Renewables - Death Knell?

[Renato1]

The issue about renewable energy discussed in the other thread has taken a fascinating turn.

In this article of 17 Feb 2013, previously provided by Clive on the other thread, we see Bloomberg Energy Finance telling us that renewables are so much cheaper than conventional power, that they can survive without subsidies.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268

But in this Sydney Morning Herald Article of 16 July 2014, we see Bloomberg Energy Finance making comments, and statements made that the viability of future and existing renewable energy projects are threatened if the Abbott Government tinkers with the Renewable Energy Targets (though I can't tell if Bloomberg or someone else is making some of those statements). And that investment in the entire industry has nearly totally dried up at the mere thought of the Government altering those targets.
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-renewable-energy-industry-grinds-to-a-halt-20140716-ztio2.html

As I see it, the two positions are mutually exclusive - there has to be a porky being told in one of them.

If renewables are so cheap, how can it be that tampering with the targets results in
"That would potentially affect the viability of even existing investments."???

Am I being too harsh?
Cheers,
Renato

[Amaranthus]

You are correct that both statements cannot be simultaneously true - there is some cognitive dissonance going on here.
I posted about this issue on my blog recently, Renato, following the ABC "4 Corners" program:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/07/10/four-corners-and-its-field-of-dreams/

[Renato1]

Very interesting read, thanks Barry. I didn't know you had a blog.

Plainly the ABC has its agenda, and questions which could lead to inconvenient facts are deliberately not asked. I seriously doubt those reporters are as inept as what could be inferred from reading the article on your blog.

Reading that article reminded me of my brother's experience who attended a talk some years back by the people who had received millions of dollars to build a small pilot plant for carbon sequestration. They described how it was done and how it had all worked out very well.

They then took questions, where one audience member asked what they had to do to upscale it and make it work with the real power plants. Unlike Four Corners, the presenters were quite honest, and said that there was no way that what they had done would work with a real plant.
Cheers,
Renato

[Amaranthus]

They were likely referring to the Otway Pilot Project run by the CO2CRC:
http://www.co2crc.com.au/otway/

[Renato1]

I found out today what was puzzling me in the first post below, namely why current renewables/ wind farms may not be viable in the future, if the RET is changed. Short answer is that they won't be able to price gouge as much.

From Nick Cater at the Australian, describing the new Mafia.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/hostages-to-a-renewable-ruse/story-fnhulhjj-1227004820114?nk=4b3e9908367d7b3448 5a8aeadc03065b

"Wind farms may be ugly but they are certainly not cheap, nor is the electricity that trickles from them. No one in their right minds would buy one if they had to sell power for $30 to $40 a megawatt hour, the going rate for conventional producers.

But since the retailers are forced to buy a proportion of renewable power, the windmill mafia can charge two to three times that price, a practice that in any other market would be known as price gouging.

As if a $60 premium were not reward enough, the transaction is further sweetened with a renewable energy certificate that they can sell to energy producers who insist on generating power in a more disreputable manner.

The going rate of $40 a megawatt hour means the total income per megawatt for wind farms is three to five times that of conventional power, and unless the government changes the scheme that return is only going to get better.

In an act of rent-seeking genius, the renewable lobby managed to persuade the Rudd government to set the 2020 target as a quantity — 41 terawatt hours — rather than 20 per cent of overall power as originally proposed.

Since the target was set, the energy generation forecast for 2020 has fallen substantially, meaning the locked-in renewable target is now more like 28 per cent.

That will send conventional producers scrambling for certificates, pushing up their price beyond $100. It’s a mouth-watering prospect for the merchant bankers and venture capitalists who were smart enough to jump on board, ... but of little or any benefit to the planet.

The cost of this speculative *financial picnic will be about $17 billion by 2030 or thereabouts, *according to Deloitte, which produced a report on the messy business last week."

[Wavytone]

Distorting a free market for idealogical reasons ALWAYS backfires, no matter how well-intentioned it may have been.

An unfortunate little lesson from history that the greens and ALP repeatedly ignore.

This is no different, it will just take a little longer than most previous examples.

Wind farms and solar also ultimately fail for another reason - the actual energy density per square kilometre than can be harvested has been grossly overstated in most analyses. The real results achieved fall well short.

And there still remains the problem that these do nothing to see the problem of meeting peak demand for electricity on cold winter nights with neither wind nor sun, or on hot summer days with no wind. Blackouts in extreme conditions will be regular, if the greens are allowed to dictate energy policy.

[Renato1]

Can't argue with that - but remember who it was that introduced the Renewable Energy Target? John Howard!

A very costly policy turned into law to grab a few votes.

And plenty in the Liberals still seem to be in favour of it. The main public proponent of it is former Liberal leader John Hewson.

And so far, in Australia, all those wind farms - apart from all the shortfalls you've mentioned - have hardly reduced any coal consumption, because the coal fired stations can't be turned off when the wind farms are pumping power.
Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

I wonder if Mr Hewson has any shares in wind farm corps...Should be on the record but I can't be bothered to look.
In any event with out being disrespectful I wonder how politicians decide something is good or bad..I use a cost benefit system but how do they do it...
Its is good it gets votes
It is good a major supporter will make money
It is good the nation will benefit
Renewables can only help the picture they are not miracle solutions enabling us to close coal mines and shut down drilling rigs.
Maybe we could rely solely on renewables if we have acres of batteries the size of swimming pools but even then it won't be cheap_

[xelasnave]

I have a massive 100 amp battery it is the key.
You should only use 20 % so I get by on 20 amps
Of course I think anyone who needs more is a glutton
The power for the battery comes from a 85 watt panel
There is a 800 watt generator for the run of rainy days but it tops up the battery firstly and rarely would I use it direct.
Before I lived alone the system was larger ..400 amp hours of battery storage.
But renewables are not going far without batteries.
Selling solar power to the grid will never teach people how to manage power..but if there was a battery bank in every house folk would be educated on power use..the key is you get out what you put in..much like the banks once with money.

