Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

You might have to ban him Beery because Im not sure I can handle 5 more days of him arguing how you just really paid him a compliment.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

DERO said:
You might have to ban him Beery because Im not sure I can handle 5 more days of him arguing how you just really paid him a compliment.
Click to expand...
Yes you can.
 
jmoo wan said:
not you! iHurley is a snowflake that has been triggered and owned by the lefties.
Click to expand...
Maybe sometime in my lifetime all the s**t that was posted in here recently will be turned into coal.
 
DERO said:
Maybe sometime in my lifetime all the s**t that was posted in here recently will be turned into coal.
Click to expand...
it will happen sooner than you think. (sorry - no references)
 
DERO said:
Maybe sometime in my lifetime all the s**t that was posted in here recently will be turned into coal.
Click to expand...
You might even 'find' some gold chains in it.
 
Seriously, WTF was that?
 
IHurley said:
Right. So your initial claim that the reason there is a massive deficit now is because they were coming to the ends of their lives is completely and utterly wrong.

Cheers.

Yes. They saw the writing on the wall when it came to sovereign risk.

Yep. Sovereign risk.

But the high coal prices reflect the (unexpected to you) high demand! Asia is building hundreds of new coal plants.

Note that these are some of the largest companies on earth and it's probably not a stretch to say they have done a tad more research on the viability of coal power stations than you or I.

If everybody in the parliament- Labor, Liberal and Green - had said coal plants could continue without any obstruction that would have been investment certainty. Instead, everybody in the parliament fell over themselves to punish any coal investment as fast as they could.

Why do I get the feeling that when you say "bipartisan" what you mean is "you have to agree with me otherwise any negative consequences are all your fault"?

There was disagreement because the Green policies were abject lunacy, the Labor policies mostly lunacy and the Liberal policies partly lunacy.

Oh so it's just a matter of lobbying? So anybody who lobbies gets their own way do they?

What if the environmentalists lobbied too? (Hint: they did).

There should already be zero reliance on gas given that renewables are 1000x cheaper and more reliable than that.

Have you taken into account the cost of storage when you assess the cost of renewables. I assume you have. How much battery capacity do we need for Australia? How much investment does that require when batteries have a very finite shelf life (say 20 years)?

And solar panels and wind turbines also have a similar shelf life. Have you taken into account replacing every single wind turbine and solar panel every 20 years in your cost of renewables?

You claimed it was much cheaper and more reliable and that is why nobody wants to invest in coal. Whether it is 100x or 2x makes no difference. You are still left trying to make the extraordinary argument that these renewables have somehow supplanted cheap/reliable electricity purely for economic reasons even as electricity prices have been driven much higher.

No they don't. They can be changed on a whim. And they are. Always made higher. How on earth does that give certainty?

Yes.

Watch. Even faced with the crisis in Europe there are still people who prefer to virtue signal about unicorn farts than use actual reliable cheap coal generated electricity.

You mean one without the government creating sovereign risk like it has with zero emissions targets and renewables targets.

Yes. That is true.

I don't.

You do.

That's why I wanted to keep electricity that worked brilliantly for over 100 years. You wanted to signal virtue.

But, apparently, we do want to blow up coal mines that could have been used - even if only as a spare.

Yes. They've achieved this brilliantly.

Bravo!

But supply isn't constrained. We have renewables remember? They're cheap, plentiful, reliable and come with their own puppy hugging machines.

There are times when SA was powered completely by fossil fuels. Difference being that time was several decades rather than several minutes.

The ability to provide lots of power at some time is completely worthless. If you can't have it when you need it, then you may as well not have it. The fact that renewables worshippers get so excited by that one second in SA just shows the ignorance of electricity markets.


And there's been RETs all that time. All catastrophic. But no matter how much damage caused, always calls for it to be made higher.

And we invested squillions into renewables.

Some said these investments were useless and would lead to higher prices and less reliability.

Some called such people "conspiracy theorist denialist anti-science people in the pay of Big Oil". The problem is that the latter people have no shame you see so they kept on making these idiotic "arguments" even when the first group of people were proven correct.

