our own power from a diesel generator.
120
PeterC:
Unless you are in SA a diesel generator wouldn’t be cheaper than the grid, although during blackouts it would be convenient. A recent query about semi-removing from the grid said that with PV solar installed then a battery and controller that switched the solar output direct to the battery during a blackout would cost (approx.) $12,000. That would supply (for me) over 24 hours power during a blackout – probably longer if the sun was shining. I suspect that I would need 2 batteries (and somewhere to put them) and extra to hook in a generator automatically. A friend did just that because his rural property (200 metres away from lines ) was quoted $70,000 for connection. He didn’t have a separate cost for going completely off-grid but insisted that it was under $50,000. All he had to do was check the diesel level about once a month.
70
Thanks,
It’s the overall cost that stands out in your outline Rick.
15 Snowy hydros to buffer the wind supply and make it always available.
That’s the real cost: unsubsidized.
KK
50
Assuming no losses, but that is never true
10
Backbenchers have formed an alliance opposed to PM Turnbull’s coal rejection …
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/coalition-mps-have-formed-a-group-against-turnbulls-signature-energy-policy/news-story/0b59caf8f09b35c1f8c9629fcce21873
181
You’ve just got to laugh at Malcolm Farr and his left-wing bias. It stands out like a rotten timber power pole – always leaning to the left.
140
No. 1 requirement for getting the top job in Oz…..compliance to your green pay masters….forelock tugging and mindless adherence too loony green Left theology a bonus….
60
It only stands to reason really, so let me show you. Keep in mind here that the cost of recovery of EVERY cost associated with the plant is recovered from the sale of the Units of electricity, the KWH, MWH, GWH, or TWH.
(Same mathematical formula for both examples – Nameplate in MW X 24 hours in a day X 365.25 days in a year X Capacity Factor X years of service)
Macarthur Wind – 420 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.30 X 25 = 27,612,900MWH
Bayswater Coal Fired – 2640 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.85 X 50 = 983,545,200
So Bayswater delivers 35.62 times the power.
They can spread the capital cost over a hugely extra amount of power and over a longer period of time.
And as is the case with nearly every coal fired plant in Australia, they already own the coal, mined at or near the same site as the plant, so they don’t have to buy the coal.
Tony.
330
The same applies for those big Nukes in the U.S. Spread the cost out over a much longer life, and generate more power than any other plant (per Unit) on Earth.
The average age of every current Nuke in the U.S. is 36 years. The oldest operational Nuke is 49 years. The youngest is Watts Bar Unit 2 which has only been in operation for two years. The next youngest is Watts Bar Unit 1 which opened in 1996 22 years so, and only one Reactor has opened since then.
As for operational capability, the average CF for the whole Fleet is currently 87% for a year, and has been around that for more than 20 years now.
During the last American Winter, and I only have data for December and January, the whole Nuclear fleet operated at a Capacity Factor of, wait for this, 93.3% for December and 96.2% for January.
There are 99 Reactors, and one generator is connected to each reactor, and the average generator size for the whole fleet is just under 1060MW. One Generator.
Tony.
270
Size does matter.
The economies of scale of roof top solar, wind turbines and other solar plants are all bad news.
50
Tony, Look at this about Finnish nuclear power stations http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/finland.aspx Two of the units have been upgraded to run above initial capacity (660MW to close to a 1000MW). One unit has been operating for forty years and has been licensed (last year) to operate for another 20 years. No depreciation left after 30 years and the upgrades paid off in a few years. Note the performance 95% of capacity factor for the last 10 years.
(By the way the main restrictions at Liddell is the undersize coal mills and the high maintenance cost on the mills. I suggest the coal mills could be replaced for about $300 million which would improved capacity to a little above 2000MW with a run time over 90% (as in Qld)-maybe one or two of the 500MW turbines could be replaced by 660MW units and the life extended for another 20 years)
Lots of data around is showing that Nuclear (eg in Finland, South Korea, Taiwan etc) is now the cheapest form of power generation. South Korea are now building modular nuclear power plants (one of four already operating in UAE) and are claiming that they can be in operation after permits in place in 18 months.
30
Tony,
And I would be inclined to say that you’re being extremely generous in giving a windfarm its proclaimed 25yr useful life. Given the lived experience, most seem to need an enormous amount of maintenance and replacement parts. Over a quarter century, it wouldn’t surprise me if the majority of each turbine is more or less rebuilt (excepting the footings, tower and housing) at least 2 or 3 times.
