Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
One is for sure. Wind turbines do kill birds and that is why we could not allow them here to cause our native emu extinctions.
Kiwi should follow us with total ban on wind turbines as Kiwi bird is ever more endangered.
Then according to the greatest expert in the field those wind turbines do cause cancer by noise and sometime only remote view on the horizons/.
edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/12/24/trump-windmills-attack-jeanne-moos-ebof-pkg-vpx.cnn
I love that part about how pollution from wind turbines do spread around the world to effect on another continent. This is way we all should demand to close all wind turbines in Chna and Norway as their pollution is killing us.
Gold, good one 
Select to expand quote
"households"
Pretty much a guarantee of selective statistics.
And ... where's the data? How much did South Australia save more than other states? Especially Tasmania, which is 100% hydro...
The Guardian living up to its reputation again. Cue log jam.
Imagine if South Australia had built a nuclear power plant...
Then it would have Australia's most expensive electricity instead of some of the cheapest...
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Who here is advocating a "blind approach" and at "any cost"? That's just a poor interpretation of the discussion.
Why do you think I am talking about you or anyone else here when I post. Stop being so defensive.
My comments was in relation to the statistics shown in that presentation of the cost to Germany to drop their nuclear programs in favour of renewables. It has been at enormous investment cost, raised the price of power by 50% and ended up significantly increasing their CO2 emissions over what they were. The comparison with France who have kept and embraced their nuclear programs is a pretty good indication of how a mature nuclear program keeps costs down and is the lowest contributor to CO2.
The reality is that France's power is half the cost of Germany's with significantly lower CO2 emissions, so stop banging on about the cost of nuclear, it can be done cost effectively.
Here is one of his other presentations.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Imagine if South Australia had built a nuclear power plant...
Then it would have Australia's most expensive electricity instead of some of the cheapest...
Citation needed.
Honestly, what are you even talking about? Cost per kWh over the lifetime of the plant has already been posted and it's not the Moody expensive.
Those goalposts eh, like yard dogs, just keep on roaming all over the place.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
"households"
Pretty much a guarantee of selective statistics.
And ... where's the data? How much did South Australia save more than other states? Especially Tasmania, which is 100% hydro...
The Guardian living up to its reputation again. Cue log jam.
It says that WHOLESALE prices have been lower in SA than on the rest of the east coast grid
South Australia has had lower monthly wholesale electricity prices than Victoria since January, than New South Wales since August and than Queensland and Tasmania for the past two months.
The only mention of "households" is the suggestion that their prices will come down a bit over the next few years
The annual report of the Australian Energy Market Commission earlier this month found household prices were expected to start falling over the next few years, mostly due to decreases in wholesale costs as clean energy generation capacity, particularly from windfarms, increased.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Kamikuza said..
"households"
Pretty much a guarantee of selective statistics.
And ... where's the data? How much did South Australia save more than other states? Especially Tasmania, which is 100% hydro...
The Guardian living up to its reputation again. Cue log jam.
It says that WHOLESALE prices have been lower in SA than on the rest of the east coast grid
South Australia has had lower monthly wholesale electricity prices than Victoria since January, than New South Wales since August and than Queensland and Tasmania for the past two months.
The only mention of "households" is the suggestion that their prices will come down a bit over the next few years
The annual report of the Australian Energy Market Commission earlier this month found household prices were expected to start falling over the next few years, mostly due to decreases in wholesale costs as clean energy generation capacity, particularly from windfarms, increased.
Are we reading the same article? There's literally no details, no citations, no corroboration. The Guardian is mad keven to link to their own articles when they feel the need to back their claims up though...
"On Sunday, the competition watchdog found Australian households had already saved $65 on their power bills over the past year, but it said electricity affordability required further attention, in part because while solar panels reduced bills for households that had them, others shouldered the cost of feed-in tariff incentive schemes."
Neither your quote our mine appears to be talking about actual savings in SA to actual consumers.
So this shellenberger looks like he's another one of these secretly funded Allan Jones types. I really can't be bothered
Select to expand quotelog man said..
So this shellenberger looks like he's another one of these secretly funded Allan Jones types. I really can't be bothered
Everyone who has facts that oppose your opinion is a shill. What are the odds?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..Mr Milk said..Kamikuza said..
"households"
Pretty much a guarantee of selective statistics.
And ... where's the data? How much did South Australia save more than other states? Especially Tasmania, which is 100% hydro...
The Guardian living up to its reputation again. Cue log jam.
It says that WHOLESALE prices have been lower in SA than on the rest of the east coast grid
South Australia has had lower monthly wholesale electricity prices than Victoria since January, than New South Wales since August and than Queensland and Tasmania for the past two months.