Ok. Tell me the exact number that the renewables target needed to be at every given year for the past two decades to ensure we had reliable and cheap power?

You must know. After all, it was only because of "politics" that other people didn't comply.

Yes. Sovereign risk.

Lack of investment in coal generators due to sovereign risk. Also lack of investment in coal mines/gas fields. Not as bad a problem but still significant.

Tell that to the governments who have told us that all the generators are evil and they're price gouging and so governments will probably go down the path of price caps.

Blackouts here we come.

It's the exact opposite. Electric cars have faults but are actually quite decent in many ways. Solar panels and wind turbines are hopeless in every respect.

That it is heavily affected by sovereign risk. In countries with less sovereign risk, coal stations are still being built.

Russia's isn't. They produce more oil than we do. And I know for a fact that Western producers go back to capped wells to produce more later on.

What is it exactly that you think you can see?

Correct. If you don't explain it in your own words I don't care.

explain how (in your own words) that study you linked to showed that.

??? I didn't think you believed that coal deposits formed rapidly.

I don't source conclusions. It's a terrible method of debating which proves you don't understand and simply regurgitate those who tell you what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg


I mean you can pick imaginary holes in these things as much as you like but it's undeniable that for-profit corporations are getting out of coal. They aren't charities and they're not doing this because some protesters glued themselves to a steam shovel or something. Before the war kicked energy prices up the world's largest coal producer Peabody filed for bankruptcy. BHP tried to sell a coal mine and couldn't find anyone willing to take it off their hands. There's been multiple coal mines sold for $1 just so a company can get them off the books. You can dance around evidence as much as you like but no reasonable observer would think this is a sector that is going places.

A few points I picked up on:
Right. So your initial claim that the reason there is a massive deficit now is because they were coming to the ends of their lives is completely and utterly wrong.
That doesn't follow on from what I said at all. A lot of coal fired power stations in Australia were built in the 70s. That is a verifiable fact. They were built with a 40-50 year useful life in mind, that is now running out. Some newer ones are getting closed down too, because the economics of coal right now are bad even for more modern and reliable generators.

But the high coal prices reflect the (unexpected to you) high demand! Asia is building hundreds of new coal plants.
Interesting that most of the pipeline of new coal fired power stations is from China, a centrally planned economy. Maybe it's easier to throw money at a soon to be stranded asset when it's someone else's!

Oh so it's just a matter of lobbying? So anybody who lobbies gets their own way do they?
What I was going for was that the existence of lobbying efforts would indicate someone thought a coal fired power station was worth building. Coal mining companies lobbied for a government funded one (they wanted a new customer) but I have not seen any utility provider lobbying to be allowed to build one. Why not? It's not a great investment.

There should already be zero reliance on gas given that renewables are 1000x cheaper and more reliable than that.
Where has anyone said it was 1000x cheaper? The constant strawman arguments are pretty sad. As I have explained, these large scale renewable energy projects (or any sort of power plant) have long lead times. This is why there have been calls for an orderly energy transition since the mid 2000s.

Have you taken into account the cost of storage when you assess the cost of renewables. I assume you have. How much battery capacity do we need for Australia? How much investment does that require when batteries have a very finite shelf life (say 20 years)?

And solar panels and wind turbines also have a similar shelf life. Have you taken into account replacing every single wind turbine and solar panel every 20 years in your cost of renewables?
Lifecycle costs are factored in to any sort of project planning, yes. It's the same process whether it's a wind turbine or a coal plant.

Regarding batteries, nearly all of the 19 GW of storage AEMO forecasts we'll need is already in the pipeline. Note that's 18.6 GW of batteries alone being planned, that isn't factoring in other dispatchable generation which is likely in the pipeline too.
1667283620946.png
1667283581959.png
Source: Energy Explained Big Batteries

You claimed it was much cheaper and more reliable and that is why nobody wants to invest in coal. Whether it is 100x or 2x makes no difference. You are still left trying to make the extraordinary argument that these renewables have somehow supplanted cheap/reliable electricity purely for economic reasons even as electricity prices have been driven much higher.
I think you forgot to proof read this bit, I've tried going through it a couple of times and it doesn't make any sense.
If you're still wondering how cheap generation can be coming online without causing power prices to fall, I'll remind you yet again that we pay the price of the highest bidder (typically gas at the present time). That's how the wholesale market works. Cheap producers get paid the same amount as expensive producers, giving them greater profit margins and incentivising greater investment in more cheap generation capacity.

