Why is nuclear power Green today when it wasn’t yesterday? Because it was never about the science.
Nuclear power has been the NetZeroiest energy on Earth since the sun formed from collapsing interstellar gas. Nuclear plants don’t produce any CO2 at all, but that wasn’t good enough because it was never about CO2 either. It was always about power and money and profits for friends.
And the best friend of a bureaucrat is a captive-dependent-industry, one that survives on handouts. Those in need of Big Government largess always lobby for Big Government, donate to Big Government causes and cheer on everything Big Government wants them to cheer on, even if it’s a naked man in high heels.
Yesterday gas was a fossil fuel, but today it’s a sustainable one:
Gas and Nuclear Power Can Be ‘Green’ Under New EU Plan
Wall Street Journal
Lawmakers in the European Union voted to include nuclear power and natural gas in the bloc’s list of investments deemed sustainable, a move it hopes will trigger more funding of those sectors but that critics said would slow down the EU’s shift to greener energy sources.
Just like that — sensible flexibility pops out of the cake:
Under the plans, gas can be classed as a sustainable investment if “the same energy capacity cannot be generated with renewable sources” and plans are in place to switch to renewables or “low-carbon gases”. Nuclear power can be called green if a project promises to deal with radioactive waste.
Greens are furious, not realizing that it was their work that made the EU an energy basket-case pouring money into Russia:
Campaigners are now vowing legal action. WWF said that with its fellow NGO Client Earth it would “explore all potential avenues for further action to stop this greenwashing and protect the credibility of the whole EU taxonomy”.
Two anti-nuclear states, Austria and Luxembourg, have already announced they will take the commission to the European court of justice.
The Washington Post sees the light that renewables can’t make it without help, but credits The War for their awakening and forgets that Donald Trump and a million skeptics were right all along. Excuses, excuses…
The war in Ukraine added new complexities to the debate. The war has made Europe rethink its reliance on Russia, particularly when it comes to fossil fuels, and has amplified calls for an accelerated energy transition.
And they amplified what exactly — an energy transition to gas and nukes?)
Nuclear is a clean power source. The issue is the radioactivity release when things go wrong. Building a nuclear power station in a country prone to large earthquakes is not a good idea, but that is pretty low risk in Western Europe. The weaning off Russian coal and gas will hopefully accelerate the development of alternative energy sources.
543
Simon says “bogeyman radioactive”. Sorry pal, that’s Greenham Common vintage activism. Europe has been bitten by Reality and I hope our mostly useless politicians see this as the lifeline it could be.
If not, we are still going down the slippery slope to serfdom.
490
Naw, . ‘…. mostly useless politicians see this as the lifeline it could be….’ Certainly NOT ! get rid of the muckers. Let and give others a chance, these pigs are fpor the renderers – would even like them for Roast or Bacon. We’ve already slipped down that slope: at least in the UK, they demand a “Hunger for compliance”, something they learnt from the EU. Just gonnae nae gang back there!.
140
‘ … development of alternative energy sources.’
There is no time, wind and solar cannot keep the lights on this NH winter.
Gas is better than nuclear as we transition to Fusion.
175
Don’t Worry Australia, Elbow’s on the Job
190
John Sheldricksays:
July 7, 2022 at 7:07 am
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says his government is finding a “long-term solution” to increased flooding by changing Australia’s position on climate change.
“Australia has always been subject of floods, of bushfires, but we know that the science told us that if we continued to not take action globally on climate change then these extreme weather events would be more often and more intense,” he said.
“And what we’re seeing, unfortunately, is that play out.”
Well, Albo. Guess what. Floods and Bushfires in past years have been much worse.
The January 1939 Bushfires in Victoria is just one example where 75% of the State was effected to some extent (by fire, smoke, etc.). 71 people died when the population was far less than what it is now.
There were also major bushfires in the 1800s.
The Hawkesbury River has flooded at much higher levels in the past. The river at Windsor reached a peak height of 19.68 metres in 1867. The highest on record since 1799.
So, where is this ‘science’ that you talk about? The ‘science’ from Tim Flatulence and others of his ilk? The UN?
We really do need some proper science with all of this. And we need it now to nip this Climate Change Alarmism in the bud once and for all. Will we get it? NO!
420
OldOzziesays:
July 7, 2022 at 9:31 am
Japan warns Queensland over rise in coal royalties
Japan’s ambassador to Australia has warned that the Palaszczuk government’s sudden and hefty increase in coal royalties could spook future Japanese investment.
In a pointed intervention, Shingo Yamagami said the decision risked harming long-standing relationships with the state, arguing mining giants such as Mitsubishi and Mitsui had been good corporate citizens and paid billions in taxes and royalties over the years.
“What concerns me is the damage that it could deal to this trust and goodwill that Japanese business has built up with Queensland over the years,” Mr Yamagami told an audience of mining students at the University of Queensland on Wednesday.
“I fear that this may have widespread effects on Japanese investment beyond the coal industry.
“The companies … are involved not only with minerals but hydrogen infrastructure and a variety of cutting-edge technology.
“The success in the partnership between Japanese business and Queensland in these crucial areas is contingent upon the strength of mutual trust between both sides.”
The Palaszczuk government announced in last month’s state budget an overhaul to coal royalty payments, designed to capitalise on surging coal prices, that will raise $1.2 billion over four years.
Previously, the top royalty was 15 per cent for prices above $150 a tonne. But under the new regime, which began on July 1, a royalty rate of 20 per cent applies for prices above $175 a tonne; 30 per cent for prices above $225 a tonne; and 40 per cent for prices above $300 a tonne.
‘Huge shock for Japanese companies’
Treasurer Cameron Dick argued last month it was time miners paid more, given coal prices were above $500 a tonne – much higher than the $150 a tonne when the existing royalty scheme was created.
However, the resources sector argues the government has dramatically underestimated what the royalty increase will raise.
Mr Yamagami said the increase would have a huge impact on mining companies’ bottom lines, “including Japanese companies that have operated in Queensland for decades”.
“Make no mistake, this is a huge shock for Japanese companies. The future of the successful partnership between Japanese businesses and Queensland as a competitive investment destination could be at great risk.”
Since taking up his post as ambassador, Mr Yamagami has sought to strengthen ties between Australia and Japan commercially, diplomatically and militarily.
‘Keen to work … in good times and bad’
230
Yup. It’s greed pure and simple. The Queensland state government is a hopeless financial manager. They should have a fair flat rate royalty.
201
The Japanese will have to ask their American masters if they could please buy Russian coal off China as an option… With 90% of Ukraine’s vast coal reserves in the Donetsk basin Russia will have plenty.
00
It’s too far to ship. That’s why they buy Australian thermal. Indonesian thermal from Borneo is cheaper yet and closer to East Asian markets and they import megatons of it.
