The utensil up that is the east coast energy market

[Kwality]

Blaming rising energy costs on the transition to renewables is a lie.

1. All coal fired power plants need to be replaced eventually. That has a cost. The market HAS decided that it will be cheaper to replace them with something else.
2. Rising electricity prices are mostly due to rising fuel prices which in turn is 100% due to unfetted free market economics.
   • WA has cheaper power because of market intevention.
   • Vic has cheaper power because there is no external market for their brown coal
   • NSW and Qld are getting screwed over which is rising all east cost energy prices because Putin is a campaigner which is causing fuel costs to be out of control and NSW and Qld have to pay full tote odds in a world market. Which is a complete joke.

All infrastructure needs to be replaced eventually - that cost is not avoidable. We cannot run Loy Yang A for another 100 years.

The idea that we can just Keep Loy Yang A open or whatever other coal fired plant open is a LIE. You simply cannot do it for any number of reasons (life cycle, maintenance costs, financing, insurance, .......)

The notion that we cannot afford renewables is a LIE.

I know that conservatives love to simply kick the can down the road on everything, but you are running out of road.

IF you were spot on then we would have a deliverable solution to 24/7 power. We dont.

Of course ALL equipment has an economic life & that is maximised by maintenance - when that asset has a shorter economic life, it ceases to be maintained & that leads to patching gear up, not maintaining it.

You are aware we have been sold renewables are cheaper at the point of generation. Were you aware of how genuinely dishonest this is, & that the grid would need to be totally rewired.

I notice you ignore the advantage WA has with its gas reservation introduced by the Carpenter Labor Government despite opposition from the Howard Government. Why did the State Govts involved in the east coast utensil up, ignore the lesson Carpenter delived in WA.

Wanting this to be a political issue where your mob is right is contemptible.

 

[Gralin]

Ah yes Nuclear

 

[Maggie5]

Blaming rising energy costs on the transition to renewables is a lie.

1. All coal fired power plants need to be replaced eventually. That has a cost. The market HAS decided that it will be cheaper to replace them with something else.
2. Rising electricity prices are mostly due to rising fuel prices which in turn is 100% due to unfetted free market economics.
   • WA has cheaper power because of market intevention.
   • Vic has cheaper power because there is no external market for their brown coal
   • NSW and Qld are getting screwed over which is rising all east cost energy prices because Putin is a campaigner which is causing fuel costs to be out of control and NSW and Qld have to pay full tote odds in a world market. Which is a complete joke.

All infrastructure needs to be replaced eventually - that cost is not avoidable. We cannot run Loy Yang A for another 100 years.

The idea that we can just Keep Loy Yang A open or whatever other coal fired plant open is a LIE. You simply cannot do it for any number of reasons (life cycle, maintenance costs, financing, insurance, .......)

The notion that we cannot afford renewables is a LIE.

I know that conservatives love to simply kick the can down the road on everything, but you are running out of road.

Having to pay the full tote odds is a big cost also there was a report recently that the power companies have been gouging customers and making enormous profits on the poles.

Energy networks garnered $10bn in ‘supernormal’ profits from consumers in eastern Australia

The rate of profit was 67% above what would be considered ‘normal’, analysis of 18 providers over nine years found

www.theguardian.com

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Ah yes Nuclear

That's an interesting comment.

A nuclear reactor can "idle" pretty easily.

If you can get nearly all your energy from Wind and Sun,Nuclear can quickly come online to react to fluctuations, even if the total amount of nuclear is a small percentage.
Its as simple as shoving a Uranium rod further into the reactor.

Apart from that , what is it saying?
Keetan Joshi , i'm calling you an idiot.

I could twitter.
Of all the countries with NON-Zero amounts of wind power.
None of them have more than a third from wind.
DUMBASS.


Seriously why do you give airtime to this imbecile.

 

[Gralin]

That's an interesting comment.

A nuclear reactor can "idle" pretty easily.

If you can get nearly all your energy from Wind and Sun, solar can quickly come online to react to fluctuations, even if the total amount of nuclear is a small percentage.
Its as simple as shoving a Uranium rod further into the reactor.

Apart from that , what is it saying?
Keetan Joshi , i'm calling you an idiot.

I could twitter.
Of all the countries with NON-Zero amounts of wind power.
None of them have more than a third from wind.
DUMBASS.


Seriously why do you give airtime to this imbecile.

Well now because he pisses you off.

 

[Gralin]

But I believe the point was that nuclear isn't the silver bullet it's pushed as everywhere including this thread

 

[SaintsSeptember]

But I believe the point was that nuclear isn't the silver bullet it's pushed as everywhere including this thread

Its dumb logic.

The statement translates to , "even though nuclear doesn't emit any carbon, a lot of countries that have nuclear still emit carbon because they don't have enough nuclear ".

 

[Kwality]

Having to pay the full tote odds is a big cost also there was a report recently that the power companies have been gouging customers and making enormous profits on the poles.

Energy networks garnered $10bn in ‘supernormal’ profits from consumers in eastern Australia

The rate of profit was 67% above what would be considered ‘normal’, analysis of 18 providers over nine years found

www.theguardian.com

Havent the poles & lines been sold off ?

NSW government approves electricity poles and wires sell-off to private sector

Proceeds of up to $20 billion to be spent on major infrastructure, possibly including a second Sydney Harbour rail crossing

www.theguardian.com

 

[Gralin]

Its dumb logic.