[Retrograde]

So what about the at least $10 BILLION in subsidies (http://environmentvictoria.org.au/newsite/sites/default/files/useruploads/MF%20and%20EV%202013%20polluter%20h andouts%20assessment%20FINAL-4.pdf) that the fossil-fuel industry receives every year in Australia?

This is a far greater market distortion than the RET but it is entrenched and largely uncommented on in our media.

The forces behind the climate-change denial industry (and an industry it most certainly is) hate renewable energy because they don't own it and can't sell it. They even dreamt up a fake illness called 'wind-turbine syndrome' that doesn't actually exist in order to demonise renewables.

Renewable energy is the future because it's essentially free - yes I know there are significant set-up costs but that's like complaining about free petrol because you have to buy your own car :lol:.
The issues surrounding constant supply of renewable energy can be overcome in the future by improving electricity storage technologies and modest add-ons from other sources in the mean-time at times of peak demand.

All of Australia's electricity needs can be satisfied by a solar collecting area a bit larger than the ACT (and we don't have to use the actual ACT although.....:P).
Australia has a huge potential advantage in solar that our coal-powered government is determined to ensure we miss out on as it has been bought-and-paid-for (http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/21/the-rise-and-rise-of-mining-company-donations/) by the mining industry.

[Redshift13]

The ACT (Parliament House, specifically) should be used as a centre for thermal energy - it's full of hot air! :rofl:

[glend]

Wind energy has to be the most over-hyped generation method of them all. Those towers and turbines cost a fortune, and the payback period on that investment is decades, and by then they need to be replaced. The wind turbine that sits on the side of Cormorant Road in Newcastle NSW (ironcially positioned next to the coal loader) is being dismantled and removed, its been there for years but the thing doesn't generate much power and is expensive to keep running. There is no business case that makes sense, especially for a country like Australia with so much natural solar capability.

I am in the process of going off-grid, or at least to only use it for off-peak charging in an emergency. I looked carefully at wind generation but the NSW regulations for residential use make it impossible. Secondly residential sized wind generators are very expensive to buy and maintain and are terrible KW/H generatrs compared to the economics of solar.

Sadly at the very time we should encourage solar the retailers are all cutting the buy back rate to prop up their revenues ahead of having to hand back money to customers due to the Carbon Tax repeal. The IPART report that came out in late June this year recommended that for un-regulated solar buy back customers (which is all of us not on the $0.60 KW/H or $0.20 KW/H regulated rates) the rate should be set at from 4.9 cents to 9.3 cents per KW/H. Many retailers were paying 7.7 cents KW/H, and they are now using that IPART report to justify a reduction to around 5 cents - which is rediculous as the old rate was within the recommended range. They (the retailers) are just using the IPART report as an excuse. I rang the NSW Energy Ombudsman's office about this behaviour and was told they don't set a specific rate but leave it to the market to sort out. Well I am not going to take it anymore.

[casstony]

Rooftop solar with 3 or 4 Kwh of storage (when battery prices drop) for evening consumption makes a lot of sense, except for incumbent energy providers who are attacking solar to protect their profits.

[rustigsmed]

i'd prefer if governments stopped fussing about with type 0 civilisation energy sources, aimed high and invested their money on fusion, bring on the type 1 i say.

[AndrewJ]

Dunno. The latest work on liquid salts storage looks promising.
Maybe no good ( yet ) for individual houses, but if built as a unit to supply say 10 linked houses, it may be possible to use this mechanism in a cost effective manner.
Lots more environmentally friendly ( relative to current batteries )
Also lots of good work is going on here, but unfortunately, most is now being done overseas as we have killed off any incentives here.
There was a doco on recently where a uni had gone back to the past:thumbsup:.
They were testing the use of a modern variant of a 2 stage "low pressure" reciprocating steam engine, which would make the technology feasible for small installations. Very interesting stuff getting done.
Ahh found it
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/solar-storage-below-100kwh-with-the-help-of-a-steam-engine-10979
Still early days, but selecting an "engine" to match the available storage, vs the other way round is a neat bit of thinking.
I see an Aussie is part of the design team,


Andrew

[multiweb]

These things work very well in the northern sea where the rain falls horizontally 300 days in a year. :lol: That's why the largest manufacturer of wind turbines is Danish. ;) Now they flogged them all over the world. Well... some are still made by GE. Still, as you pointed out massive production and maintenance costs. They look pretty though.

[The_bluester]

I have been looking into rooftop PV for some years. While it would have made sense financially at the personal level, I have thought that the premium feed in rates were a stupid idea as they distorted the market badly, and they end up coming back to us in the rates for conventionally generated power anyway.

I think what Alex wrote above is quite true, Solar PV with storage would teach people a lot about energy consumption. I am holding off any decisions at the moment to see if the much promised storage solutions actually do appear soon. If that is the case then suddenly a spend on solar PV makes a lot more sense for us.

As things stand we could probably justify a modest grid connected system with no storage, we have two people at home during the day every day so offsetting our daytime consumption with locally generated output would probably be financially viable. Better still would be a system which could provide enough current to run our aircon either in cooling mode in summer or as a heat top up in winter. It would be nice to be able to switch it on without wondering if the flicking sound from the fan is a $100 note being shredded rather than a leaf that has been sucked in!