10
Thanks OldOzzie!
40
Simon, the alternative energy sources are coal, gas, nuclear and real hydro (although hydro is now just about fully exploited in the West).
Solar and wind have had ample opportunities and trillions of dollars wasted on them and have proven to be utterly useless.
The wind and solar experiment is finished.
We must forge ahead with proper non-random, reliable and inexpensive coal, gas, nuclear and real hydro (not the Snowy Hydro 2 disaster in Australia it’s case which should be immediately cancelled).
320
I hope you don’t eat bananas and you’ve managed to exclude all the other radioactive isotope(s), including the banana’s potassium from your body.
And you do realise that the highest level of radioactivity that you have been exposed to over the years, despite the outcomes of nuclear accidents, is still from your own body don’t you. Where is your post covering that topic? Do you shun crowds and avoid crowded spaces? Do you wear a mask for protection?
Of course, if you fly in commercial jet planes, you could be at risk from that too. You wouldn’t do that would you, it would be hypocritical for someone to fly while also denying anyone the fuel and hence opportunity.
290
Brazil nuts too; yummy.
10
Death toll at Chernobyl 31, but the UN says 50.
Death toll due to Kantale dam collapse in Sri Lanka six days before Chernobyl, 120. But I bet you never heard of that, Simon.
Death toll at Fukushima, zero directly but possibly one with a worker who took radiation measurements and died from lung cancer (but Japanese smoke a lot anyway).
Death toll from tsunami that caused Fukishima, 19,747.
In 2011 alone, in England alone, wind turbines killed 14 people. I wonder what the cumulative worldwide figures are? (ref. below).
China is allowed to burn coal with no limits and is the world’s biggest CO2 produced by far.
According to the reference below in 2014 931 people died in Chinese coal mining accidents, a record low at the time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=32919d205467
https://factsanddetails.com/china/cat13/sub85/item321.html
300
Nuclear has the lowest death rate out of all energy sources. Surprisingly, the death rate for hydro is quite high.
220
Your figure for Chernobyl sounds correct. Saw a documentary which had the chief medical officer, surprisingly an American, provide a similar number.
30
If you read what I said, you would have seen that I said that nuclear is low risk in Western Europe. Direct deaths from Chernobyl was 31 people, but indirect will never be known. Life expectancy of hundreds of thousands of people have been reduced.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll
26
When do you think they will rebuild Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We will know how dangerous it is when they repopulate those cities.
50
Answer;
https://chernobylguide.com/hiroshima_today/
40
Nuclear is one of the cheapest energy sources, when all costs are amortised over the very long plant lifetimes. CCGT gas and USC coal are marginally cheaper, but the comparison cost figures were produced before gas prices rose. Also nuclear has one of the lowest materials usages, plus it occupies a very small amount of land. And nuclear SMRs can be located close to existing grid transmission lines, so no long expensive transmission lines are required.
For the money Australia wastes every year subsidising useless, unreliable renewables, when SMRs become available, we could be installing two 400-500 MW SMRs every year at locations around Australia, solving our energy issues for the next 60 years.
260
@ Graeme – About 2 years ago, curiosity led me to crunch the numbers on various power sources myself. I produced a fairly complex Excel sheet that looked at the ‘overnight cost’ of a power plant, amortised over expected life spans. I didn’t take into account the fuel costs as this was not known and impossible to predict into the future. I also included nameplate ratings versus actual production values that were taken from various facilities in Oz and nuke from OS. Build costs were taken from actual costs of facilities in Oz, with nuke cost taken from OS.
The conclusion I drew was that wind and solar are cheapest, but only based on their nameplate rating and with no backup. As soon as backup was included, they were blown out of the water. OCGT, CCGT, Coal, Nuke, in order of cost. But the kicker was that nuke was far and away the longest lasting with lifespans past 60 years with ease. Once the lifespans were taken into account, nothing else came close.
Aside from political will, the problem for nuke is one of finance. As some people way smarter than myself have worked out, making payments on finance and waiting 10 years for your new nuclear plant to start producing just isn’t something that has much attraction. Unreliables, backed by OCGT, start reaping cash WAY sooner. So that leaves Gov as the only likely financier of such a project, and in the West, that is a problem. It is possible that if SMRs become cheaper – and a reality – that this will at least present the opportunity for cookie-cutter installations that don’t require redesigning the wheel for every bespoke nuclear power station. If the parts are all built offsite and all the purchaser has to do is build a slab and structure, it removes the burden of the design and build. Can you imagine all the union brothers building something like a bespoke nuclear plant? Leave it out! It needs people who know how to manufacture things, like Korea, for example. I hope to see the advancement of SMR and other nuclear tech in the coming years.
One of the renewables evangelists here at work asked me “Would you live next to a nuclear plant”? Yes, yes I would. I know that I’m in far more danger driving to work in the morning, and even more if I’m on the motorbike. I reminded him that he drives a Tesla that he puts on autopilot and pretty much dozes off on the way to Sydney…
140
Pete, if you did your figures based on each expected lifetime, that might be correct. But to be fair to nuclear, gas and coal, I believe that ALL calculations should be amortised over the longer lifetimes, at least 60 years. When you do this, you have to completely replace wind and solar at least once, if not twice. And then the RE cost rises alarmingly.
50
And regarding your comment on cookie-cutter nuclear installations, I believe this is the way of the future. I know that here in Perth, we have a number of small gas peaker plants scattered along the north-south gas pipeline somewhere in Perth suburbs, but no idea of where they are, as I believe they just look like a standard industrial site.
I believe this is going to be the approach of RR SMRs.
50
@ Graeme – Sorry, that is what I meant. When lifespan is taken into account and factoring in 3 to 4 times replacement of wind/solar versus nuclear station lifespan, the renewables option doesn’t stack up.
40
I believe it was Ziggy Switkowski who said after the tsunami struck Japan, that someone flying from Tokyo to Sydney would be exposed to more radiation during the flight than someone staying in Tokyo.
171
“when things go wrong.”
Passenger aircraft have crashed since they appeared in our skies, taking hundreds of lives at times, we don’t see ignorant fear and panic, people still fly, trusting the technology.
121
@ Ronin – I put the following logical fallacy to the ‘yeah, but Chernobyl’ crowd: The FJ Holden was a very unsafe car, ergo, all cars are unsafe.
131
The Fusion option.
https://interestingengineering.com/fusion-power-station-mimic-sun-limitless-energy
20
Simon is very worried about radiation, but gives a free pass to all the toxic elements associated with electric vehicles – lithium, cobalt etc. Cue Simon posting a link to the WashPo Fashion pages stating lithium has been ‘fact checked’ as environmentally friendly.