No they don't. They can be changed on a whim. And they are. Always made higher. How on earth does that give certainty?
Yes, they do. That is the entire reason for their existence. You have also highlighted why it's so important to have bipartisan consensus on energy policy, so these things don't get wound back.

That's why I wanted to keep electricity that worked brilliantly for over 100 years. You wanted to signal virtue.
Yes. They've achieved this brilliantly.
Bravo!
Is this kind of facetiousness really necessary?

But supply isn't constrained. We have renewables remember? They're cheap, plentiful, reliable and come with their own puppy hugging machines.
I'm honestly struggling to understand how you could draw this conclusion. It's been pointed out many times now that there has been insufficient replacement generation to pick up the slack from the retirement of coal fired power stations. I don't know how I can make this more clear.

Lack of investment in coal generators due to sovereign risk. Also lack of investment in coal mines/gas fields. Not as bad a problem but still significant.
Government policy, as mentioned is only a small piece of the puzzle. If that was the only factor you would see businesses lobbying for less of it so they could build a coal fired power station. Instead they want more land made available for wind turbines.

That it is heavily affected by sovereign risk. In countries with less sovereign risk, coal stations are still being built.
Most of them are being built in China, the epitome of sovereign risk lol

Russia's isn't. They produce more oil than we do. And I know for a fact that Western producers go back to capped wells to produce more later on.
It was a theory based on the discovery of oil in metamorphic and igneous rocks. It is not widely supported and even Russian oil companies don't put stock in it. Those reserves (like the deposit in Vietnam) form elsewhere in a sedimentary source rock and are trapped under an impermeable rock layer, sometimes a considerable distance away depending on the geology of the area. Without that trap rock the oil will rise to the surface as an oil seep or tar pit.

I assume you are referring to the Eugene Island oil field. The 'refilling' of that oilfield is consistent with oil migrating as a result of changes in pressure caused by the oil being tapped.

The biggest issues with the abiotic theory (as I have mentioned several times and you never seem to address) are the presence of biomarkers in the oil - certain chemicals, isotopic ratios etc that can only come from living organisms and the way we can follow the chemical synthesis of hydrocarbons in present day sediments and rocks.
Chlorophyll and terpes for example have a particular structure which is preserved in hydrocarbon deposits. These are hugely complex organic molecules formed via a series of enzymatic reactions that is improbable to have been replicated abiotically. Biological reactions tend to favour certain isotopes too, and replenish any that decay over the life of the organism. This gives rise to particular isotpic ratios that are not found in rock.
Oh, and the fact that no one has ever found a conclusively abiotic oil deposit that cannot have migrated from a sedimentary source rock. The few that have been alleged to have been abiotic have all had sedimentary rocks nearby that offer a plausible alternative explanation.

??? I didn't think you believed that coal deposits formed rapidly.
I don't but I'm waiting for you to change my mind.

Honestly at this point the only reason I'm responding to this stuff is because I'm hanging out to see your explanation for the rapid and recent deposition of coal seams. I'm genuinely curious how this could happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DERO said:
Seriously, WTF was that?
Click to expand...
I keep asking but they never go into any detail
DERO said:
Maybe sometime in my lifetime all the s**t that was posted in here recently will be turned into coal.
Click to expand...
If the s**t piles up deep enough the pressure might turn the first few pages of this thread into coal
 
Old Campaigner said:
Honestly at this point the only reason I'm responding to this stuff is because I'm hanging out to see your explanation for the rapid and recent deposition of coal seams. I'm genuinely curious how this could happen.
Click to expand...
He's the sort of dude that will go to page 10 of a google search to find the link that tells him what he wants to hear, I think the odds of him having an epiphany about the fairy tale creation of magical oil and coal before you have a stroke from reading his bullshit aren't worth gambling on.
 