20
Anto, you are right. I read an article that stated the blades of wind turbines lasted only 8 to 10 years and that some 8000 per year needed to be disposed of in Germany. This causes a huge problem in that they are very large and can not be dumped in a tip because materials does not break down for many years. They had to develop a special crusher to smash them into small pieces less than 10mm and then feed them into the back end of cement kilns where the resins burn as fuel and the material for reinforcing (glass fibres etc) combines as a raw material. (note in Germany (or EU) recycled material used as fuel eg tyres, dried refuse, waste oils and solvents etc do not count in the emission of CO2 – the Germans would not cheat would they)
20
A few years ago there was an article in the UK pointing out the average lifetime of on-shore turbines was 7-9 years, before they had to be ‘maintained’. This usually meant new blades and other mechanical and electrical improvements. This move seems to have been helped by the output dropping because of wear and tear until the turbine was only marginally profitable, and by the then policy whereby if you refitted to get a lower max. output (at lower wind speed) you got a higher subsidy per MWh (while there is more lower speed wind).
As against that it was noted that ‘privately owned’ (that is neighbours investing) lasted at least 50% longer – due possibly to regular maintenance. It was also stated that the oldest turbine in the UK was 17 years old, but hadn’t generated for 2 or 3 years.
Sorry, but I didn’t save the reference, may have been Bishop Hill.
00
P.S. Germans don’t cheat, it is the EU rules written by?
00
If new coal fired power stations are that bad how come over a thousand are being built around the world over the near future? The answer is obvious; both major parties have created a cost bias against coal fired power stations. Unless one of them changes policy or we elect a completely new and fresh government that reverses this suicidal path this nation will have to suffer a crash and burn scenario. It’s up to the voters as they have the power to change things, if they really want to, which for now they don’t.
220
All the voters want is an alternative to the dictates of the pseudo Marxist consortium and finally the cavalry has arrived.
‘The Monash Forum believes the government should build a $4billion power Hazelwood 2.0 power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley while exploring further sites for coal-fired plants.
‘The manifesto of the Coalition ginger group, obtained by The Australian, calls on signatories to advocate for the affordable and reliable power “that our parents and grandparents had”.
Oz
220
In fact we already do have an alternative. It’s called the Australian Conservatives Party. Apparently voters don’t want an alternative. Perhaps after the crash and burn they will.
120
There will be no crash and burn, the ginger group can bring off a coup and eliminate Turnbull’s mob from the front bench.
The Manifesto is based on sound business principles and should get them over the line with Tony as leader.
Meanwhile the ACP is a dismal failure with the electorate, Cory doesn’t have Donald’s charisma or savvy.
Talking of which, the President made that festering blight on the Korean Peninsula go away by ridiculing Kim on twitter. Truly inspiring, the pen is still mightier than the sword.
110
Unfortunately, I’m hearing on the grapevine that the whisper on the political circles grapevine is that Bishop is angling to do another dagger in the back job on Turnbull, and install herself Empress with Dutton as her deputy.
If she does, then the Libs will still lose the next election, and it’s possible Dutton may lose his seat, as there’s a lot of pressure being brought to bear from the GutUp! crowd. He’s not got much of a margin, and the labor/green cartel think they can unseat him.
Alternatively, if Dutton were to challenge and keep Bishop out, that would be far better, and it’s then possible the coalition might scrape back into government. Of course, it still depends on them totally changing direction on CAGW, coal and nuclear, and abandoning the destructive “renewables” stuff. Yeah, it’s a big ask, I know.
170
Bishop failed miserably as Shadow Treasurer.
Her ego is bigger than the National debt.Her perception of her ability falls well short of the reality. If she were a bloke you’d say she’s a blockhead. What’s the feminine equivalent I wonder?
If Bishop become leader of the Liberal Party it’s Goodnight Irene.
And yes, she’s my local member; who we never see.
The only option for the Liberals is to bring back Tony Abbott with Dutton as his Deputy.
140
You keep missing two points. One, voters do not want a conservative led government. If they did the AC would be streets ahead of the Greens and ON combined by now. Two, it’s too late to avoid the crash and burn scenario, and even if we tried by slashing spending the pain would be too much for the public to bear and so they would vote in the ALP in a heart beat. The cancer has spread to far and wide.
60
Most Australians do not know much about ACP, and prefer the major parties, last year former PM Howard said that the voting trends (note 2010 hung parliament) have reduced voter support for the major parties down from the traditional 80 per cent including swinging votes between to 60 per cent.
This would have been calculated on a by electorate by polling booths results trend.
The results in home state Queensland for PHON is indicative, a very poor example of voter support for a well known minor party there. Of course they were supported but not by enough voters.