50
Hopefully – the main word in Simon’s analysis. Insha allah. It all rests on hope.
20
The BBC produced this interesting article on coal gasification 8 years ago.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26921145
So if gas is now green does that mean coal is potentially green as well if it is used to produce gas?
Answers on a postcard please to the EU commission in Brussels with a copy just to annoy them, to the green NGO’s intending to take them to court
190
Well last Christmas I finally got around to installing an old Oil-fired Rayburn ( at long last ) which is completely independent of Electricity. I knew it used WICKS, but what I didn’t know then and in climbing a steeper than expected Learning Curve, I’ve learnt that to function properly, the wicks only allow the evaporation of Kerosene – the FLAME is actually far above the wick within s Stainless steel structure which is red hot – the COmbustion Chamber. So as the literature said – it runs on gasified Kero. – so it’s green too. – and it IS economical. Burns less fuel all day than I spend going to work. Bye bye Smart Meters – my Workshop Consumption drives them Nuts.
200
Didn’t we have coal gas here in Newcastle in the 1950s.
80
“Coal gas”, also known as “town gas” was the standard source of gas in most countries until natural gas became available in the 1960’s and beyond (I think a bit earlier in the USA).
100
Yes, and after the gas is extracted it becomes ‘coke’ which can be used in Blast Furnaces for Steel production I do believe.
40
It is possible to turn brown coal into a burnable gas mixture. Would that make it acceptable?
10
Why not?
The basic reaction to produce coal gas which used to be used domestically is:
3C (i.e., coal) + O2 + H2O → H2 + 3CO (with some other by-products such as CO2, CH4, H2O)
For “green hydrogen” if that is desired they take the CO from above and make even more “green” hydrogen then bury the CO2…:
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
10
Yes David, but what are they going to do with the hydrogen? Putting it neat into a gas turbine would result in melted blades.
Perhaps a case of CO + 2H2 –> CH3OH. I realise that methanol might be more easily (and cheaper once the price drops) made from natural gas, as per that short-lived plant in NZ in the 1980’s. From methanol the intention was to make petrol (Mobil zeolite catalyst is all I remember).
The alternative might be using the Fischer-Tropf technology to make diesel. With increasing need as our refineries shut down and oil stocks are depleted deliberately, we will need this fuel to backup renewables (as in SA & TAS).
Why stop there? We could make other products from coal, like cresylic acids which I remember was the main, if not sole, ingredient of SCOTT’S PHENYLE – the safe, green disinfectant used for many years and ideal for outdoor dunnies. In a previous time I remember this as an additive in solvent (methylene chloride) paint strippers, and the strict handling precautions put on employees by the multi-national company I worked for. But that was in the early 1970’s when no-one knew about being GREEN.
10
BCLV (Brown coal liqification Victoria) pilot plant built by the Japanese. The successful project and tecnology was offered to the AUS Government for free, whom rejected it.
It was more costly then, now?
https://earthresources.vic.gov.au/geology-exploration/coal/alternate-uses-for-brown-coal
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080442693500091
30
Ohhhh so that’s why natural gas is called “natural gas”. I always wondered what “unnatural gas” was.
40
Hmm, Natural, eh ? so not Phossil …. but aren’t fossils natural as well, If Green is natural, why aren’t there so many green painted cars around ? – not exactly a popular color. After all, in UK we have the li’l RED tractor ( with BLUE wheels ) as image of sustainable food blah bla bla. Marketeers should be more careful of their choice of words – maybe they should better understand their subject.
10
As I recall the town gas installations were shut down in city suburbs around the same time as the old dirty emissions coal fired city power stations were shut down and replaced in the countryside with much lower emissions coal fired power stations, now scheduled to be shut down over the next up to ten years.
A few years ago Tony posted here that the NSW Electricity Commission had plans in hand to recondition generator units at some of them and to add additional new HELE technology generator units.
Recently on Sky News a discussion about nuclear power stations included the potential to convert coal fired power stations to nuclear, retain many of the positions of employment and add nuclear specialists to the skills on site.
10
It’s difficult to imagine that it would be economically feasible to convert a coal power station to nuclear.
00
Can’t be that hard, half the station is the electricity generation side where steam turns turbines, and that stays untouched.
You just flatten all the boilers with their coal feed & chimneys, and put a nuclear reactor in their place on the concrete slab.
20
Rolls Royce have earmarked six potential factory sites in the UKn to make up to 24 small modular nuclear reactors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-62038190
120
And I believe that it may be possible to pre-assemble the SMRs and bring them into the site on semi-trailers, thus reducing build times.
40
Just imagine the number of potential sites around Australia. The energy could also be used for pumping water from Northern Australia to the South for Irrigation and the like.
10
I hope Australia has an order in for a couple.
20
@ Tonyb – In the article they state that a 470MW reactor is equivalent to 150 wind turbines… dear God, these people are stupid!
Using capacity factors of 90% and 30% for nuclear and wind, respectively, you’d need 423 windmills to match the SMR.
Right now (11:10am 7.7.2022) the entire NEM windfarm fleet is making 22% of nameplate.
70
U.S. nuclear averages 93% CF.
10
The Coalition Federal Government was having discussions with Rolls Royce UK and the UK Government about modular reactor generators for Australia.
Subject, of course, to the ban on nuclear being repealed Federal and State governments, and the responsible for planning approval State Governments cooperating on building them.
00
Nuclear and gas are now green !?
Let the infighting begin.
Oh boy what a show . .
150
Now that the EU is forced to wake up to the reality that ruinables don’t work without fossil/nuclear fuels
baseload power, I wonder what Chris arm waving Bowen has to say.
I bet Bowen Albo are going to backflip with a 3/4 twist about nuclear because you know the EU is doing it so it’s good now.
90
Gas was green in the John Howard days. That was seen as the thing to do, build small gas power stations and no new coal ones to keep Kyoto type policies happy or at bay. The transition into gas is what made power prices first increase.
But at some stage there gas was demonized too.
00
Stonkingly good news. If they could now declare coal & oil green too, they’ll have a modern society!
230
It’s only taken them 30 odd years to figure out that the”Greenies”were wwwrong after all……?They sure are slow learners heh??????Lol.
90
And meanwhile, back in Australia, we have the ideal fuel for our electricity system; beautiful, clean, environmentally friendly, cheap, readily accessible Black Coal.
It’s so good it’s prized by many nations which run clean HELE and UltraSuperCritical generators and they appreciate the side benefit of all the extra CO2 needed for local crops.
251
Keith. Jo says it was never about the environment but about power. I have never agreed. It has always been about the communists wanting to destroy the West and they have succeeded. Here we are sitting on cheap energy, capable of having a value added economy and heavy manufacturing but prevented by weak, uneducated politicians controlled by socialist trained bureaucrats. We have been sabotaged by fellow Australians working for communism generally and the Chinese in particular. They are traitors pure and simple.
