You can sell the water dams hold.
The prize for worst implementation of climate policy goes to...
- Thread starter Pessimistic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You can sell the water dams hold.
telsor
Hall of Famer
That was before Tasmania was connected to the national grid and Tas didn't really need the extra power (it was built more to allow for future growth than due to any need). Now it would be a different story.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Eco friendly 'news' site boasts that prices are becoming equal, and even they need to cover themselves with conditional weasel words like 'can compete' and 'in many parts of the country'.
What's the bet these areas are the ones where fossils fuel based power is difficult to get hold of (ie, more expensive) and/or carry extra costs due to 'carbon pricing' and the renewables still require base load backup from 'traditional' sources.
I honestly can't be bothered with you telsor .Your input is as predictable as it is mindless.
,,can compete in many parts of the country,,,is a statement of fact; but to you it's "conditional weasel words".
Predictable,mindless and always the same.If you read the article(which I doubt) you clearly didn't understand it.
The article isn't boasting about anything.It is summarising a piece from the British Financial Times discussing the fact that some of the world's large investment institutions and asset management firms like Lazard's,Citi,Kepler Chevreux have identified renewables as superior to coal and oil for significant long term investment because they are placed to consistently provide power at a lower cost than fossil fuel plants.
It's about investing billions of dollars profitably long term;ie hard nosed financials on the back of hard nosed scientific R&D.
The BFT article focused on a Lazard study which indicates: "unsubsidised wind costs have fallen from a minimum of US$101/MWh in 2009 to US$37/MWh this year, while solar farm costs have fallen even more sharply over the same period from US$323/MWh to US$72/MWh.
The results suggest renewable energy can consistently undercut power from new gas-fired power plants, which costs US$61 to US$87/MWh."
You either don't read or can't/won't comprehend and it doesn't matter which because your responses are always the same.
So yeah happy for you to reset to your default setting of ideological opposition and the world's asset management firms can continue to get it wrong
,,can compete in many parts of the country,,,is a statement of fact; but to you it's "conditional weasel words".
Predictable,mindless and always the same.If you read the article(which I doubt) you clearly didn't understand it.
The article isn't boasting about anything.It is summarising a piece from the British Financial Times discussing the fact that some of the world's large investment institutions and asset management firms like Lazard's,Citi,Kepler Chevreux have identified renewables as superior to coal and oil for significant long term investment because they are placed to consistently provide power at a lower cost than fossil fuel plants.
It's about investing billions of dollars profitably long term;ie hard nosed financials on the back of hard nosed scientific R&D.
The BFT article focused on a Lazard study which indicates: "unsubsidised wind costs have fallen from a minimum of US$101/MWh in 2009 to US$37/MWh this year, while solar farm costs have fallen even more sharply over the same period from US$323/MWh to US$72/MWh.
The results suggest renewable energy can consistently undercut power from new gas-fired power plants, which costs US$61 to US$87/MWh."
You either don't read or can't/won't comprehend and it doesn't matter which because your responses are always the same.
So yeah happy for you to reset to your default setting of ideological opposition and the world's asset management firms can continue to get it wrong
telsor
Hall of Famer
I honestly can't be bothered with you telsor .Your input is as predictable as it is mindless.
,,can compete in many parts of the country,,,is a statement of fact; but to you it's "conditional weasel words".
Predictable,mindless and always the same.If you read the article(which I doubt) you clearly didn't understand it.
The article isn't boasting about anything.It is summarising a piece from the British Financial Times discussing the fact that some of the world's large investment institutions and asset management firms like Lazard's,Citi,Kepler Chevreux have identified renewables as superior to coal and oil for significant long term investment because they are placed to consistently provide power at a lower cost than fossil fuel plants.
It's about investing billions of dollars profitably long term;ie hard nosed financials on the back of hard nosed scientific R&D.
The BFT article focused on a Lazard study which indicates: "unsubsidised wind costs have fallen from a minimum of US$101/MWh in 2009 to US$37/MWh this year, while solar farm costs have fallen even more sharply over the same period from US$323/MWh to US$72/MWh.
The results suggest renewable energy can consistently undercut power from new gas-fired power plants, which costs US$61 to US$87/MWh."
You either don't read or can't/won't comprehend and it doesn't matter which because your responses are always the same.
So yeah happy for you to reset to your default setting of ideological opposition and the world's asset management firms can continue to get it wrong
Asset management firms that rely on the government subsidising/backing of such projects to make a profit.
Look at NABs "Climate Bonds" where investors can buy interest in 17 wind farms.
Basic theory...if the government keeps forcing people to pay 3 times as much for wind power as 'normal' power, they'll make money, much less and they'll go broke.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/12/12/nab-and-the-alpgreen-carbon-bank-in-cahoots-to-milk-taxpayers/
Oh, and BTW, global investment in renewables has been dropping for the past couple of years.
http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/gtr-2014
True, some of that is lower costs, but you'd think if it was a great deal, that'd cause more money to be invested. The main reason is worries that governments wont keep subsidising to the same degree.
Read it again.
When the prefix un is placed before the word subsidised it can then be understood that the article is referring to the cost of producing a MWh from wind and solar without subsidy.
Un- | Define Un- at Dictionary.com
When the prefix un is placed before the word subsidised it can then be understood that the article is referring to the cost of producing a MWh from wind and solar without subsidy.
Un- | Define Un- at Dictionary.com
Apart from the dark green 'dont build anything' politics, the concern from some quarters was the cost of the project which would have been around $1billion in 1983 dollars. Comments were made that it wasnt needed for the forseable future & thus was a huge financial risk.
Over the last few years it was planned to add more wind power with schemes planned around Tassie & King Island. That would make the Bass link 2nd cable a viable option. The actions of the LNP dinosaurs have put an end to that for the time being.
Much better off with gas plants they spin up and down quickly
Balance isnt that hard ?
Catters 070911
Club Legend
- Oct 13, 2017
- 2,270
- 2,101
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Banned
- #462
...My cat.
You see, my cat poops in the yard all the time.
I wonder what type of "footprint" this is leaving.
But what can I do. Cats aren't like dogs. You can't just tell them to stop.
Also, better in the yard than the carpet inside.
Oh well, i guess my cat will just continue to do a s**t in the garden, and affect climate change, so he hasn't done his part to stem it. But what can you do, cats do their own thing. LOL!
btw, what my cat does in the garden resembles what I think of climate change debates.
You see, my cat poops in the yard all the time.
I wonder what type of "footprint" this is leaving.
But what can I do. Cats aren't like dogs. You can't just tell them to stop.
Also, better in the yard than the carpet inside.
Oh well, i guess my cat will just continue to do a s**t in the garden, and affect climate change, so he hasn't done his part to stem it. But what can you do, cats do their own thing. LOL!
btw, what my cat does in the garden resembles what I think of climate change debates.
Similar threads