If the present lookalike Labor Green/Turnbull National left leaning alternatives continue as they are voters have a very poor choice to make next federal election. However, if the Liberal Party replaced the Turnbull Party and provided a real alternative to Shorten Union Labor Green I doubt that voters would risk the leftists.
61
🙂
The Trumble Parti.
30
Minister Frydenberg would love to respond, but his wind-up mechanism had to be sent back to Bilderberg Tuning to get tightened.
Seriously, we will never give the likes of Turnbull and Frydenberg a piece of our minds. The Undead don’t care about pieces of our minds. There is no point in complaining to them. We must first break the power of the media, now so centralised and corporatized as to be little more than a PR and advertising conglomerate which fields complaints by feigning concern and allowing the odd dissident voice.
The follies and waste of Big Green are so blatantly colossal that it is not possible to believe that even a Julie Bishop can be so obtuse as not to know. Nobody shoots a foot, says ouch, shoots the other foot, says ouch…then wishes he was a centipede. Nobody.
Something else is afoot.
270
Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I do like your explanation tho. I needed a chuckle.
100
You don’t think it could be insider-trading via proxies, do you?
That would be quite criminal. A wee bit worse than ball tampering, and Mal and Glorious Joules were having none of that, so they’re in the clear. And Joshua is such a good boy, it’s not like his rellies and associates would try to milk Australia until it’s totally skint.
That would be wrong.
100
I love how the Monash Forum have co-opted the name of Monash at a timely moment:
1 Apr: Spectator: Is it Monash or Marxist University?
by Matthew Lesh
Monash University, the first Australian university to introduce trigger warnings, appropriately begins their “#CHANGEIT” (LINK) advertising campaign by declaring “SOME OF YOU MAY FIND THE FOLLOWING DISTURBING”.
This warning is followed by alt-right figure Richard Spencer being punched in the face, and clips of war zones, extreme weather, poverty, fires, guns, pollution, pandemics, fast food, Wall Street, Donald Trump, and protesters calling for a treaty with Aboriginal Australians and the shutting down of Manus Island.
The theme of the campaign is “Don’t like it, change it.” Monash declares, for example, that “If you don’t like Australia Day, Change It,” sticking their middle finger up at the 70 per cent of Australians who in fact do like Australia Day and do not want the date changed.
The corporate social justice warriors of Monash University are something to beholden. In one breath they’re promoting innocuous scientific research. In the next, they’re calling for a “revolution”. In an accompanying video (LINK), one student proudly declares that they want to “to get rid of capitalism”. You know, the system that has produced such immense wealth that means the taxpayers can afford to fund universities like Monash to the tune of billions of dollars.
Monash says “Rebellion strongly encouraged.” But they only endorse a single type of progressive left rebellion…
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/04/monash-marxist-university/
40
Sir John Monash, (born June 27, 1865, West Melbourne, Austl.—died Oct. 8, 1931, Melbourne), civil engineer and soldier, best known for his role as commander of the Australian army corps in France during World War I.
Monash attended Scotch College and Melbourne University, obtaining degrees in the arts, civil engineering, and law. Active in the prewar militia, he commanded an infantry brigade at the Battle of Gallipoli during the Dardanelles Campaign in Turkey, and in 1916–17 he commanded a division on the Western Front. Monash was not a frontline general. Instead, his extensive and successful business experience led him to emphasize planning and organization. He favoured using technical and mechanical resources—tanks, artillery, and aircraft—to relieve the infantry as much as possible of the burden of fighting its way forward. In March 1918 he took command of the Australian Corps, and on July 4 he tested his theory of the semimobile managed battle in a small-scale attack at Le Hamel, France. Its outstanding success led Monash to develop a more comprehensive plan for a sustained offensive, which shaped the general British plan as well. From August 8 until its withdrawal from the line in October, the Australian Corps was in almost continuous combat as the spearhead of the British Expeditionary Force’s advance to victory.
Monash served as head of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and as president of the Zionist Federation in Australia. He recalled his war experiences in The Australian Victories in France in 1918 (1920) and War Letters (1933). Monash is generally considered among the best corps commanders of World War I, though his capacities at higher levels remained untested.
10
There’s an additional cleanup cost on the nuke plant. You get left with a pile of radioactive steel and concrete and nobody wants to take it off your hands. You can’t keep using it because there’s a risk of leaks, you can’t grind it down for scrap because it’s radioactive and the scrap yard won’t work with that.
Putting a coal fired power plant right next to a coal mine works very well indeed.