290
That’s a good clear statement.
Now we need to fix the problem.
120
For Australia to go to nuclear power because of lower emissions gives in to the claim that emissions for Australian electricity production are a bad thing. It annoys me every time I hear right wing commentators mention it. Coal makes perfect sense for Australia, we know because we have done it before.
I wouldnt even bother with high tech high cost hele stuff either, just build a furnace and connect it to a generator, done.
20
Slightly O/T but is Tasmania short of water for hydro generation. Basslink seems to be off a large amount of the time..
100
Ian, see my reply below re Tasmania situation.
30
In Australia’s case nuclear power is banned by law in all states and federally plus we’ve blown most of our gas supply selling it cheap overseas on long term contracts with no provision for market price or inflation, just what you’d expect from a corrupt Third World dictatorship but it was done under the pretend conservative Howard regime (see ref. below).
Apart from the OPAL research and medical isotope reactor and the nuclear submarines (if we ever get them) nuclear reactors are banned by both state and the following two pieces of federal legislation
—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the ARPANS Act)
-the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act)
This legislation was passed by the pretend conservative Howard regime.
It’s bizarre how the Australian Government can legislate science and technology like that, even though Australia has massive uranium deposits plus nuclear power supplies about ten percent of the world’s energy from 440 operational reactors.
Yet another of numerous nails in the coffin for Australia, a hugely self-destructive nation.
And look at the Climate Council propaganda page against nuclear power (actually, these are blatant lies):
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/
Ref:
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplies-20170928-gyqg0f.html
80
The small nukes can be built on a production line. Rolls Royce says a 450 MW reactor will cost about 2 billion and replace 150 wind turbines and provide enough power for one million homes. That argument would suit the “too expensive” crowd but we know that wind has a capacity factor of about 30% and last for about 20 years. Nukes are good for 90% capacity or better and last for 60 years. Therefore a 450 MW nuke actually replaces not 150 wind turbines but about 1350. At 3 million each that over twice as dear and the nuke occupies an couple of landscaped football fields instead of 4 or 5 thousand hectares and ruin the landscape. The CSIRO supports the destruction of the environment why? Along with the ABC it should also be defunded as an anti-Australian organisation.
220
I have no problem with small modular reactors (SMR’s) but even though there are plenty of designs intended for commercial use, there are none yet on the market.
And in Australia, it took 50 years to make a decision to build a second Sydney Airport not counting many years to build it.
There is zero chance of Australia getting a commercial power reactor anytime soon, even in the unlikely event we got a rational government which won’t happen either.
There is a slight chance of Europe getting new reactors, if it comes to a choice between freezing to death in the cold or having a proper power station.
Australia, being warmer than Europe, people are miserable and unproductive in the cold but apart from alpine regions where few people live, don’t tend to die of cold and freeze solid as in northern Europe and parts of USA and Canada.
70
Correction, the one small reactor which is arguably “on the market” is the 70MWe Russian barge mounted reactor intended for use in emergencies or in Third World countries. It could be useful to prop up Australia’s soon-to-fail electricity grid. It could be moored in Sydney Harbor or Port Phillip Bay, next to a Green or Teal electorate.
90
David says “It could be useful to prop up Australia’s soon-to-fail electricity grid. It could be moored in Sydney Harbor or Port Phillip Bay, next to a Green or Teal electorate”.
Great idea David and I’d agree with that move ASAP.
20
How much does a 150 windmill farm cost, then triple that to reflect the 30% factor then add in the cost of running connecting power lines and your SMR looks quite cheap.
20
“barge mounted reactor intended for use in emergencies or in Third World countries.”
Isn’t that exactly what we have here, an emergency in a 3rd world country.
110
The cost comparisons being bandied about, including the CSIRO’s GenCost, are false and full of holes. They are based on LCOE calculations, but the world’s major energy think tanks have now said they these are “incomplete”. Many of the LCOE calculations use a 30-year lifespan, in which they claim that both solar and wind won’t need replacing in that timeframe, which is totally false. They also use the EIA’s wind CF figure of 35%, another wrong assumption.
When costs are correctly compared, using FCOE, across the longer lifetimes of nuclear, gas and coal, renewables work out at twice the cost. And if you add backup, three times the cost at a minimum.
110
So, in short, to compare S&W with nuclear correctly, you would have to multiply the cost of replacement by three,(20yrs for S&W vs 60 yrs for nuclear) divide the output by a third ( 30% CF vs 100%), so three farms the size of a nuke, then add in the cost of connectors AND storage, not so cheap now eh. Nuclear really shines in reliability compared to S&W in that the sun isn’t out 50% of the time and the wind doesn’t always blow in the right amount.
60
I recommend starting with these figures (As used by Tony Grey in yesterday’s article in the Australian): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021_9_Cost-of-Nuclear-Power-and-Renewables.pdf
Then using the information from the CSIRO GenCost report, remove the CCS component from the USC Coal and CCGT Gas calculations. This results in the following adjusted figures for CCGT Gas and USC Coal:
CCGT Gas: $4112/kWh
USC Coal: $4800/kWh
If we now normalise these figures, using USC coal as a base of 1.0, with backup for RE, this gives:
USC Coal: 1.0
CCGT Gas: 0.86
Nuclear SMR: 1.16
Large Scale Solar: 3.10
Wind: 2.57
And I would question whether their backup figures are sufficient.
20
G4,..
That looks like a build cost rather than a generation cost .?
00
The point about operating working life for the unreliable energy sources and changeovers needed before a power station reaches that point is rarely mentioned.
But renewable energy getting cheaper is often part of the sales pitch.
Fans also ignore the cost of “firming” back up, connection to grid transmission line and now the special grid addition to improve efficiency and profitability.
00
‘Nuclear power stations are expensive and take too long to build.’
They got that right.
413
Only because of Green and Red Tape.
150
Absolute rubbish. I’m surprised that you are repeating this obviously false comment, based on outliers such as Hinkley C. Barakah units 1 and 2 took 8 years each to build, and are now delivering cheap energy at around A$0.26/unit. When complete, Barakah should deliver 5.6GW and cost A$27bn. The RR SMRs should cost around A$3.3bn each for 470 MW. China built four nuclear plants for a total of US$10bn. Perhaps some further research is needed?
111
By comparison a gas fired power station costs around $600 million and takes two years to build.
43
CCGT is the way to go.
10
Thanks.
‘A combined-cycle power plant uses both a gas and a steam turbine together to produce up to 50% more electricity from the same fuel than a traditional simple-cycle plant. The waste heat from the gas turbine is routed to the nearby steam turbine, which generates extra power.’ (wiki)
20
I’m certainly not against building more USC coal and gas power stations. But in the long run, I believe that SMR nuclear will be the way to go.