The only mention of "households" is the suggestion that their prices will come down a bit over the next few years
The annual report of the Australian Energy Market Commission earlier this month found household prices were expected to start falling over the next few years, mostly due to decreases in wholesale costs as clean energy generation capacity, particularly from windfarms, increased.
Are we reading the same article? There's literally no details, no citations, no corroboration. The Guardian is mad keven to link to their own articles when they feel the need to back their claims up though...
"On Sunday, the competition watchdog found Australian households had already saved $65 on their power bills over the past year, but it said electricity affordability required further attention, in part because while solar panels reduced bills for households that had them, others shouldered the cost of feed-in tariff incentive schemes."
Neither your quote our mine appears to be talking about actual savings in SA to actual consumers.
The article isn't primarily about household consumers. It's a report that the Australia Institute has looked at how the wholesale price of electricity has varied across the east coast grid.
I don't know about your account, but my charge for electricity use is agreed in advance with the retailer, it doesn't vary with the wholesale price day to day. In the longer term, competition between retailers should lead to a fall in retail price of power, as long as the retailers anticipate lower wholesale prices.
The idea that feed in tariff incentive schemes is a big cost burden is laughable, since most of those schemes were closed years ago. What happens now is that the retailer offers a feed in rate, bearing in mind that they are going to be needing the power from somewhere, they can decide what to pay householders compared to what they think will happen to wholesale prices on sunny days. Origin Energy must think that rooftop PV has been relatively cheap, since they increased my feed in tariff from 15c to 21c on 1 July.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..Kamikuza said..Mr Milk said..Kamikuza said..
"households"
Pretty much a guarantee of selective statistics.
And ... where's the data? How much did South Australia save more than other states? Especially Tasmania, which is 100% hydro...
The Guardian living up to its reputation again. Cue log jam.
It says that WHOLESALE prices have been lower in SA than on the rest of the east coast grid
South Australia has had lower monthly wholesale electricity prices than Victoria since January, than New South Wales since August and than Queensland and Tasmania for the past two months.
The only mention of "households" is the suggestion that their prices will come down a bit over the next few years
The annual report of the Australian Energy Market Commission earlier this month found household prices were expected to start falling over the next few years, mostly due to decreases in wholesale costs as clean energy generation capacity, particularly from windfarms, increased.
Are we reading the same article? There's literally no details, no citations, no corroboration. The Guardian is mad keven to link to their own articles when they feel the need to back their claims up though...
"On Sunday, the competition watchdog found Australian households had already saved $65 on their power bills over the past year, but it said electricity affordability required further attention, in part because while solar panels reduced bills for households that had them, others shouldered the cost of feed-in tariff incentive schemes."
Neither your quote our mine appears to be talking about actual savings in SA to actual consumers.
The article isn't primarily about household consumers. It's a report that the Australia Institute has looked at how the wholesale price of electricity has varied across the east coast grid.
I don't know about your account, but my charge for electricity use is agreed in advance with the retailer, it doesn't vary with the wholesale price day to day. In the longer term, competition between retailers should lead to a fall in retail price of power, as long as the retailers anticipate lower wholesale prices.
The idea that feed in tariff incentive schemes is a big cost burden is laughable, since most of those schemes were closed years ago. What happens now is that the retailer offers a feed in rate, bearing in mind that they are going to be needing the power from somewhere, they can decide what to pay householders compared to what they think will happen to wholesale prices on sunny days. Origin Energy must think that rooftop PV has been relatively cheap, since they increased my feed in tariff from 15c to 21c on 1 July.
There's still not a single data point that backs up their claim.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
So this shellenberger looks like he's another one of these secretly funded Allan Jones types. I really can't be bothered
Everyone who has facts that oppose your opinion is a shill. What are the odds?
What's the bet that somewhere, hidden in his bio is The Heartland Institute or Prager U. Cash for comment
Select to expand quotelog man said..Kamikuza said..log man said..
So this shellenberger looks like he's another one of these secretly funded Allan Jones types. I really can't be bothered
Everyone who has facts that oppose your opinion is a shill. What are the odds?
What's the bet that somewhere, hidden in his bio is The Heartland Institute or Prager U. Cash for comment
Shame we don't have your bio. I bet hidden in there somewhere is ... nothing at all.
Clearly you haven't looked at his bio at all.
So no disputing the figures, but I would have thought that would have been easy if it is all non verifiable rubbish.
A meta analysis of 103 nuclear power life-cycle studies by Benjamin K. Sovacool found that nuclear power plants produce electricity with a mean of 66 g equivalent life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, compared to renewable power generators, which produce electricity with 9.5 to 38 g carbon dioxide per kWh, and fossil-fuel power stations, which produce electricity with about 443 to 1,050 g equivalent life cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh.