The statement translates to , "even though nuclear doesn't emit any carbon, a lot of countries that have nuclear still emit carbon because they don't have enough nuclear ".

No it's literally even countries that have invested in Nuclear haven't gone all in and haven't removed carbon from energy generation

As in not the answer its pushed as

 

[Kwality]

No it's literally even countries that have invested in Nuclear haven't gone all in and haven't removed carbon from energy generation

As in not the answer its pushed as

Bit like sun & wind.

 

[Gralin]

Bit like sun & wind.

No answer is perfect.
The difference between nuclear and the others is the source of energy itself can't be owned

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Havent the poles & lines been sold off ?

NSW government approves electricity poles and wires sell-off to private sector

Proceeds of up to $20 billion to be spent on major infrastructure, possibly including a second Sydney Harbour rail crossing

www.theguardian.com

In Victoria i'm sure they were.
Under the old SECV , they were replacing old wooden power poles with concrete, an almost permanent option, so expensive, but cheaper in the long run.

Under management by SP ausnet , power poles that were rotted at the base were "staked". Those needing to be replaced were replaced by treated pine poles.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No answer is perfect.
The difference between nuclear and the others is the source of energy itself can't be owned

So rather than price, supply is regulated by God or something.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No it's literally even countries that have invested in Nuclear haven't gone all in and haven't removed carbon from energy generation

As in not the answer its pushed as

In some countries it is.
Apart from low population high glacier ( Hydro ) countries, France is the lowest carbon emitting country.
They are the poster child.

 

[Kwality]

No answer is perfect.
The difference between nuclear and the others is the source of energy itself can't be owned

Were you conned by 'the sun & wind cost nothing' line, forgetting the other costs that make up the power bill on the east coast ?

 

[Maggie5]

Havent the poles & lines been sold off ?

NSW government approves electricity poles and wires sell-off to private sector

Proceeds of up to $20 billion to be spent on major infrastructure, possibly including a second Sydney Harbour rail crossing

www.theguardian.com

The article you posted is 8 years old and not sure what that has to do with the article I posted which is only a couple of weeks old.

 

[Gralin]

Were you conned by 'the sun & wind cost nothing' line, forgetting the other costs that make up the power bill on the east coast ?

no I'm saying that companies can't own the wind or the sun but they can own a uranium mine

 

[SaintsSeptember]

no I'm saying that companies can't own the wind or the sun but they can own a uranium mine

So what?
The actual cost of the nuclear fuel isn't the big cost of nuclear fission power stations.

They own the actual materials that can convert sun and wind into electricity.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

That's an interesting comment.

A nuclear reactor can "idle" pretty easily.

If you can get nearly all your energy from Wind and Sun,Nuclear can quickly come online to react to fluctuations, even if the total amount of nuclear is a small percentage.
Its as simple as shoving a Uranium rod further into the reactor.

Apart from that , what is it saying?
Keetan Joshi , i'm calling you an idiot.

I could twitter.
Of all the countries with NON-Zero amounts of wind power.
None of them have more than a third from wind.
DUMBASS.


Seriously why do you give airtime to this imbecile.

Since when has nuclear power ever been used for fast dispatch?

In fact, it is the exact opposite. When Japan placed the bulk of it's nuclear reactors into an idle state following the Fukushima meltdowns, it was made clear that there would be significant challenges returning some to active use if that was to be the decision.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Since when has nuclear power ever been used for fast dispatch? In fact, it is the exact opposite. When Japan placed the bulk of it's nuclear reactors into an idle state following the Fukushima meltdowns, it was made clear that there would be significant challenges returning some to active use if that was to be the decision.

Might have been something to do with mothballing it. I don't think its a big issue. Nuclear submarines use it on demand.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Might have been something to do with mothballing it. I don't think its a big issue. Nuclear submarines use it on demand.

Different style and scale of reactor.

 

[QuietB]

IF you were spot on then we would have a deliverable solution to 24/7 power. We dont.

Of course ALL equipment has an economic life & that is maximised by maintenance - when that asset has a shorter economic life, it ceases to be maintained & that leads to patching gear up, not maintaining it.

You are aware we have been sold renewables are cheaper at the point of generation. Were you aware of how genuinely dishonest this is, & that the grid would need to be totally rewired.

I notice you ignore the advantage WA has with its gas reservation introduced by the Carpenter Labor Government despite opposition from the Howard Government. Why did the State Govts involved in the east coast utensil up, ignore the lesson Carpenter delived in WA.

Wanting this to be a political issue where your mob is right is contemptible.

"despite opposition from the Howard Government" - I think that answers most of your questions

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Different style and scale of reactor.

So why do you believe the kind of nuclear reactor used for power generation is not suitable for on-demand fluctuating supply?
Its as simple pushing fuel rods in and out.

Its probably more to do with cost/benefit. Ie , you paid for the bloody thing, best use it to generate a lot of electricity.

 

[Gralin]

So why do you believe the kind of nuclear reactor used for power generation is not suitable for on-demand fluctuating supply?
Its as simple pushing fuel rods in and out.

Its probably more to do with cost/benefit. Ie , you paid for the bloody thing, best use it to generate a lot of electricity.

Do you know how long they take to fire up from cold, or are you just assuming it's fast?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So why do you believe the kind of nuclear reactor used for power generation is not suitable for on-demand fluctuating supply?
Its as simple pushing fuel rods in and out.

Its probably more to do with cost/benefit. Ie , you paid for the bloody thing, best use it to generate a lot of electricity.

No you are correct.

Dispatchable generation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org