30
No matter what they do elsewhere, Australia won’t be going nuclear.
Its a highly divisive political hot potato.
10
I generally agree El Gordo. But perhaps people could be swayed. Nuclear certainly has support from a large enough sector and its one of those issues where people could go from one extreme to the other pretty quickly if it got started.
Reason being, it’s a matter of necessity and when the stuff really hits the fan they might be forced to accept it. Once they’ve failed with their little experiment and realise its all folly (a long time off yet), its either coal or nuclear.
Such is their hatred of coal, I think nuclear may win out of that competition and we could see Aussies following the EU on this matter. Much to my surprise I assure you.
30
Christ !.. i hope you are wrong,…A$0.26 a unit (kWh) ,…is about 4 times the generation cost of coal !
10
This article (below) is from 7 weeks ago and says hydro dam levels are at 20 percent. The article says recent rains increased water to the 20 percent level.
Plus it mentions unspecified repairs to Basslink, yet again.
Tasmania has imported 100 diesel generators to power the State when there is little weather dependent electricity and the hydro dams are low and gas is inadequate.
Despite its “green” reputation, Tasmania seems substantially run on expensive diesel generators much of the time, just like in many Third World countries.
https://www.willyweather.com.au/news/5240/hydro+tasmania's+dam+levels+jump+4pc+in+a+week+to+20pc+after+sustained+rainfall.html
120
Sorry, that was a reply to Ian1946.
30
Meanwhile NEMwatch blissfully reports Tassie running on hydro and some wind.
The state of affairs above would help explain why Tassie power is so expensive while superficial reporting has them on hydro and wind
70
It’s a very small customer base with a big bureaucracy and a heavy transmission infrastructure, obviously. Tas barely has more inhabitants than the ACT who can just run the extension cord to NSW and Vic.
20
Historically prices have been good down there compared with the mainland, this seems to be a recent escalation
40
And there are still folks claiming that we can rely on Tas Hydro as backup power for renewables…
80
I think the ‘battery to Australia’ has a leak and has gone flat. !
90
and this is in La Nina times. LOL. I think Scott Morrison liked the tassie battery concept.
30
I’m not sure that Tassie received that much rainfall. It was very dry when I was there in April. Can somebody advise whether their rainfall has been normal?
00
Dam levels at 20% doesnt tell us much. We need to know what that means in terms of MWhs ?
Meanwhile , i will rely on NEM log, who continue to report Tas supplying itself and Vic from Hydro and Wind with no sign of much gas input.
Maybe 20% dam levels can keep Tas going for 6 months ??
And,.. Anero.id doesnt list 100 gas generators for Tas ..?, only 5 !…totaling 372MW.
…..So either they are very low power , or are sat in a warehouse somewhere ?
A major information disconnect somewhere in this discussion.
00
Further…
I dont know that ir tells us much, but according to Hydro Tasie, their lakes are about 1.0 mts below full level ..
https://www.hydro.com.au/water/lake-levels/GetLakeLevelDataFile?filename=Web_Lakes_PEDDER.pdf
1.0mts below full doesnt seem to equate to a loss of 80% capacity ??
00
Never forget that Humans now live during the safest and most benign period in our history.
Deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by over 95% in the last 100 years and YET the global population has increased by 6 + billion people since 1920. THINK about it.
Here’s the proof we’ve known about for the last 100 years and yet we’re still told we have a CLIMATE CRISIS even an EXISTENTIAL THREAT?
Of course we should be using more Coal + Gas today because the verifiable DATA proves that fossil fuels allow us to enjoy a SAFER, HEALTHIER and WEALTHIER world.
141
Alex Epstein’s “Fossil Future” is excellent.
20
Yes Im sure it is. Ive listened to all his podcasts for years, which there are many, and he’s repeating himself now when I listen to him. But good to see him being quite prominent at the moment. He’s a better presenter, and thinker, than Schellenberger and the Bjorn.
00
“Never forget that Humans now live during the safest and most benign period in our history.”
So true.
And possibly the root of the problem.
We’ve become spoiled children.
With the luxury of complaining about the weather 50 years from now.
And inventing new gender identities.
50
So this is what “transitioning” means. When things get tough (ie. no more Russian gas, effectively because of your own sanctions) you transition your thinking to suit the political situation of the time. Science, what is that?
80
Well, Leftists believe you can “transition” from male or female to the opposite.
So, I guess you can “transition” to anything else as well.
Formerly “bad” gas and nuclear are now “transitioned” to “good”.
In Leftist post-modernist ideology, there is no such thing as objective truth. The truth is whatever they think it is.
40
The transition to “RE” was never going to happen. It was a fantasy that extended well beyond the actual capabilities of the technology.
The expediency of redefining “RE” was pretty much the only way out if they wanted to protect their mantra.
50
Of cause Russian gas has ALWAYS been green. How is that so?
50
Because the bureaucrats in their insulated offices in Brussels wanted to close down those dirty coal stations and those dangerous nuclear plants. And ban gas exploration so Russia kindly made lots of clean gas available (at market rates).
Since then the situation has changed and those same bureaucrats have realised that their offices (and homes) won’t be that comfortable in the coming winter.
By the way, how reliable is the gas supply from Norway? Seems that there have been ‘mechanical problems’ quite often, followed by price rises, followed by ‘mechanical problems’ solved.
50
Norway is also impacted by strikes at the moment.
20
Watching “Occupied” these evenings, when Norway shut down the gas and was invaded by Russia at the EU’s request.. A great TV series!
20
It’s only fair then that the commercial renewable generators, including solar, wind and batteries have the same restrictions placed on them. No plan to dispose of end-of-life renewable waste, no licence to operate. Does anyone know if this is the case?
Mining operations in this nation have had to provide sureties up front to cover rehabilitation expenses should they fail. The bill to dispose of renewables flotsam should not be borne by the public purse.
70
They are painting themselves into another corner. They can see now (but not admit) that wind and solar have failed, but by re-classifying gas, not coal, they have restricted themselves to a resource which cannot replace wind and solar for very long. Coal I think has much greater availability, and therefore is actually more sustainable than gas. Why do we let these idiots control the narrative like this? We should be calling their BS for what it is, and insist on a level playing field for all energy sources.
90
And just like that, without anyone noticing, understanding or caring, the petrodollar disappeared.
This has PROFOUND implications for the US and the world.
See video:
https://youtu.be/ehHibdfvSqM
40
In Australia the rot started with John Howard, pretend conservative, who made a monumental engineering error when he allowed non-dispatchable generators to connect to the grid.
That’s when the rot started and it continues to get worse with no end in sight.