140
Regarding Nukes, that is precisely why you extend their life as long as possible to avoid decommissioning of the reactor core and containment vessel. And also why one ought compare the long term storage of uranium based fuel cycles with those of thorium based cycles. 250 K years vs 30 years for wastes. LFTR cycles actually “burn” mixed oxide uranium/plutonium high level waste by using them as the “seed” rods to initiate the thorium cycle. Different cycle, different wastes, different risks, different costs. The only reason uranium cycle reactors are built is because they have approved designs that were originated for military ship propulsion and production of plutonium for weapons. Thorium cycle does not produce plutonium, it burns it. The uranium cycle burns less than 1% of the total available energy. Thorium burns 99% or better of available energy.
All of that said, you are correct in that coal has great utility for a very long time and is much more manageable.
If you wish, the thorium cycle is well explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA
There’s enough Th to run the world for 34,000 years or more with a 4%/yr increase in electrical demand over the entire period.
That’s long enough to work the kinks out of fusion or find another technology that works at grid scale.
50
Very interesting Lance. Thanks.
10
Turkey have patched things up with Russia by the look of and are now getting a nuclear power plant built by the Russians .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/putin-and-erdogan-to-launch-turkey-first-nuclear-reactor/9614652
30
Aha!
Turkey Kiev for supper
50
I notice the ABC mentions the cost – $20million US – but not the capacity. Oversight or obfuscation?
Cheers,
Dave B
40
What’s the economic life of the Snowy scheme? The turbines have a finite life but their replacement cost is three fifths of five eights of burger all, compared to the cost of earthworks.
Logically a coal fired power station should be built in NQ. Lets hope no one is so feeble minded that they rebuild in Collinsville, a crazy union workforce that would never keep it running well and would go on strike every year anyway. I had to do a job there a couple of times and it was a wonder it ever worked with the DO NOT OPERATE tags fluttering in the breeze. They even broke the handset to the phone in the unreliable lift. maybe a good excuse to walk off the job, it’s all about safety you know. /sarc
60
Aha!
Turkey Kiev for supper.
20
I was rushin” to get the smarty’s comment in first.
Sorry. It was meant for 10.
50
Last week someone asked if Tas has opted out of the AEMO and I have been keeping a eye on it and they have been meeting their own demand since.
A few questions:
Shouldn’t their pricing be consistently low with no spikes? There are still spikes.
Is Basslink now redundant?
Can they opt back in, no questions asked, during the next drought?
Are they cutting off their nose to spite there face by NOT gaining income by exporting power?
Without knowing the details, more power to them if they think they can be independent.
70
Basslink is down. Forecast repair about two weeks so maybe for six months.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-28/basslink-cable-offline-after-contractor-damage/9598996
Maybe on time if it is surface damage and parts are available.
Forecast prices in SA and Vic have been all over the place on the weekend but not often above $200 actual.
70
When did that happen?
I noted in your link:
That’s bad management which compounds the original sin of draining their dams to get max benefit before Abbott axed the tax. Do you reckon anyone has lost their job? No way Jose.
51
Now everything is an hour later on Fox I watched a bit of Speers. The panel was discussing the Monash Forum, rather dismissively saying we would all like cheaper electricity but we want renewables anyway. This from the only news source that doesn’t toe the AGW line religiously.
60
comment in moderation re: 1 Apr: Spectator: Is it Monash or Marxist University? by Matthew Lesh
30
Spectator/Monash comment has now been in moderation about 4 and a half hours.
followup:
3 Apr: SMH: David Crowe: RSL slams ‘ginger group’ use of Monash name
The RSL is calling on federal Coalition MPs to change the name of a new “ginger group” they have set up on energy policy, warning it is wrong for them to appropriate the name of Australian military hero John Monash.
RSL national president Robert Dick rebuked the Liberal and Nationals MPs for calling their group the “Monash Forum” in a bid to use the famous engineer and general as the figurehead for a political agenda…
“The RSL would not support the use of Monash’s name in this regard,” Mr Dick told Fairfax Media.
“We believe that Monash’s name is sacrosanct and should be above this form of political posturing.”…
The reason given for the use of the Monash name is his role in leading the development of the brown coal fields of the Latrobe Valley in Victoria after he had led the Australian forces in World War One…
But the use of his name is controversial because it appropriates a military leader for a partisan cause, just as Australia marks the centenary of his victories on the Western Front.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is due to open a new museum, the John Monash Centre, near the village of Villers-Bretonneux on Anzac Day…
Mr Dick said the role of General Monash in opening up the Latrobe Valley did not justify the use of his name, adding that the politicians should rename their group.
“It would be the right thing to do,” he said.
“I don’t think it’s right that they use his name, especially with Anzac Day coming up and the John Monash Centre being opened in France.”…
But there is disagreement over the use of the name, with the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations noting that it was increasingly common for a military name being used in other fields.