Solar PV and storage would be even better, our location means that electric cooking is about the only viable option, being able to harvest and store enough excess during the day to cook our dinner after dark would be a godsend in the almost certain TOU future where it might cost 60c/KWH to cook dinner in peak time, useage that can not be readily pushed outside peak times if you have a child in the home.

[Amaranthus]

Given that the typical capacity factor of a wind turbine in Australia is 30%, that still means you have to buy fuel (i.e. natgas) 70% of the time -- and pay for that plant too. The myth that renewable energy is in any way 'free' (and, along with solar, is like dollar bills on the pavement that no one is picking up) is one of the biggest impediments to a rational energy policy in Australia.

[glend]

The problem with salt storage for mini-grid communities is that you can't control peoples usage behaviour and someone will always use way more power than someone else on that mini-grid. You would need a mechanism to equate costs to usage and eliminate the 'free-riders'.

Personal systems are the only way to have effective control over usage and allows selective sacrifice when necessary. We are too use to being able to use any appliance at any time without regard for consumption costs. When you are faced with the choice of having the heater running or being able to cook a meal it will hit home.

I am very much against the trend for wood fired heaters in homes, not just for the obvious health risks inside the home, but the pollution these things put out. There are alot of these things around my area and you can see the smoke haze in the evening as people get home and fire them up. I am worried about this trend continuing in the face of ever rising costs, but the wood cutters are making money. They have the potential to impact astronomy activities as well (smoke hanging in inversion layers, columns of heat affecting seeing, etc).

[multiweb]

and 35% maximum regardless, even if it's windy enough. If it is too windy then they have to shut them down. Talked to my dad recently and all the wind hype hasn't been faring too well in Europe for the past two years especially in Germany. Denmark are the first to admit it's BS, well not on the official channels because it is one of their core business. Just Google 'Energiewende'. It's paints a pretty accurate picture of what's been going on.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Glen



Agreed, but some form of metering with proportional cost sharing could overcome a lot of that. If someone gets too bolshy, cut them off.

I'm more thinking that if they can get it cost effective for small group use, then more money will probably come in and allow refinement of the design to the point where its OK for single house use.
I am sure the big suppliers would do anything they could to stop the successful implementation of small scale distributed units, but if the new technologies can get a toehold, they may get a chance to grow.

Imagine if new houses could have modular prefab salt reservoirs installed under the foundations.
Electricity and hydronic heating could be supplied as required and all off grid.

Andrew

[Amaranthus]

I posted about this recently on my website:
"Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ as a model for Australian climate policy?"
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/06/11/germany-energiewende-oz-critical-review/

[The_bluester]

We have a wood heater at home as it is the only practicable method where we are. I know that emissions standards for them are much tighter than they used to be, but to a degree what you can do with them is limited as if you feed them wood that makes smoke, then they will produce heaps of smoke!

I am resigned to having to pay to run the reverse cycle on any half decent new moon weekend, specifically so as not to spoil the views with smoke hanging around the place.

Wood is the only cost effective and practical method for us as we are away from town, no natural gas. Bottled gas has always been prohibitive cost wise.

An ideal setup if solar PV and storage could largely cover it would be a ground sourced heat pump for both heating and cooling. Far more efficient to be trying to extract heat from the ground at around 14 degrees in the winter or pump heat into it at the same ground temperature than in winter, trying to extract heat from near zero air to heat the house and add heat to 45 degree air to cool the house. But the set up costs are significant.

[casstony]

I see lots of casseroles being cooked in daylight hours and reheated at night if the power companies get too greedy :)
We can do a lot more to modify our behavior if we have to.

With our current favourable exchange rate it's not a bad idea to put 3 or 4 KW of panels on the roof and add storage later if it becomes affordable.
We have our 3.5 kw (nominal rating) solar panels facing NW to get maximum advantage of afternoon sunshine for Summer air-con use. Even in Winter on a clear day we get 600 watts by around 9.30 and we're still getting 600 watts at sundown.

[Renato1]

The following is from today's Australian by Maurice Newman. The content is totally at odds with the cosy view of renewables enthused about in other places.
The Economist article he mentions is at
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros

Seems pretty obvious to me what's going to happen in Europe. The conventional power operators can't make money at peak times (where they used to make most of their profits). Eventually their number will get smaller and smaller. Then the remainder will say - if you want stability in the grid, forget about the free market, you have to start paying us big money for just being there as the back-up.
Regards,
Renato

"California dreaming is nuts in NSW
MAURICE NEWMAN THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 30, 2014 12:00AM

NSW Environment Minister Rob Stokes told a Clean Energy Week forum last week, “We are making NSW No 1 in energy and environmental policy.” He added: “When it comes to clean energy, we can be Australia’s answer to California.”

Really? This is an extraordinary decision that flies in the face of the Abbott government’s efforts to arrest the alarming slide in Australia’s international competitiveness and the evident failure of these policies in California and elsewhere. It suggests appalling lack of judgment and is a measure of the degree to which green fantasies have penetrated the thinking of otherwise sensible governments.

Macquarie Street’s decision overlooks what Joel Kotkin refers to in New Geography as “the futility and delusion embodied in California’s ultra-green energy policies”. Kotkin reveals, “By embracing solar and wind as preferred sources of generating power, the state promotes an ever-widening gap between its declining middle and working-class populations and a smaller, self-satisfied group of environmental campaigners and their corporate backers”.