That’s why politicians should never be allowed to make engineering decisions.
100
LMAO’ing for the next week or two. What happened to the 10 years left thingy??? Prince Charlie will have to add a couple of decades to his dire predictions.
40
Here Alex Epstein tries to educate some Republican politicians about the disastrous policies of the clueless Biden presidency. This is at the 21st of June 2022.
It takes about 20 minutes to watch but everyone will learn something and Alex has a careful and very accurate delivery about the data and recent history of global energy.
Most of these Republican pollies are well informed and ask interesting questions and Alex is as good as Lomborg or Christy or Shellenberger etc when they too appear at these types of forums.
And he’s certainly at his best when he tries to educate us about the case for fossil fuels in the past and for our future. Go Alex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFZaUpXammo
60
Go Neville.
10
“Nuclear plants don’t produce any CO2 at all, but that wasn’t good enough because it was never about CO2 either. It was always about power and money and profits for friends.”
Nailed it !
100
Just a couple of suggestions:
1. The headline might usefully be changed to “intermittent energy industry” rather than “renewables industry”; and
2. Simon is not real and should be treated accordingly especially when its posts appear early on a topic.
51
Simon is a bott operated by a group in Peeking but are paid in Roubles via a bank account in Victoria. They get 69 roubles for every red tick of disapproval they elicit from readers.
61
Disinformation is ubiquitous.
30
Yuri Bezmenov was right!
40
Yes Forrest and “Toxic Unreliable energy” is another good and accurate title as well.
But then again S & W only last for 15 to 20 years so Toxic Renewables is probably a good term, because we’ll always have to renew them again and again.
20
In this 5 minute Prager Uni video Alex Epstein explains why fossil fuels are Greener than we think and then shows us the real data proving he’s correct.
But his statement at the end is very accurate and thought provoking when he says, ” fossil fuels don’t take a naturally safe environment and make it dangerous, but fossil fuels empower us to take a naturally dangerous environment and make it cleaner and safer”.
Thanks Alex and the last 100 years of data and 6 billion more Humans proves he’s correct.
https://www.prageru.com/video/fossil-fuels-greener-than-you-think
40
Hell hath no fury like a Green scorned.
20
Just wait until the teals are scorned. Lookout men. Next level fury is coming to a wealthy suburb near you.
20
Stock up on body armor!
00
Perhaps ‘some’ people have finally come to the realisation that renewable (wind) power generation and nuclear power generation are two completely different things, when it comes to delivery of power.
Plant type – Nameplate – Lifespan – Actual delivered power over lifespan
Huge scale wind plant – 500MW – 20 years – 26.3TWH
Large scale nuclear power plant – 2400MW – 50 years – 947TWH
So, over it’s lifespan the big nuke delivers 36 times more power, so now to deliver the equivalent power you need 36 of those large scale wind plants, and with that many of them, all the Transmission capability from such a huge coverage area compared to the concentrated single nuclear power plant.
My bet is that 36 wind plants is likely the preferred option though, well, perhaps just a couple of them anyway, enough to equal the Nameplate, eh!
Tony.
131
Evidently, anything can be green if the situation is desperate enough. Honorary green status now bestowed on gas and nuclear. Soon for coal?
50
“EU declares nuclear and gas are “Green” too”
Please tell it to the Dutch government. They have been trying to ban natural gas for some time now (at least before Russia started to close the gas supply). New homes were not allowed to be connected to the gas grid. Cooking and heating were to be done by electricity.
30
In Australia they are trying to stop gas connections to new houses and I believe they have in some places.
In the souhern fiefdom of Vicdanistan they are even offering an incentive of $2600 to disconnect from gas.
Gas was always a good partial backup for electricity as both can be used for heating, hot water and cooking. Also, theoretically, domestic gas could power a generator that runs on gas.
They want all homes to have only a single source of energy, electricity, so that it can be controlled by price, rationing or remote control disconnection via smart electricity meters. Gas has less controlability at the consumer end than electricity because in Australia gas is mostly connected via dumb meters and electricity by smart meters.
40
Recently on Sky News a guest commented about the future electricity supply in planning for electricity only and controlled by smart meters remotely.
Each premises must have battery storage and when the electric vehicle or multiple of electric vehicles are parked they must remain plugged in.
As required authorities will use your storage battery and electric vehicle battery for electricity grid purposes.
Another add on “fix” to accommodate unreliable energy supply businesses?
00
Be careful about cheering a sensible decision to allow nuclear, and also gas which they are permitting because it produces less CO2 per unit of energy than coal.
The problem is that the fraud of CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming remains.
So they’ll need a new scam.
Hence the upcoming war against meat production (already started) and the promotion of insect eating.
In fact, you could interpret this allowance of nuclear and gas to be bad news because it doesn’t involve an admission that there is no problem with anthropogenic CO2, CH4 and now “nitrogen” as the profoundly scientifically illiterate Left call it (when they mean N2O, but in actuality, they don’t know what they mean, yesterday a resident Leftoid even called it NO2).
Be careful!
Be very careful!
It’s a trick!
90
Of course it’s a trick, the climate hoaxers will never stop until politicians with intestinal fortitude ignore them.
21
This is laughable, but predictable. The EU now realises that RE is a folly but only after they see the public ire turning against them and their green leaders now fear being tossed from office. The issue they face is how to reverse out of a situation that they created, without appearing to admit they caused the problem. They obviously believe that making nuclear and gas “green” will allow them to claim they can meet their targets, but the general public will never buy this crap after donating so many billions to the failed cause. The amusing part here is watching the left at war with itself. The lefty leaders can now see the harsh reality and are looking for an escape clause to save their plush public funded careers, but their brainwashed disciples are far too indoctrinated to move from a path that leads over the cliff.
Perhaps this EU awakening makes our own scenario seem even more scary, because against this backdrop of the EU navigating a way out, we have our own newly elected green ALP ideologues looking to double down on this fantasy and actually take us all over the cliff. This also highlights the complete failure of the LNP in their capitulation to green media by adopting net zero. If they had held ground they would still be in office and they would be able to stick it to the media and point to the EU situation as proof that they were right all along. Without a nuclear option and with a government that has consumed the green cool aid and wants to shut down the grid and kill the economy, it doesn’t look good 🙁
70
Don’t know about being in office , but if they had held ground they would at least appear consistent with the emerging reality overseas. Not sure what the ALP is thinking. They cannot be oblivious to what’s going on. My guess is they are thinking hard about the weasel words they will need to frame the inevitable backflip while still virtue signaling to the climanistas.
Alternatively they maybe so far down the socialist mindset burrow that they think the UK, all the EU and California just “didn’t do it right” and the awesome intellect of Albanese and Bowen will combine to show them how its done. Given the bubble that is Canberra and the quality of advice flowing out of the alphabet soup of energy related bodies, I wouldn’t count this option out.