The government engaging in central planning by having renewable energy targets and constantly threatening existing coal investments = great because it's the free market at its finest.

The government building coal power plants = bad because that's communism. Whilst I certainly prefer private companies building them we are in this situation because of lunatic sovereign risk creating policies. The government building stations and then selling them will no doubt be the policy going forward after the people get sick of continuous blackouts.

I did laugh about your battery thing. 19 bazillion GW planned. 1 kW so far built.

So realistic!

And your own source proved I was right. 2040 is 18 years away. Every battery built now will be useless by then. As too will every solar panel and wind turbine.

So I was right. The lifespan of these boondoggles hasn't in any way been accounted for in any plan. It's all pie in the sky stuff. They believe that the massive subsidies will continue. That's their motivation.

Solar panels are built purely because of the expected subsidies. Coal stations are being decommissioned purely because of sovereign risk. That's why our electricity system is getting less reliable and more expensive. Every tech change in history leads to lower costs. Every one except renewables.

It's truly amazing. You're actually trying to claim that government policy has essentially zero impact on investment decisions when it comes to coal investments but at the same time provides complete "investment certainty" for renewables. Certainty, that is, if everybody agrees with you.

What is/was the correct target we must all agree on? You didn't give a number for some reason. That's very important because if we have to all agree with you on a number we probably need to know what it is.



And again I ask. If biological markers are found in an iron ore deposit does that mean that iron comes from dead dinosaurs? It's a simple question but you refuse to answer it. Your one and only argument for biotic oil is these biological markers. You have literally nothing else. So we need to know whether those are relevant. They're not of course. Biological markers are everywhere in everything on Earth. Their presence tells us nothing.
 
Last edited:
I'm honestly struggling to understand how you could draw this conclusion. It's been pointed out many times now that there has been insufficient replacement generation to pick up the slack from the retirement of coal fired power stations. I don't know how I can make this more clear.
Click to expand...
That's my point. Your argument is internally inconsistent. You're trying to claim:

1) coal generators can't make money right now because electricity prices are too low so that, and that alone, is why they're being shut down right now.

2) there hasn't been anywhere near enough investment in alternatives so that is why electricity prices are so high right now.

Even you could see the problem with this nonsensical argument so you tried to round this square by claiming it was a timing issue - ie that all coal stations are due to be decommissioned right now and none of them can continue in any capacity unless they built a brand new generator.

Unfortunately you had to admit that argument wasn't right either so you did what you always do. Retreat to authority. Electricity producers are doing X therefore X is good and in no way altered by government policy. Oh except that it is.

Tell me again why we have RETs when coal generators could just "lobby" to have them removed if they wanted to? I just don't get it. Why bother having any policies of any kind if people can just "lobby" and they're removed immediately?
 
Every attempt to make sense of your previous claims requires you to come up with more bizarre ones.

Now you need to claim that government policy has zero impact on investment decisions.
 
Astonishing.

Every single time someone has piped up and called out the lunacy of our hate on for coal in the past 30 years they've been accused of being an evil fiend in the pay of big coal/oil.

But now, apparently, the hydrocarbon industry hasn't spent so much as a red cent to lobby on their own behalf and they've happily given up because of the wonderful economics of renewables.

The same renewables that have led to an increase in prices and unreliability in literally every country where they're prominent.

Still, I guess if you believe iron comes from dead dinosaurs it's not much of a stretch.
 
Howard Moon said:
does that not prove it wasn't a personal attack and is what he believes?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever suggested he didn't believe what he was posting?

Old Campaigner has done an outstanding job of posting actual information, including sources for that information. Credit to him.
 
Yeah I've had enough too. IHurley you're done here. You've made it abundantly clear you have no capacity to debate in good faith.

Which, I might add, is totally on point for people on 'your side'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top