The NSW government must also be oblivious to the steady exodus of Californian businesses and jobs. Companies like Toyota, which after 60 years has moved its US headquarters to Texas, or Occidental Petroleum, which after 50 years has left for Houston. Chevron is next. Other stalwarts like ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, Fluor, Calpine and Intel have all moved in search of a more business friendly environment and lower energy costs. Texas has been the main beneficiary. It has added 200,000 jobs in the energy sector in the past decade while California has barely managed 20,000. Texas leads California in the export of hi-tech goods.

“Big Oil” may be unwelcome in his brave new world, but California’s Governor Jerry Brown is not doing well at replacing jobs and investments lost to the Lone Star state. Brown promised to create 500,000 clean-energy jobs by the end of the decade, but this is now accepted as just a pipe dream.

Meanwhile, in the real world, California’s unemployment rate is 7.4 per cent (fourth highest in the country). It compares to 5.1 per cent for Texas and the national rate of 6.1 per cent. California’s relative joblessness lends weight to the UK Versa Economics study, which found that for every job created in the wind industry 3.7 jobs are lost elsewhere.

While it is America’s biggest economy, (it’s outside the top 10 for growth), California has serious fiscal imbalances with huge off-balance sheet unfunded pension and medical liabilities. To achieve a surplus this year, it borrowed $500 million from the state’s cap-and-trade emissions reduction program. It remains the country’s highest taxer.

This is not a strong position from which to pursue *
growth-limiting green policies. San Francisco and LA are already the most expensive cities in the US to create a startup. In its agricultural and manufacturing regions, one person in five lives in poverty. Economist John Husing observes, “California’s green-energy fixations are widening an ever-growing chasm based on geography, class and race”.

Yet, with electricity prices already 40 per cent above the national average and twice as high as Texas, its aggressive policies are set to push up prices 47 per cent in real terms over the next 16 years. Is this really what the Baird government wants?

California is not alone in experiencing significantly adverse unintended consequences from large-scale integration of renewable power. Europe, too, has learned that it increases costs to consumers, leads to unreliable electricity supply, relegates base-load generators to inefficient back-up services and yields problematic emissions reduction. The European Commission has been forced to acknowledge the macroeconomic effects are just too negative, particularly for manufacturing industries and job creation.

As in California, energy poverty in Europe is a growing green phenomenon. So, in deference to reality, the EC has approved new guidelines for renewable energy which will see the removal of all feed-in tariffs from 2017. Previous support mechanisms will be replaced by technology agnostic auctions, which will effectively create a level playing field for all generators. This poses a serious threat to further investment in renewables.

The financial markets are alive to this. Last year, The Economist ran a story (“How to lose half a trillion euros. Europe’s electricity providers face an existential threat”) highlighting the dreadful performance of utility stocks.

A recent article in the Financial Times was headed “Private equity retreats from renewables fad” with CalPERS, the world’s sixth largest pension fund, admitting to annualised losses of 12 per cent from this sector. CalPERS’s chief investment officer describes clean tech as “a noble way to lose money”.

Last December, ratings agency Fitch warned: “The outlook for the overall renewables sector is negative. This reflects increased political risk and the expectations that the industry will need to adapt to less favourable operating requirements and economic incentives.”

Windfarm operators are warning they will abandon the Australian market if the Renewable Energy Target is adjusted downwards to a true 20 per cent from what has become in reality a 27 per cent to 28 per cent target. This is a measure of their rent-seeking dependence. But NSW is indicating that, regardless, it will stay with the old RET.

It is an extraordinary stance to take at such a late stage, especially given the compelling evidence against it. It will certainly set back planned reform of the national economy, already beset with too many *
self-imposed rigidities.

While NSW will offer fresh opportunities to Queensland and Victoria, there will be national fallout as our biggest state comes to grips with the economic and social consequences of its actions.

However strong Mr Stokes’s faith in green delusions, belief and enthusiasm are insufficient grounds for him and his government to find noble ways to squander pensioners’ and taxpayers’ money."

[multiweb]

Some good came out of it no doubt but associated costs and subsidies at the tune of 16 billions a year and turning the energy distribution pyramid literally on its head has created a massive problem. They're also still dependant on coal/nuclear for 77% of their power generation. When you realise how ingenious and disciplined Germans are it's a hard sale to the rest of the world. Hope it works though. That'd be great news for all of us but not holding my breath. Still a step in the right direction overall.

[el_draco]

In your closed minded economics driven dreams Renato. We change or we fry, GET USED TO IT!

[Amaranthus]

Change - yes, but there is another option, Rom. Nuclear.

[Retrograde]

You mean This Maurice Newman (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-intervened-in-wind-farm-process-at-maurice-newmans-request-20140704-zstrx.html) (also Tony Abbott's business advisor)?



Oh it's OK:

Was a bottle of Grange involved? ;)

[el_draco]

Absolutely, and I believe there are nuclear cycles that are a hell of a lot better; I am completely open to a nuclear option, BUT, only an idiot:

1/ Would be prepared to risk the future of the ONE habitable planet we have by openly denying the science.

2/ Would still all eggs in one basket, whether that be nuclear, hydro, wind, or whatever else. We need a range of solutions and NONE of them should include fossil fuels because the CHEMICALLY INEVITABLE output is Carbon

We also need decentalised energy production where ever possible. Such systems are practical and are currently in opperation.

[Amaranthus]

Rom: 1. Agree. 2. Partially agree - whatever works, be it a mix or a concentration on a few core technologies -- provided we support the most scalable and cost-effective solutions.

Why the emphasis on decentralised? It can be useful, but is not an intrinsically desirable property of an energy system (i.e. context matters). Do you mean beyond the current NEM extent, as way to ensure 'end-of-the-line' grid stability?

[multiweb]

Maybe instead of working out how to make renewable clean energy we should focus on using less and make our consumption more efficient with fewer resources.