“I see nothing wrong with it because there are so many things today that are named after John Monash,” said Kel Ryan, the national spokesman for the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations.
(Comments are not open on this article)
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/rsl-slams-ginger-group-use-of-monash-name-20180403-p4z7k0.html
Mr. Dick should be demanding Monash University drop the name, not the pro-coal forum:
3 Apr: Mumbrella: Abigail Dawson: Monash University urges potential students to change the world
Y&R Melbourne has created a campaign for client Monash University using footage of tough issues like climate change, gun laws, war, drugs, poverty and terrorism to promote the idea that anybody with an education can help influence the world for the better.
The campaign ‘if you don’t like it, change it’ aims to encourage people who don’t like what is happening in the world, to change it.
VIDEO: 1min (MOCKS TRUMP, GLAMORISES VIOLENT PROTEST, DROWNING POLAR BEAR, ETC)
Jake Barrow, ECD at Y&R Melbourne, said the world needs education and Universities more than ever.
“This idea seeks to identify these people and give them the opportunities to leave the world in better shape than they found it.
“We wanted change agents whose message was one of empowerment to play this vital role in this campaign. After hearing the A.B. Original track, we realised they were the perfect fit.”…
https://mumbrella.com.au/monash-university-uses-worlds-biggest-issues-urging-people-to-help-change-the-world-508545
MUSIC USED WITH THE VIDEO IS BY A.B. ORIGINAL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.B._Original
20
Great article. You’ve made a very strong case for blowing up old coal plants if you want to make renewable energy competitive.
31
“Blowing up” the completion does not make you competitive. It proves you can’t compete. If you could compete, you won’t have to “blow them up.” You would simply provide a better good or service at a better price. After which your so called completion would get the market leftovers.
Neither you nor your competition have a right to customers except by the free and unforced choice of your customers. Nor do your customers have a right to your good or service except by your mutually unforced free choice.
100
Biggest wind farm to be built in NSW will power 500,000 homes ( yeah right)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/nsw-wind-farm-gets-go-ahead/9615430
41
Cancel taxpayer subsidies, would the project proceed?
61
on jo’s website, we’re all familiar with growing fuel poverty caused by CAGW policies – closure of coal-fired plants, “renewables” subsidies, etc – at least in Australia and in the UK, e.g.
July 2017: National Energy Action: Fuel Poverty Statistics
The Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) estimates that fuel poverty affects 2.5 million households in England (2015) using the new Low Income High Costs definition…
For methodological reasons the rates across the UK cannot be summed, but it is estimated by NEA that fuel poverty affects over 4 million UK households – roughly 15.% of all households…
Fuel poverty in England
In 2015, the number of households in fuel poverty in England was estimated at 2.5 million, representing approximately 11% of all English households. This is an increase from 2.38 million households (10.6%) in 2014 (a change of around 0.4 per cent)…
19.7% of all households living in properties with the lowest energy ratings (E, F or G) are fuel poor – they make up 36.9% of all fuel-poor households. This is compared to only 3% of households that live in properties with the highest energy ratings (A, B or C) – they make up just 7.8% of all fuel-poor households.
21.3% of households in the private rented sector are fuel poor – they make up 37.6% of all fuel-poor households.
79.1% of households in fuel poverty are classed as vulnerable, that is one containing children, the elderly, or someone with a long-term illness or disability.
http://www.nea.org.uk/the-challenge/fuel-poverty-statistics/
National Education Union: EduFacts – Child Poverty
The facts on child poverty are shocking: there were 4.1 million children living in poverty in the UK in 2016-17, an increase of 100,000 on the previous year…
Regional child poverty figures released by the End Child Poverty Coalition in January 2018 show that there are now constituencies where more than half of children are growing up in poverty…
Research by the End Child Poverty coalition also demonstrates that the poorest families in the UK pay higher prices than better-off families for basic necessities. A family living in poverty is likely to have to pay nearly £1,700 more than a higher income family for essential household items like a cooker, ***energy and home insurance…
https://www.teachers.org.uk/edufacts/child-poverty
well, the following or an update of it was presented at the annual conference of the National Education Union (NEU) in Brighton, England this week, and is all over the MSM in the UK.
24 Jan: TES (formerly Times Educational Supplement): ‘When pupils are hungry, cold and scared, schools can’t pull them out of poverty alone – the government must step up’
by Kevin Courtney
(Kevin Courtney is the joint general secretary of the NEU teaching union)
The shocking growth of child poverty is a direct result of government policies implemented since 2010 in the name of austerity, says NEU joint-general secretary, Kevin Courtney…
***Families not being able to feed the fuel metre for heating and hot water and not having money for books, school equipment, toys, baby necessities, let alone treats or days out.