Fashioning an energy crisis while sitting on some of worlds largest supplies and reserves of coal and gas and uranium will take some unique skills.
60
Fashioning an energy crisis while sitting on some of worlds largest supplies and reserves of coal and gas and uranium will take some unique skills.
It won’t be easy… but… have confidence we have some of the smartest people working day and night on it, results will be visible in the short term.
10
That’s good news for Nuclear and Gas.
So if we go with more Gas now to compensate for the loss of Coal Fired Power Plants, we should be able to meet with the EU conditions on this Trade Deal that Australia is trying to finalise. And we can have the reliability of Gas Powered Plants to compensate for the unreliability of these Renewables. We can also now consider Nuclear more seriously in order to meet this Net Zero madness. Not that we really need it, but the EU have now set the Precedent for us.
30
“We can also now consider Nuclear more seriously in order to meet this Net Zero madness. Not that we really need it, but the EU have now set the Precedent for us.”
Not that we need it as such but the entertainment value alone is worth the effort to really upset the climatistas and assorted fellow travellers.
00
AGAIN here Alex Epstein tells us the truth about TOXIC unreliable S & W energy. And only five minutes of your time.
https://www.prageru.com/video/can-we-rely-on-wind-and-solar-energy
40
Hang on, aren’t Australians into banning gas cook tops at the moment ? I wonder if this EU trend will catch on here. Let’s face it that is all it is, trends.
My old house ran just a gas hob on lpg tanks and those large (45 kg/) tanks would last forever. By the time you needed a new tank you’d forget how and where to buy gas. It seemed extremely efficient to me. Put a heater on it which i did years later and you’d go through a tank in about 3 weeks.
My current house uses an electric hob which seems to suck quite a bit of juice. We had our kitchen out of action for about 6 months at one stage, and so we had an off grid outdoor kitchen, and our electricity bill went way way down to very little, still running a small fridge, hot water and power circuit. Had to be the hob and oven.
So I don’t see where the gain in efficiency from banning gas cookers is. Of course these fools assume electricity comes out of a wall and if the mind extends to the next level it assumes electricity can be made from the wind and sun.
60
Germany is insane. They pay farmers to grow agricultural crops specifically for biofuels, put these crops into huge plastic tanks on the farms to rot, then burn the resulting biogas to generate electricity – again on-farm – which is then supplied to the grid. All this activity depends on government subsidies to be economically viable for the farmer. The EU classes this electricity as renewable for its green power targets. The end result is German taxpayer’s hard-earned money is misspent and quality farmland which could grow food is taken out of circulation.
Lose-lose is the only way to describe it.
80
“Lose-lose is the only way to describe it.”
Like ALL Govt subsidies!
20
The price of natural gas contracts ex-Netherlands, for the remainder of this year and the first quarter of 2023 is US $50/MMBtu. That is 9 times, 900% higher than the price of natural gas, in the US, $5.50/MMBtu.
https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/energy/natural-gas/dutch-ttf-natural-gas-usd-mmbtu-icis-heren-front-month.html
The Germans are the largest supplier of chemical products ($200 billion/year before natural gas increased in price by 900%) for the EU. The Germans/EU have created an out of control, EU industry destroying, super crisis.
It was predictable that the Putin would stop supplying Germany with natural gas.
In an all-out economic war, the EU is helpless and clueless.
50
They are like simpletons going to a gunfight with a knife and one hand tied behind the back.
00
What does “renewable” even mean anyway?
It only has a meaning if there is an imminent shortage of something.
There is no imminent shortage of coal if the free market is allowed to operate.
Similarly for gas and oil, especially if fracking is allowed, not banned as in some places including parts of Australia. In Vicdanistan it is even illegal under the State constitution….
Nuclear is the most “renewable” of all. In the civilian nuclear fuel cycle, the “waste” contains more than 90% (I believe about 98%) of its original potential energy. It can be recycled in breeder reactors, ultimately ending up with a low radioactive waste product.
30
“The “waste” contains more than 90% (I believe about 98%) of its original potential energy. It can be recycled in breeder reactors, ultimately ending up with a low radioactive waste product.”
That’s why as suppliers of yellowcake, we should be obliged to take spent fuel and charge countries a healthy fee to hold it safely until a fully automated process becomes available to recycle used fuel into new useable fuel, we would be laughing all the way to the bank forever.
10
There should be no new contracts for supply of uranium ore.
All future sales should be of refined uranium which has been processed in Australia.
10
Airbus Albo is going to fix the floods and bushfires with more toxic S&W, not sure what that’s going to do except make power more expensive and unreliable.
50
He has promoted a course that requires him to do nothing but dole out other peoples money. He hasnt proposed anything in the way of adaptive measures to ameliorate any of the problems, many of which have been there for at least half a century that I personally know off (Hawkesbury flooding, Lismore, Ballina etc) and historically longer than that. Populations continue to grow so human impact grows as well. Areas that previously flooded or burned but were “over there” are now crawling with people.
He will be long gone before people wake up if they ever do. He will be smoozing somewhere on his lifetime parliamentary PM pension package and the little people will still be bailing out their houses.
Cant do things right; cant do the right things.
60
Certain super funds and the Future Fund seem to be providing much of the capital for current renewables infrastructure investment. Let them wear the losses. Of course retired public servants will still get their generous pensions. Property taxes and other taxes may need to rise to make up any shortfall. It’s malinvestment, of course, but so is the hyperexpensive NBN and stuff like Snowy Hydro and unneeded desal plants.
Then again why does a suburban mum need a BMW X5 for a shopping run to Woolies?
If it’s any consolation other countries have huge white elephants. UAE, Malaysia, China, Russia, Turkmenistan, South Africa… the list is endless.
10
A farmer had a proposal many years ago to get hold of an ex sub nuclear plant, hook it up to a big desal plant on the NSW south coast and pump fresh water up to Eucumbene Dam providing an endless supply of water for irrigation and hydro power.
30
Hope he is a good farmer.
02
Probably would be if he could get enough water.
10
I was refering to the logic of it, not a lot there.
10
A dope farmer.
00
Australia has plenty of gas, onshore and offshore, natural and coal seam. Replacing ageing coal generators with a newbuild CCGT power plant is the fastest and most economical way to produce effective baseload power in say 3 years or so with the CFMEU working triple-shift overtime and making solid six-figure wages that put a smile on any Tax Office collector’s face.
Isn’t the ALP all about jobs for its union mates?
Duke Energy’s new 1640 MW CCGT plant in Citrus County, Florida, built in two and a half years for US$1.5 billion, opened in 2018. Only needs 50 full time workers to run it. That’s efficiency.