[Amaranthus]

That's definitely happening Marc, at least in relative terms - it's called 'decoupling'. But in energy terms, it typically doesn't stymie absolute growth, nor does it supply a solution to the 2.5 billion people with little to no access to energy (i.e. on <1 kWh of final non-biomass energy per year).

[rustigsmed]

with 75 million new people a year added to the world's population less money on everything else more on fusion please.

[Amaranthus]

Fusion will be nice in the future, but we don't NEED it right now to solve the world's energy problems. Fast neutron fission reactors can do that!

[el_draco]

There is little point in running a huge cable out to remote locations, (Like King Island), and there are completely sustainable solar based systems that offer 24/7 peak load output. A decentralised system is easier to maintain and a black out does not do the whole grid in. There are few instances where they cant be done ouside big cities, which are already facing extinction themselves.

However, this discussion is a complete waste of time, in the short term. You can multiply the generation capacity of everything we have got by ten and in a few decades we will be back in precisely the same place. The issue, the ONLY issue, is population. Its out of control, despite what Renato may say.

If you look at a a different system, you can see the problem. There were huge food shortages in the 50's and 60's and people by the millions dropped dead. (Population Control). Then some dumb shmuck comes up with new grain varieties and bleats "Hallelujah brothers, we can now feed the third world and the children wont die". Nobody did anything about birth control and, volia!! massive population explosion! Back to square one.

The issue folks is not power but population. We WILL have zero population growth pretty soon, but I suspect its gonna get way ugly.

Watch this:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/arithmetic-population-and-energy-lecture/

[Amaranthus]

Rom, I really don't think population growth is the problem - or at least attempts to curb population growth at this stage are not a viable solution to global sustainability challenges. Population is heading for a peak of 9-11 billion by mid century, whereas energy use show no such sign of peaking, so it is in technology that we must look for solutions.

A large population that is dependent on extraction of primary natural resources is damaging - the same sized population that is focused on clean energy, large-scale and near-complete recycling, small-land-footprint intensive agriculture etc., isn't.

[xelasnave]

So what can be done.

[el_draco]

The systems that sustain us are already failing apart; its as plain as sunrise. Many major ecosystems are in serious trouble, fresh water is becoming scarce and our oceans are actively dying. How do you plan to feed another 5 billion and who will stop them breeding?

No problem relating to humanity has ever been solved by a larger population and the crash will probably follow a bell curve. I have seen nothing to suggest it wont.

People everywhere keep waffling on about sustainable growth but the terms are mutually exclusive. We better get used to it.

[el_draco]

Bugger all. Heads in the sand and short term thinking rule...:shrug:

[Amaranthus]

We already produce enough food to feed those 5 billion, it's just not equitably distributed, and agricultural output per unit area under production has continually risen over the least 4 decades; these gains are likely to accelerate with improved crop varieties (e.g. via GM) and higher energy inputs.

Population has already peaked in virtually all OECD countries (excluding migration) and the growth rate is slowing in most others, even in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability wise, things are bad and a lot of damage has been wrought on ecological systems, but not irreversibly so in most instances and there is actually limited evidence for us crossing planetary ecological boundaries (I had this debate recently in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, see here: http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(13)00033-5 [and I'm happy to send you the paper!] and wrote it up on The Conversation, here: https://theconversation.com/worrying-about-global-tipping-points-distracts-from-real-planetary-threats-12529).

Sustainable growth is certainly possible if the growth is not contingent on consumption and direct disposal of finite natural capital.

I remain cautiously optimistic.

[el_draco]

History repeats...
Read some stuff from the 70's. Back then, the soils were in a lot better condition, the climate wasn't rapidly changing and there were a dozen other things that allowed it to happen. We no longer have those luxuries.

If you think GM is the answer, you are wrong.



Nope. Even in Australia they are talking a population of 37 million in 20 - 25 years. The "Big Australia" num nums like abbott and hockey crap on about is a consequence of 3% "sustainable" growth and a doubling time based on that growth rate.



I doubt it. Most oceanic eco-systems are in deep doo doo. Our land based agricultural eco-systems are falling apart. Why do you think they want to rip up the tropics? The land in many parts of the world is toxic and you need to dump mega-tons of fossil fuel based fertilisers on the soil to sustain growth at CURRENT levels.



It isn't and you are deluded if you think it is. Watch the lecture on the link I posted. The math is simple and the conclusions unchallengeable. What is coming is a mathematical certainty..

The problem is population, the solution is a global cull. (to be blunt)

[AndrewJ]

Gday Barry



The problem is that pretty much all the current world economies/corporations require ever increasing consumption to exist.

I agree with Rom that population control is the biggest issue we will face in the next few decades, and if we ( or mother nature ) doesn't address it, everything else will just snowball out of our control.
I dont particularly want to live ( sorry exist ) on something like Trantor.

Andrew

[Amaranthus]

Plant breeders have been practicing GMi for millennia - we are just using molecular methods now to accelerate the process.



As I noted, this is due to migration policy, otherwise Australia would not be growing. Look at Western Europe and Japan for prime examples of the long-term trend.



As a population ecologist, I found most of what he said to be HIGHLY challengable!



No, it isn't, as I explain here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/19/population-no-cc-fix-p1/

[Renato1]

You seem to miss the point - by your beliefs, if we use coal fired power stations we fry .

So, you support lots of wind farms - which don't actually stop any coal from being burned - so we fry.

Strange solutions you and others have come up with.