Across the UK, more than four million children now live in poverty…
***A family living in poverty is likely to have to pay nearly £1,700 more than a higher income family for essential household items like a cooker, ***energy and home insurance…
Yet our joint research with the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) using DfE data shows that, under current government school funding policy, schools with the highest number of children on free school meals are facing much higher cuts in funding per pupil than schools as a whole…
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/when-pupils-are-hungry-cold-and-scared-schools-cant-pull-them-out
more to come.
20
Xinhua is also carrying this story, but omits to mention fuel poverty caused by CAGW policies in their account. (once again, I wonder who is writing such pieces for Xinhua. are they recruiting from The Guardian/Fairfax/ABC?):
2 Apr: Xinhua: Hungry kids with no shoes for school exposes growing poverty in Britain, teacher’s conference hears
The plight of schoolkids living in poverty in 21st century Britain was highlighted Monday as schoolteachers told of their experiences on the frontline in schools in poorer areas.
A survey of 900 teachers revealed 60 percent of them saying child poverty in schools had worsened since 2015, with one in three saying the problem had got significantly worse, the annual conference of the National Education Union (NEU) was told in Brighton.
The Guardian newspaper reported how headteachers from schools in deprived areas say they are having to provide basic services such as washing school uniforms for pupils from poor households, and are even paying for budget advice and counselling services for parents.
A number of school leaders said at the conference they had noticed a visible difference in health and stature between children from their schools in deprived areas and those from better-off areas…
One headteacher from a school in Cumbria in northern England said she was shocked to witness the differences between former pupils from her school and those from other primary schools.
“My children, who have gone from me up to the local secondary school, have grey skin, poor teeth, poor hair, poor nails. They are smaller, they are thinner,” she said.
“At sporting events, you see your children in the year group compared to other children in an affluent area and you think: our kids are really small. When you see them with children of the same age who are from an affluent area, they just look tiny.”
Louise Regan, head of a primary school in Nottinghamshire, said: “We have a food bank, so we give out food parcels, particularly on Fridays, we buy clothing, we do a lot of buying, particularly coats in winter and shoes. We’ve had children who haven’t come to school because they didn’t have shoes.”…
NEU official Celia Dignam, responsible for child poverty issues, said the union’s survey revealed 4.1 million children are living in poverty…
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-04/02/c_137083292.htm
original Guardian piece makes no mention of fuel poverty issues either:
2 Apr: Guardian: Teachers warn of growing poverty crisis in British schools
by Richard Adams Education editor
The experiences of the school leaders are borne out by the findings of a survey published on Monday by the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Education Union (NEU), which is holding its annual conference in Brighton over Easter…
During the snowstorms this winter, Payne said, he kept his school open when other schools in the area were closed. “I kept ours open because I was really worried about the number of children who wouldn’t get a hot meal that day,” Payne said…
He said about 45% of pupils came into the school to eat that day…
—
DM is so far the only media outlet I’ve found with even a brief hint of the source of the poverty:
2 Apr: Daily Mail: Malnourished children with grey skin are filling their pockets with school canteen food to survive in poor areas say head teachers
Teachers say children are ‘filling their pockets’ from the canteen so they can eat
School staff revealed they take kids for shower, wash their clothes and feed them
They say it’s because the deprived pupils aren’t getting basic care from parents
Cardiff primary school teacher Jane Jenkins, said grades had become secondary
By Ed Riley
Howard Payne, a head teacher at an inner city school in Portsmouth, said: ‘Every one of these issues has had something to do with the poverty that they live in.
‘It’s neglect. It’s because they and their families don’t have enough money to provide food, ***heating or even bedding.’ …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5569743/Malnourished-children-filling-pockets-school-canteen-food-survive.html
it’s a disgrace that MSM does not connect the dots regarding CAGW policies/fuel poverty/general poverty unduly affecting the poor.
30
BBC omits fuel poverty altogether, naturally.
2 Apr: BBC: Child poverty: Pale and hungry pupils ‘fill pockets with school food’
By Hannah Richardson, BBC News Education Reporter in Brighton
Mr Payne, who provides debt counselling and family support at his school, said: “Three weeks ago, many schools in our area closed because of the snow.
“I kept ours open because I was really worried about the children – that they wouldn’t have a hot meal to eat that day.”…
He said about 45% of pupils came into the school to eat that day…
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-43611527
meanwhile, just like BBC/Guardian, theirABC seems VERY busy pushing for a class war, pretending they care about the poor, who have been made much poorer because of the CAGW policies they, themselves, have incessantly promoted:
2 Apr: ABC Radio National Big Ideas: Class Act part one: Where we sit?
The idea that Australia is a classless society is widely held and very appealing. It’s just not true.
