If you happen to be a data geek with an interest in renewable energy, it’s time to get busy on the download button: Australia’s federal government has released a raft of data that will form the basis of “100 percent renewable energy” scenario planning to be conducted by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). As noted in …
The OZ government(s) have an appalling history of stalling renewable energy options to favour large coal interests. Both the coal mining companies and mining unions have fought solar and wind power across the country. This review / study is really just another stalling exercise. Anything to avoid actually DOING something.
OZ should be at the forefront of solar power useage but our government continually resist investing in it. They have reduced solar feed-in tariffs and removed nearly all subsidies to home owners.
Re: oh really...
Devils advocate: If solar is important enough to justify domestic subsidies, and you want to tilt the playing field away from the coal industry, do I take it that you want Australia to stop exporting coal to China, stop developing your offshore gas reserves, and similarly stop exporting the minerals that require fossil energy to convert, such as bauxite?
Or is it good to reduce your emissions at home, but none of your business what China et al do with the circa AU$200 billion of minerals Oz exports?
Re: oh really...
I always found it amusing that the Government touted wonderful clean energy usage and pollution reduction at home whilst at the same time exporting filthy coal by the bucket load to a country that couldn't give a toss and has an energy requirement many times that of Australia. Solar studies also often do not take account of the energy requirement for manufacture although Australia is also one of the most practical places for its use.
*potentialy* a huge asset in demonstrating *some* renewables are much more viable than others
Or (equally possible) *none* are particularly viable (sort of hard to believe in Australia. In addition to a huge coastline and lots of sunny desert IIRC it's also sitting on top of a mound of Uranium.
Note that this first drop is for the *assumptions* underlying the study.
Anyone who thinks these are trivial items is unfamiliar with the Inhaber report and the way such assumptions (innocent or otherwise) can affect you results.
Thumbs up for transparency. and *data* on
Re: *potentialy* a huge asset in demonstrating *some* renewables are much more viable than others
I couldn't agree more re the assumptions. Assumptions in favour or out of favour can be very subtle, while still making the whole thing very credible and steering a result. A really neat thing to do would be to study the data on worst case and best case scenarios, making the assumptions for both clear.
For solar, Australia will be a fantastic place to make the assessment. It really should work there if it's going to be viable anywhere.
Read the overview and it becomes very clear that this 'modelling' is doing nothing to address 'negawatts' - cutting the waste and usage levels of electricity such that the level of demand that has to be met DECREASES. Rather this modelling is expecting increases, and doesn't even have a scenario for low/no growth (the most likely case).
It's setup to come up with figures that are expensive - rather than doing the sensible thing and investing in cutting demand.
Re: Very Dodgy
* Mandatory high grade insulation for new buildings (we don't have that in the UK but we're supposedly green).
* Higher quality road systems that cause existing traffic to stop/start less (saving huge amounts of energy)
* R&D into things like LED lighting technology.
I'm Heavily Against:
* Making energy more expensive for anyone.
* Telling people they can't use as much energy as they want.
Sensible ways to cut waste are one thing, trying to drag us back to a lower quality of life, or to deny people in developing nations the same privileges we enjoy is just dead wrong.
Re: Very Dodgy
I'm Heavily Against:
*telling people they can use as much energy as they want without paying for the privilege.
renewables currently still are useless, and only used for either political profiling (political parties), draining naieve people of their cash (greenpeace and other scum), or steal money (pretty much every subsidizing scheme). they are HORRIBLE for the environment as they are very costly and EVERYWHERE where they are built you get fossil backup plants......take eg. germany's move to "renawable" from nuclear which will be carried in REALITY by over 20 fossil plants to be built, of which at least 5 coal plants....
implementing renawbles, esp. solar/wind in an industrialised and/or densly populated country is absolute nonsense and counter-productive
Read up on the subject here:
I upvoted you, but it's worth making it clear that hydroelectricity is very viable and is pretty much maxed out in some places because it's so cost effective.
Geothermal is viable in some places and more interesting work is being done and should be done in this area.
On the whole though, you are right.
Burn some Dingo's
Stick another shrimp on the barby.
Re: Burn some Dingo's
Plural of dingo is dingos no bloody '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' needed. Unless you are burning bloody Dingo's bloody bones or burning bloody Dingo's bloody droppings. Remember do not touch that bloody ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' key. You make fewer bloody mistake's.
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- VMware reveals 27-patch Heartbleed fix plan