Anyhow, if you believe any real change is going to happen as we approach 18 years of zero warming, and when the IPCC is 95% confident that the temperature will increase somewhere between 1C and 7C by 2100 (that's right they dropped it from around 2C to 1C in AR5), well I think you're an optimist (or pessimist, depending on how you view it).
Cheers,
Renato

[Renato1]

Given he's the PM's high profile advisor, who has been on the front page of newspapers and interviewed all over TV, doesn't most everyone already know who Maurice Newman is?

What's your point?

Are you disputing something factual in in the article?
Regards,
Renato

[xelasnave]

I think we work on the negative assumption behaviour does not change and work upon
methods to survive in the world that we create
Does that mean we move underground and live off mushrooms I don't know but I would be working out how to survive in the worst case senereo

Remember Easter Island

[el_draco]

Like I said, Heads in the sand and it "Just isnt so" mentality rules. OECD population represents a small fraction of the world population. Look at the rest. The math is simple and damning. As a population ecologist you probably know what happens to plague populations and that is what WE are.

[Amaranthus]

There is such a thing as compensatory density dependence, and it's rather common...

[el_draco]

Normal gross generalisation and unsupported claims Renato? You STILL haven't made the slightest attempt to answer the question I've asked you a dozen times by the way... When you can, let me know.

My beliefs are not about the use of coal at all. Unlike some, I look at a global perspective, which most conveniently forget to do. Yep, we need to, and will be forced to, dump coal despite your commentary. Yep, we need diversity in power generation and it WILL happen despite your commentary. Yep, that'll include wind, nuclear and a host of other options, despite your closed mind. Yep, we WILL have population control by choice or by default but it WILL happen, despite the fact that you cant face basic realities.

The only "strange solution" here is one that defends the burning fossil fuels and conveniently ignores the damage to our environment when the overwhelmingly vast proportion of scientists and data and simple logic say exactly the opposite. Its like someone saying the Arctic Ice is mass is growing when all the data says its volume, extent and thickness is decreasing at an alarming rate. Go figure??? :screwy:

[el_draco]

Let me see, if we use the simplistic definition, "As population increases, death rate increases and fertility decreases", then apply that to humanity:

In the past, exploding human populations in constrained areas, say India, were controlled by increasing death rates... couple of million cholera one year, couple of million starving the next etc. These things haven't happened for a while because of advances in medicine, sanitation and more food pouring in from places like Australia. All we have achieved is to delay the inevitable and increase severity of the consequences because the underlying issues still remain. You can apply the likely outcome for India to the whole world. China is furiously buying our farm land because it cant feed itself, India is buying from everywhere and both are buying Africa. What happens when the land runs out?

Also, take a little gander at Bangladesh. Huge population, huge density, huge birth rate. One bad monsoon; no food and death rate goes ballistic from all those underlying problems.

Compare Bangladesh to a mouse plague in Victoria. (No offense intended by the way). Lots of food, high birth rate, massive population spike. Food runs out and they start eating each other in a desperate attempt to survive the inevitable population crash.

Its true that in many "advanced" countries, population of locals are falling, migration from the population dense countries is increasing but net global population still grows. I think I saw planetary population growth of 70 million p.a. recently(??) Whose doing the breeding? Three new Australia's every year. Sustainable?? Twaddle. In many of the countries where the population of "locals" is decreasing, fertility is dropping in no small part due to toxic environment, failing health and living standards. A few elites and the untouchable masses is becoming more prevalent. History books talk about what happens in that scenario.

I'm sure CDD applies to us, but Humanity acts like a plague and we are starting to run out of the things we need to survive. Our population isn't going to gently top the curve, history has shown otherwise, and I am, unfortunately, confident that it will be extremely ugly for quite some time .Don't know about you, but the blond sitting across from me does NOT look tasty. :rolleyes:

[Amaranthus]

Death rates don't need to increase for compensation to occur. This is typical in natural populations, but not axiomatic. Population growth in a closed system is a function of birth rates and death rates, and if birth rates fall below replacement, even with declining mortality, then population growth can slow, halt, and decline. That is what has happened in Western Europe and Japan. Death rates have declined monotonically, but so have fertility rates, and the balance has resulted in a negative r, hence the population decline.

Even in the developing world, fertility rates are declining relatively quickly - linked predominantly to access to education for women, electricity, etc. (various measures of 'affluence'). The net r is still positive, but the growth rate is declining, even if absolute growth in many nations is not (yet).

[multiweb]

Growth won't be an issue much longer as we've started something with the environment that sustains us that we can't reverse so it's all going to accelerate and be quite inhospitable. People will die whether they starve or kill each other for resources. Numbers will reduce naturally.

[Renato1]

Good to see that you are now a proponent of nuclear energy. However, I still think you are deliberately ignoring what is plain and unambiguous in the articles posted and linked to here.

A stable grid requires baseload power generation. Coal plants can't be turned off, nor can nuclear ones, so that all that money spent on expensive wind and solar to supplement them is a waste of time and money.

That huge amount of money that was spent on wind farms hasn't actually much reduced the use of coal generated power at all - it can't. Gas fired stations could reduce the usage of fossil fuels because they can be turned off when renewables pump in power at peak periods.

But you don't want to address that. You instead like to stew in alarmism. Scientists tell Al Gore the Arctic ice will disappear by 2013, and he spreads the Holy Green Gospel. Then 2014 comes along - still plenty of ice at the supposedly ice free Arctic - and instead of reevaluating what you previously believed because of the dud scientific prediction, you just keep hanging in there with the faith.

Reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses who have predicted the definite end of the world on three or four occasions in the last 100 years, but it didn't happen - yet they're still out there believing and knocking on doors.
Regards,
Renato

[el_draco]

Never said I wasn't. There are major issues with waste that need to be addressed but better fuel cycles hold promise. The over-riding concern now is major climate shift due to the crap we are dumping in the atm.