Class exists — it’s determined by economic, social and cultural capital — and it has a big impact on our lives. But we don’t talk about it.
In this ***FOUR PART series, we’re going to do just that…
Take the temperature Australian society and get a prognosis on its future with RN’s Class Act.
3 Apr: ABC RN Big Ideas: Class Act part two: How we got here?
4 Apr: Class Act part three: The dark heart
5 Apr: Class Act part four: Don’t mention it
Further reading:
24 Jan: The six-class system dispelling myths of an egalitarian Australia
RN By Patrick Carey for The Money
2 Apr: ABC RN Breakfast: Class Act: Is Australia a class-less society?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/projects/class-act/
four hour-long programs, intent on further dividing the population, all to be repeated who knows how many times eventually.
check the choice of guests – there are many.
20
Generators of old were a dream,
Which Australians should learn to esteem,
All purring along,
Like the hum of a song,
With the hertz being governed by steam.
150
a new CAGW low, even for BBC. note how four deaths from Josie won’t sound like much, so you just throw in deaths from 2016 first! as for the rest of the hyperbole from Bainimarana and the Beeb…
2 Apr: BBC: Fiji PM: Climate change threatens our survival
Fiji’s prime minister has said the Pacific island nation is in “a fight for survival” as climate change brings “almost constant” deadly cyclones.
Frank Bainimarama said Fiji had entered a “frightening new era” of extreme weather that needed to be confronted…
His comments came after Cyclone Josie caused deaths and flooding on Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu, at the weekend.
In 2016, a cyclone hit Fiji leaving 44 people dead and wiping out one-third of the nation’s economic production.
Four people have died in severe flooding caused by Cyclone Josie, according to Reuters news agency.
“We are now at an almost constant level of threat from these extreme weather events,” Mr Bainimarama said on Tuesday, adding that powerful cyclones in the region were becoming “more severe” as a result of climate change.
“We need to get the message out loud and clear to the entire world about the absolute need to confront this crisis head on,” he said.
“As a nation we are starting to build our resilience in response to the frightening new era that is upon us,” he added…
The planet’s climate has constantly been changing over time. However, the current period of warming is occurring more rapidly than many past events.
The changes could drive freshwater shortages, bring sweeping changes in food production conditions, and increase the number of deaths from floods, storms, heat waves and droughts.
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme weather events – though linking any single event to global warming is complicated.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43625608
2 Apr: KPBS: Susan Murphy: Climate Change Threatens Bird Migrations, Habitats In San Diego County
What is clear is many bird species are increasingly losing their habitats, and the effects of climate change are just beginning, said Dan Cayan, a research meteorologist with Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
“Things in the future are going to get successively more altered as the decades go forward,” Cayan said. “We’re looking at a future that really is decidedly warmer than what we’ve seen historically.”…
“Looking at climate model simulations we are seeing more years that are overall dry, and occasionally we’ll get a really wet year,” he said.
Cayan said the earth is just beginning to show signs of greenhouse gas emissions already in the atmosphere.
“We have this commitment to climate change because of what we’ve already done, and the earth is still catching up to that,” Cayan said. “It’s still adjusting.”…
Birds will likely be among the first to notice the change.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/apr/02/climate-change-threatens-bird-migration-habitats-s/
CAGW is all over the place today:
2 Apr: Science Mag: Our growing taste for shrimp is bad news for climate change
By Erik Stokstad
The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by fishing vessels rose 28% from 1990 to 2011, according to a new study, thanks largely to a greater haul of this premium seafood…
In 2011, the amount of crustaceans caught was 60% higher than in 1990 (LINK) — a greater increase than for any other type of seafood—the researchers report today in Nature Climate Change…
10
I’m listening to an audiobook of Niven and Pournelle’s Lucifer’s Hammer, in which a comet impact causes misanthropomorphic climate change. There is a nuclear reactor in the story, and the possibility of human sacrifice to altruism and pseudoscience. Publication was back when econaziism decided the Common Good required banning freon and reverting to other coolants that either kill people or break air conditioners.
30
The pre-industrial levels of CO2 were, we are told, 270ppm.
The figure is now 410ppm.
That’s almost a 52% increase in the level of what is a trace gas anyway. 52% of not a lot doesn’t amount to a great deal, in other words.
Which country’s climate has actually changed? Not here in the UK it hasn’t!