(see www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf)
Another report, "Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia," conducted by the University of Sydney in 2008, produced the following results: nuclear = 60-65 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 20 g/kWh; solar PV = 106 g/kWh. The likely range of values from this study produced the following results: nuclear = 10-130 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 13-40 g CO2/kWh; solar PV = 53-217 g CO2/kWh.
Select to expand quoteTheRodder said..
So no disputing the figures, but I would have thought that would have been easy if it is all non verifiable rubbish.
A meta analysis of 103 nuclear power life-cycle studies by Benjamin K. Sovacool found that nuclear power plants produce electricity with a mean of 66 g equivalent life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, compared to renewable power generators, which produce electricity with 9.5 to 38 g carbon dioxide per kWh, and fossil-fuel power stations, which produce electricity with about 443 to 1,050 g equivalent life cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh.
(see www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf)
Another report, "Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia," conducted by the University of Sydney in 2008, produced the following results: nuclear = 60-65 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 20 g/kWh; solar PV = 106 g/kWh. The likely range of values from this study produced the following results: nuclear = 10-130 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 13-40 g CO2/kWh; solar PV = 53-217 g CO2/kWh.
So that's pretty much what everyone has been saying the whole time -- nuclear is low CO2, possibly the lowest. And you can recycle concrete and steel
Basically, once you stop bull****ting about CO2, costs, waste management, all you're left with is the radiation boogey man. And that usually just means you don't understand the details.
Select to expand quotelog man said..
And the rationale behind this whole "nuclear, not as bad as you think campaign", is basically to prove that people that care about the environment are frauds.
I'm so not interested in this smoke screen. Basically, nuclear is a dead duck and it's only the dead beats of right wing politics, who think there's some culture war point to win, that waste their time trying to flog some dead horse.
That's just a bad faith argument. The rationale behind this whole "nuclear, not as bad as you think" campaign is to correct the mistakes being pushed by the ignorant and propaganda by those who are anti-science. And ignorant.
The only smokescreen here is the one being put up by those who think this has something to do with political alignment.
Oh look at who's doing that, and telling us there's no culture war ... shocked I am, shocked.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..log man said..
And the rationale behind this whole "nuclear, not as bad as you think campaign", is basically to prove that people that care about the environment are frauds.
I'm so not interested in this smoke screen. Basically, nuclear is a dead duck and it's only the dead beats of right wing politics, who think there's some culture war point to win, that waste their time trying to flog some dead horse.
That's just a bad faith argument. The rationale behind this whole "nuclear, not as bad as you think" campaign is to correct the mistakes being pushed by the ignorant and propaganda by those who are anti-science. And ignorant.
The only smokescreen here is the one being put up by those who think this has something to do with political alignment.
Oh look at who's doing that, and telling us there's no culture war ... shocked I am, shocked.
So the right .......ie The climate denying, "it's a communist plot" , " Australia's always had droughts" right wing is now the friend of science and aren't at all ignorant fools.
I wish you'd get your story straight.
The reality is you've lost the battle about GW and in a pathetic attempt to get some attention and relevance you're now engaged in a fallback position of telling people what sort of power generation is good and what's not. Sorry but you lost any credibility when you did all the " australias always had droughts " stuff. So thanks very much for your most helpful advice on power generation............but stfu
Select to expand quoteTheRodder said..
So no disputing the figures, but I would have thought that would have been easy if it is all non verifiable rubbish.
A meta analysis of 103 nuclear power life-cycle studies by Benjamin K. Sovacool found that nuclear power plants produce electricity with a mean of 66 g equivalent life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh, compared to renewable power generators, which produce electricity with 9.5 to 38 g carbon dioxide per kWh, and fossil-fuel power stations, which produce electricity with about 443 to 1,050 g equivalent life cycle carbon dioxide emissions per kWh.
(see www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf)
Another report, "Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia," conducted by the University of Sydney in 2008, produced the following results: nuclear = 60-65 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 20 g/kWh; solar PV = 106 g/kWh. The likely range of values from this study produced the following results: nuclear = 10-130 g CO2/kWh; wind power = 13-40 g CO2/kWh; solar PV = 53-217 g CO2/kWh.
I haven't gone back to look at the detail, but yes those figures seem within the range of what we were talking about. I have seen other studies showing lower emissions for Nuclear and indeed the renewables but that is not unusual given the way these studies are done and I did point this out previously.
So yes we are in agreement Nuclear is at worst equal or lower than most renewable in the whole of life CO2 emissions stake.
I'll have to admit that highlighting a fact that seems to verify Schellingbergers point is a strange way of refuting it...
ruralpropertynsw.com.au/post/66/is-this-the-worst-drought-of-them-all
Australias always had droughts is the measure economic or environmental? but you would expect it in the driest inhabited continent on earth.