Nothing you say is plain and unambiguous. You cherry pick anomalies like a small seasonal rise in Arctic ice in 2008 and say "We've turned the corner" Take a look at the 3 graphs I posted which show ice data several years after that and look at the trend lines... then tell me who is ignoring what is plain an unambiguous??



Coal is such crap technology that you cant even regulate delivery. Archaic at best, stupid at worst. Once coal was the "new technology" I believe its precursor was sticks and flint. Time we did something smarter I suspect. Decentralised grids are a good start but certainly not a quick fix. Dont start, wont progress.



The uncountable billions that have been used to support coal have left us with a legacy of a screwed environment and the prospect of significant climate change. Last time I checked, gas was a fossil fuel and therefore polluting and also limited in supply. I recently heard we can expect a trippling in price in the near future. Then what?. We STILL prop up polluting technology instead of investing in new technology. Pull the billions out of coal subsidies our moronic leaders give to coal, and renewables are a hell of a lot more competitive. Ultimately they are the only solution because of the fact that they are renewable in time scales less than millions of years. Kinda makes sense



Just did. Now you look at the graphs I previously posted and explain why you see a massive trend down in all measurements of Arctic Ice as a positive, upward trend. Love to hear that one. Then explain why every major Scientific body and the overwhelmingly vast proportion of credible, (non-fossil fuel owned), scientists around the world say, "we're in trouble", and they are all wrong? Bet you, you'll ignore this.



The simple reality is you cant accept the truth and are prepared to play Russian roulette with the only planet we have that can even come close to supporting us. Sounds awfully like a Jovo to me and, as is the case with the real thing, I beg to differ, and I'll face you down every time. The time of the "Flat earth Society" has come and gone.... and I am still waiting for you to answer the basic questions you so conveniently ignore.

I wish like hell you were right, I really do, but you are DEAD WRONG and, as I have said before, the issue is population, not energy..:hi:

[xelasnave]

I have lived off the grid for 18 years
You have to mix systems a little.
You have to have power tool jobs ready for when you need to use a jenny
You need to have solar hot water
Once a gas fridge was the only option but these days strangely a efficient 240 vlt fridge running off an inverter is the most efficient option and learn not to open it every 15 minutes. Cooling and heating use lots of power.
Anyways fitting solar and wind into the current system will take time because people don't understand how you need to approach it.
I could see a system as follows
A coal power supply to provide a minimum supply
Add wind and solar systems
...and gas to manage unexpected demands
Make solar hot water very beneficial thru tax incentives
Also solar passive heating...may need electrical top up but it will be better than air con
Hot in summer use solar for air conditioning and don't buy the ..but solar becomes inefficient when hot...find out what the loss in efficiency is and take that into account when putting up panels..you may think 8 will do it well make it 12
Hot water uses a lot of power so any improvement here is very productive
Stop using electric jugs and toasters very wasteful.
My point is renewable energy just needs time just like I needed time to figure it out so the industry needs time to sort it out
And with or without a carbon tax people need to understand what uses power wastefully and what is efficient.
I reject nuclear as an option it is simply to expensive and there is definitely a safety down side and those folk who say...I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant ..all I can say is...put your money where your mouth is and move your family next to a nuclear power plant and enjoy the health advantages.
Notice how the nuclear power lobby pops up from time offeringnice green power..been a little quiet since Japan but obviously they will persist.
However I don't use a fridge and it is an easy thing to do without really

[xelasnave]

Cooking with gas is cheap if you don't turn the burner full blast.
I use a 15 doolar stove from K mart and use those canisters
At first I would go thru 1 a day now it 2 a week
And that is a wasteful week
Get 1 battery and 1 panel and learn how they work
Just that will run your lights probably but there is no substitute for doing rather than reading etc practical experience gives you a totally different view point.

[casstony]

Coal fired generators normally operate between about 100% and 60% capacity and generation can be lowered further with use of auxiliary firing to keep the furnace stable. Generation can be varied quite rapidly in order to match load. I see no technical reason why rooftop solar can't be integrated into the existing system other than it's impact on incumbent company profits.

Years ago when Hazelwood was in danger of being shutdown there was even talk of running the units up and down every day, boxing the boilers up overnight, keeping them hot ready to run up in the morning. There's plenty of flexibility in the system if only a responsible government would plan for the introduction of new technology. (including electric cars which will benefit existing companies).

[multiweb]

I did grow up next to many nuclear plants and under high voltage power lines. Apart from a third eye I'm perfectly healthy. :D Seriously this is a greenie stereotype. Nuclear power properly managed is very clean. For example there are countless water parks and spa therapy centers for the oldies back home that are build right next to power plants because the hot water coming from the cooling circuits is reused and free. In Dieppe one is cooled with sea water to the delight of all fisheries who have mussels because of the warm water coming out.

If we got some built in Oz we'd be good to shut down all those coal plants yesterday. And they're so tiny, if they built one in a residential area next to you, you wouldn't even know it's there. Apart from all the people protesting. :lol:

Funny story about those mussels. They grew so quickly that some were starting to block the water intake. So they installed a system that would release a little chlorine to kill the excess based on a timer. It worked for a while. Then the mussels came back in bigger numbers. They adapted and closed their shells at the same time every day. They had to link a computer and inject chlorine at random intervals. Amazing how quickly life adapts.

[Retrograde]

My point is that Maurice Newman isn't an expert on renewable energy or climate-change. His views on wind-farms are driven by a mixture of his well-known political ideology and NIMBYism - given he's concerned about his own property prices due to a neighbouring wind-farm (and appears to have even been lobbying the NSW government about it).