The gas supply comes from an underground pipeline. Noice.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/duke-energy-citrus-power-plant/
30
We can even make gas from waste, every sewage treatment plant in Australia should have a digester attached.
20
Now THAT’S A problem. In Australia the Liebor Government and their CFMEU union thug mates would require employment of 500, at least, plus 25hr work week and six months holiday leave per year and six months sick leave with no doctor’s certificate required.
20
Equal time roster, 6 months sickies, 6 months holidays.
Any idea of Vaxx status requirements.
On another note it appears the corporations are relaxing Vaxx requirements. Was contacted a couple of months ago for a position at a Mine but they required Vaxx compliance, so NO.
Called me yesterday and they are removing the requirement for Vaxx.
So good news for those who had the fortitude and finances to hold out.
40
This is why they privatized the power sector. It’s only the element of competition that keeps prices reasonable. So far.
Reliability and actual security of supply is a different matter. There is either enough baseload available – or there isn’t.
A capacity market mechanism could help for the latter.
20
Chump change Chalmers is going to reinstate Climate modelling to gauge the effect on the economy, so using an unreliable process to analyse a poorly understood natural process to assess the effect on a wobbly economy which could be affected anytime by anything, say a war, an earthquake, an asteroid, foot and mouth disease, varoa mite, etc.
40
Everyone talks about ” clean energy “. Why don’t we talk about dirty energy for a change? Lebanon had to supply its shaky electrical grid with juice from floating Turkish power barges moored directly shoreside. These are dual-fuel and can burn either gas or bunker fuel to generate electricity. Burning HFO or bunker close to inhabited areas is not exactly environmentally friendly is it? But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Perhaps to the Greens delight the Lebanese power utility defaulted on the over $100 million it owed the Turks and the powerships shut down operations in 2021.
Needless to say power outages are a daily occurrence in Lebanon.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkeys-karpowership-says-it-is-shutting-down-power-lebanon-2021-05-14/
40
Found this on linkedin
Nick Jorss
Executive Chairman at Bowen Coking Coal Ltd and Chairman at Ballymore Resources Ltd
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6946666737417232384/
Our friends in Europe are in real trouble here. 😩 If Putin cuts off the gas for this winter there will be a lot of human suffering and Governments will need to decide who gets the scarce resources – nationalisation of key industries could follow. It’s hard to see how the EU would survive when it’s every country for themselves and certain countries have the LNG import terminals (Germany has none).
In my opinion this is what happens when traditional (aka reliable) sources of energy are demonised in seeking a rapid transition to an energy system that’s not yet capable of delivering reliable power in the quantities required. From fossil fuels to nuclear – Governments and capital markets have worked together to prevent investment and create an effective capital strike. In doing so they were cheered on by organisations like BNEF who ironically are now writing articles about the consequences like that linked by Joachim Gessner below. Perhaps it wasn’t clear that if the aim is to transition away from the current energy system you should work on transitioning demand not constraining supply. And if “ESG” pressure means you neglect your home grown sources and outsource supply to a Russian dictator you further exacerbate the issue. Hats off to the wizards at Doomberg who have been warning about this for a long time, along with the looming food crisis.
This quote from an excellent The Australian Financial Review article yesterday is telling: “Russia has now supplanted Saudi Arabia as China’s top oil supplier. As for India, it’s buying 25 times more Russian oil than it used to. All told, Russia should make $320 billion selling energy this year, up 35 per cent on last year.”
Here is a fascinating 2018 report on the state of LNG Import Infrastructure in Europe. There’s clearly massive trouble brewing if Putin cuts off the gas. Note the black hole in the map on page 7 for import terminals in Germany and Eastern Europe who are all highly reliant on Russian gas:
https://lnkd.in/dbbByWB8
20
No surprises there, and Russia, China, India all members of BRICs. So while the West are gnashing their teeth about how to tighten sanctions on Russia (and meeting their stupid COP26 targets while destroying their economies), those countries are happily growing their economies.
10
Yes, the sooner we ditch the Yanks and join the BRICS the sooner we will start to grow again. The up-and-coming countries of the world will be in there, the old dinosaurs will be in decline in Europe & the USA.
02
Do you mean Oz should become just another BRIC in the wall?
00
I was aware of this however, in the Daily Telegraph today an article: Cars coming to a halt written by Clarissa Bye is well worth reading.
She believes that in the not too distant future only the very wealthy people will be able to afford an electric vehicle and associated costs including being charged per kilometre of road use.
Her sources are quoted, here and international sources.
30
Does she provide links or you happy with hearsay?
03
Much of the anti-coal hysteria worldwide has been whipped up by the oil & gas lobby, being the usual corporate big boys heavily invested in LNG like Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Total, and major gas exporters like Russia and Qatar. All would like to put the final nail in coal’s coffin. Coal generation would then be replaced by natural gas.
Going back to the early roots of it, when coal-importing Sweden decided to go nuclear for its electricity needs, it decided to run a campaign blaming coal plant emissions for acid rain and associated pollution issues, in order to boost the case for switching to nuclear power. This created the public perception that burning coal was ” dirty “.
It’s a long story and Delingpole covers some of it in his book Watermelons.
I’ve previously commented on the immense financial firepower of the oil and gas industry versus the coal companies who operate on the edge of bankruptcy much of the time. Big Oil’n’Gas is 1000 times more powerful in dollar terms.
30
The coal mining sector in Australia is seeking Federal Government support, not funding, for an industry specific insurance company because the insurers wont support the industry or are giving notice of withdrawing support.
Add this to the international bankers no longer willing to finance coal mining or power station projects, so when the Morrison Federal Government proposed a new NTH QLD HELE coal fired power station to the QLD Labor Government they offered to underwrite the finance for that project.
Again, public perception misguided by the anti-coal climate hoaxers.
51
There is a lot of foreign investment in the coal mining sector in Oz. Thai. Indonesian. Glencore (Swiss multinational). Japanese. (Mitsui and Mitsubishi). US (Coronado). China. (Yancoal).
00
“Dog Eat Dog” … good old Capitalism at work
00
The important point to note is that this relates only to generated electricity, and the motivation for it is purely political self-preservation. All of the other punitive measures on their agenda, such as making cars and travel unaffordable to us proles, will remain in place.
10
Coal was green once.
20
Acually, I have wondered about that. Maybe not all coal.
In our area in the middle of the “coal measures”, undisturbed swamp conditions develop a black component. I assume that it is black because it has a raw carbon component.
If my assumption is right, did that carbon come from old soil carbon, which appears to me unlikely, or more likely from the atmosphere via sunlight under a biological process?
Was some of our “fossil carbon” formed by this process working on a bigger scale?
00
[…] Major loss for Renewables Industry: EU declares nuclear and gas are “Green” too […]
00