Doesn’t these CO2 levels, now up by over 50%, arouse at least some suspicion in the minds of the great and the good that the whole man-made climate change idea has in fact had its day, and that it’s time to move on and dump the horror stories and failed computer-modelled temperature projections?
When will we see an end to all the nonsense about the supposed dangerous climate changes
being wrought by mankind?
110
Just imagine what would have happened if it had changed from 1 to 2 ppm – bloody nothing.
However, it has changed from 0.03 to o.o4% and what has changed- bloody nothing.
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.
When will people realize that the perpetrators of the CO2 myths are frauds?
60
Morning All,
came across a frightening and maddening sight yesterday (by accident). I haven’t heard diddly in the MSM about the location but in Port Adelaide (SA – ‘The home of the most expensive energy in Australia’) there are stacked ten deep blades and tower sections for another ‘wind farm’. My god what a waste of money. We have just had a change of government, from Stalinist to stalinist and the latest version tells me my power costs will be reduced 15% (because we elected them). Unfortunately when prices have gone up 100’s of percent a reduction by 15% is near meaningless. Oh Joy. These jokers have as an election promise set aside money to built an inter-connector into NSW, so we can sell our excess power to them. Our poor NSW brothers and sisters need the electricity because they are shutting another coal-fired generator. Give me strength. Another day in paradise.
Andy
150
Cheer up. All is not lost. In 15 or 20 years you’ll have lots of places to hang out the laundry to dry after you wash it by hand for lack of power to run a washing machine. 😉
20
I’m no expert on Australian energy politics. Far from it. But I do recognize what’s happening in California and I suspect the objective there is the same as it is here, anything but cheap electricity.
20
So, with 1000 odd coal plants coming online around the world in the next decade, is anyone directly invested in coal production?
10
Ok, believe it or not this truck driver knows a little bit about coal and coal fired power plants. For 15 years between my truck driving career and Military service I was VP & GM of a Cerline Ceramic Corp. A small company that provided and still provides specialized products and services having to do with the application of certain very abrasive resistant ceramics in material handling, processing, and transport systems. So I’ve been in multiple mines, coal prep plants, and coal fired power plants. In coal fired power plants of the Combustion Engineering/ Raymond types and Babcock and Wilcox designs there were multiple applications for our ceramics in the coal and ash handling systems. From the crushing towers or pits where the coal is crushed right through to the injection nozzle assemblies where the fine coal dust is injected into the boiler. For ash handling most of the applications were in the systems dealing with “bottom ash” or IOW the heavy cinders called “clinkers” that fall to the bottom. The lighter ash called “fly ash” is that which is light enough to float upwards in the air. The ash is generally either transported by slurry or pneumatic systems. Slurry systems transport the ash to settling ponds. Pneumatic systems to hoppers where it is generally trucked away.
“Bottom ash” has multiple applications when properly processed. Some examples are: black shingle grit, sand blasting media (Black Beauty), texture grip for floor and stair coatings/paints, aggregate in various construction materials.
There are four basic types or classifications of coal. From youngest to oldest they are Lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, and anthracite. Basically the older the coal is the higher the carbon content though this can vary depending on the type of vegetation the coal originated from and the depth and thus pressure it is formed in over time.
A quick search indicates that Australia has lignite (as stated above “brown” coal though it can be black) and bituminous coal. I saw no mention of useable deposits of sub-bituminous or anthracite in Australia though one would think that there has to be sub-bituminous coal there. Basically from what I have read Australia exports most of the bituminous coal to Asia and uses most of the lignite domestically for power generation, etc.
In the beginning the fundamental basis for going after coal with environmental regulation was air pollution in the form of sulfur dioxide resulting from the use of high sulfur content bituminous or sub-bituminous coals. And pollution of ground water sources due to seepage from the settling ponds where the ash was pumped to.
So my questions are:
1. How do Australian plants deal with their ash?
2. Is the bituminous coal in Australia generally high or low sulfur coal?
3. Are there any usable anthracite sources in Australia.
4. Are there any power plants in Australia that use bituminous coal and if so do they use a scrubber system?
00
Oh! I have one other question:
Are there any plants in Australia that use condensed sea water? One of the largest coal fired generating stations in the US is the Crystal River facility in Florida. It used to have 4 large coal fired and 1 nuclear unit (#3) but I know the nuclear unit has been shut down. Units 1 & 2 condense sea water for their steam generation. They put baskets at the intakes that capture the larger sea life. They pull the baskets, count the numbers of the different species found. They maintain a facility that raises and releases replacements for what was found in the baskets. The used water once cooled sufficiently is released back into the gulf. Since that water is still warmer than ambient the Manatees love it and come there during the cold spells during the winter months to keep warm.
00