A quick search of his other statements regarding wind-farms show he also considers them to be a health-risk: so that's not only climate-science but medical-science he now denies :screwy:

As for the article it contains a mixture of out-of-context anecdotes and sweeping generalisations. There are plenty of worthwhile arguments both for and against all forms of renewable energy but few if any have come from Maurice Newman.

Of course The Australian could bring us the views of any number of real experts but it must think it's on a winner as a 'campaigning newspaper' despite losing an estimated $30m a year and having not made a profit since 2007 - good to see it supports the free-market eh? ;).

[el_draco]

Well, according to Renato, I'm a Greenie Monk but I have no real issues with nuclear energy. The major problems are bad design, stupidity and that unpleasant waste issue, all of which can be solved or have become a side issue to the likely consequences of significant climate change.

Personally, I see any hope of a future being based on nuclear and a range of decentralised renewable. Makes a lot of sense, but nobody in govt has the nuts to leave coal behind.



Great Story. I wish it were applicable to all species.

[multiweb]

Realistically... we'll use all the coal there is, then burn all the gaz there is and when there's nothing left to burn we'll go nuclear because that's the only thing we'll have left to generate base load.

Maybe mussels are smarter than us . :lol:

[el_draco]

We don't need to state the obvious here ;)

[xelasnave]

To Marc
I found your post interesting.
I hope your comment about...greenie stereotype .. was not aimed at me as to stereotype me is a mistake and frankly I don't like being put in a box with any label
I doubt if stereotyping anyone is useful but that is your choice but I ask please don't do it with me.
A chap called me homeless once because I guess I have a beard and was dirty from working on my yacht all day and dropping into the pub for a beer.
Others around who knew me laughed not at me but at him.
In any event ones status should have no bearing on an argument
Perhaps the homeless incident has made me ssensitive but I would be doing you a disservice not to declare my position

[multiweb]

Did they take you off the happy gaz Alex? Not directed at you no. There are good greenies too. And more now pot is going to be legalised.

[astroron]

People can call me a Greenie if they like, I will :D and be proud of the compliment :)
Cheers:thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Thanks for straightening that out Marc. I did not get offended but felt I had to say what I said.
Down to one tablet a day and all is good.
Legalising any illicit drug is not a good move in my view and more so when it is to secure votes...it a joke but the consequences may be less so

[xelasnave]

I am like a cat I resist being put in a box.

There is a guy down the road who says he is a red neck grey greenie and of course red neck and greenie are really not in the same camp.

Regards alex

[astroron]

Is it being put in a box, for standing up for the protection of this land/world we live in:question:
Lone voices in the wilderness very seldom get heard, even though that have something great to say.:sadeyes:
Cheers:thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

I like the Queen but I am not a royalist...
I support some environment issues but that does not make me an environmentalist
I could make a list.
And if there is one thing Ron I have done my share for all sorts of.causes and my view is let a younger man make his mark.
I have a small influence only via folk asking my view which I will give sometimes but like to answer..well what do you think.
Nuclear power will go forward it is rather a big business I just do not like the inability of it's advocates to conceed humans make mistakes..earthquakes happen ..don't think those who are trusted are infallible...and when something goes wrong as in Japan recognise it is a business that when things go wrong the consequences are greater than the Nuclear power lobby would have us accept.
I saw some of their propaganda re Japan....there were no deaths but some people were tramatised..the implication one would draw was..well those folk were mentally unstable..not nice to play the game that way

[el_draco]

Ah yes, Gas, the affordable option. Even though we have massive reserves, most of them are owned by big corporations, thanks to the economic rationalists in the twit pen, and it's being sold overseas faster than they can extract it, all in the name of the mighty buck, of course.

Our resources, sold to the highest bidder and the poor mugs that used to own it, US, will be paying up to 4 times what it costs to extract. Why? Cos Asia wants ever more energy and they cant do it themselves. So, imagine how the public would react to a 400% increase in their power bill if we relied on Renato's gas?? Of course, Asia may want the gas because its a bit less polluting than coal :shrug:

The same economic rationalists push for coal seam gas ramp up to increase supply, but disregard the devastation it will probably do to the aquifers that supply our drinking water... amongst other things. Of course, once again, its a finite and highly polluting resource... but the environment and climate are "externalities", and therefore irrelevant. :screwy:

"Renewables - Death Knell". Yeah right! Those in the twit pen seem frantic to sell as much of our resources overseas as fast as they can, and wonder why Aussies want to use renewable sources of energy. :screwy:

Ultimately, Hockey Puck will want to tax sunlight I suspect. We seem to have an over abundance of it after all ... No, No, I stand corrected, "No new taxes", remember? :rofl::rofl:

[multiweb]

We'll all have to move to Melbourne then :rain:

[glend]

Apparently the energy retailers can Opt Out of whatever your contracted rate is at any time and there is nothing that can be done about it. This happened to me recently and here is an article that explains the the energy industry is regulated by itself:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/all-power-to-the-energy-companies-when-it-comes-to-adjusting-prices-20140731-zyvp9.html

In Britain contracts are inforcable but not so here.

BTW gas is not an option for long as the retail gas industry is moving to world spot price for gas and the people getting cozy deals on it at substidised rates are seeing increases already. This is the new area where duel supply retailers like AGL can make more money both ways.

[el_draco]

Sounds more and more like the only way to protect yourself a bit is to do Off-Grid or Grid feed. The rich out to get richer and their minions rig the system to facilitate it. Australia is looking more like the good 'ol USA every day.