Let me make sure I understand... a carbon price of $25/tonne would push coal-based electricity increase in cost to about 40c/kWh, whilst wind would stay at 25c/kWh and be cheaper on an absolute comparison?
Keeping radiation in context.
- Thread starter Sunfish
- Start date
Hi Perp
I should have been clearer. The average carbon intensity of electricity in Australia is around 1kg/kWh. Brown coal is well above that figure, black coal around that figure and gas well below while hydro and other renewables = zero. With a carbon price of $25/tonne, we have 2.5c/kg= 2.5c/kWh, in very round numbers.
So a carbon price of $25/tonne lifts retail electricity prices by approx 2.5c/kWh (a little over 12%), assuming nothing is done to reduce our carbon intensity in the meantime, which is obviously pretty conservative so the real cost will be less.
However, at this level we will still be burning a lot of coal, albeit a lot less than we currently do. By comparison, large scale renewable and gas deployment to replace coal would incur the 6-7c/kWh cost I mentioned previously. This is up from 2.5c/kWh based on just a carbon price, which is not enough to get any renewables built - it just swaps some (mostly brown) coal for gas instead.
So carbon price of $25/tonne = 2.5c/kWh increase with fewer emissions than now but still burning a lot of coal.
Large scale renewables and balancing gas = 6-7c/kWh increase with far fewer emissions again and not burning any coal. Of course this conveniently ignores a number of "take or pay" coal contracts that State govts and others have entered into with coal mines for around the next twenty years so it's never quite that simple but you get the idea...
I hope that is clear enough? I obviously have to get better at explaining this!
OK, sounds like we need a much higher carbon price, then.
OK, now I'll ask another one.HiEquity said:
Can you please explain "take or pay"? Does that mean that the State govt (or others) have guaranteed to pay for a certain amount of coal whether it's used to generate electricity or otherwise? If the State govt (or others) elect not to use that coal to generate electricity, is the coal mine able to sell it elsewhere, or is that coal "left in the ground"?OK, now I'll ask another one.
Hi Perp
Yes, a typical contract meant a govt utility guarantees to buy a certain quantity of coal at $x/tonne, escalating at a certain % of CPI for the next thirty years or so. If the specified quantity isn't "taken" by the utility, it is still paid for. This gives revenue certainty to someone looking to open a coal mine and coal price protection to the utility. The coal mine is always free to sell as much as it likes to anyone else, provided it can meet its commitments to the utility (which are often state govt owned in the coal power station business but there are a few private ones too).
A very similar relationship exists between people who own gas pipelines and their customers. To build the gas pipeline, the developer will require certainty from its customers that a certain amount of gas will flow through it for x number of years, generating a certain amount of revenue for them, or the customer will pay regardless.
It is also the same for wind farms - a wind farm will generally only get built if an electricity retailer guarantees to buy x volume of electricity and renewable energy certificates for the next 10 years or so at y price (terms are generally shorter in the wind business and margins therefore higher due to regulatory (govt policy) risks - which means capital needs to be amortised over shorter time periods).
Very similar also to any other capital intensive venture you care to mention, such as twenty year anchor leases for new shopping centres etc. These are essentially "take or pay" in that if the tenant doesn't want the space anymore, they still pay...
Sunfish - nice link! The numbers are completely different to the Australian context (offshore wind is around 50% more expensive than onshore for example) but the result is much the same - the cost of generation for renewables there as well as here ends up around double the status quo.
However, the cost impact to the end residential customer is much less than double because network and retail costs are so much bigger than generation costs in the overall breakdown.
All this time we've been talking about costs and now you dismiss it as irrelevant.
So next time someone says nuclear is expensive I'll tell them to have a bex and a lie down. HE tells us it doesn't matter. LOL
All this time we've been talking about costs and now you dismiss it as irrelevant.
So next time someone says nuclear is expensive I'll tell them to have a bex and a lie down. HE tells us it doesn't matter. LOL
I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said adding 5c/kWh for wind to generation costs of 5c/kWh is doubling them. But we all pay 20c/kWh for our electricity. So, adding 5c/kWh to 20c/kWh is a lot less than doubling what we all actually pay, because most of that goes to network and retail costs, not generation costs.
All of this is very relevant.
True i don't know about this science, its not in my field , but its worth a mention , i still think my argument is still valid ,
i just need to read more about it ,lol.
So, read anything about hydrogen yet?
Obviously, you can find anything on the net. If you want to find that hydrogen is the answer to the worlds energy problems, there will be stuff there. Even numerous US presidents at times has proclaimed hydrogen as the solution.
There is also research that says hydrogen would result in more CO2 output, due to all the fossil fuels required to produce it. I tend to believe the later. In fact research into a hydrogen economy is being scaled down as it becomes more and more obvious that it's not the answer. Car companies are dropping hydrogen powered vehicles.
The plain and simple fact is that it's far better and environmentally friendly to use the fossil fuels to power something directly, rather than suffer efficieny losses in making hydrogen.
See ya's.
I agree. Put simply it takes as much energy to produce hydrogen as you get when you burn it, and that's with 100% efficiency. In reality it is going to need more energy to produce hydrogen than you will get out of it. Hydrogen may be a way to turn stationary power (wind, solar, hydro) into portable power. But hydrogen is a pretty dangerous gas to move around.
Hi Redwing,
A greeny-lollipop article.
Huge big scary attention getting headline, but nowhere in the article does it say what the levels were previously, nor what the recorded levels are now.
From one billionth of a Sv all the way up to one one hundred millionth of a Sv perhaps ??
I guess the intent of the article is for the reader to walk away with the impression of "Nuclear Power is bad". If so, it's done it's job....never mind about what the researchers actually recorded.
A greeny-lollipop article.
Huge big scary attention getting headline, but nowhere in the article does it say what the levels were previously, nor what the recorded levels are now.
From one billionth of a Sv all the way up to one one hundred millionth of a Sv perhaps ??
I guess the intent of the article is for the reader to walk away with the impression of "Nuclear Power is bad". If so, it's done it's job....never mind about what the researchers actually recorded.
I'm not a fan of nuclear power Dazz, especially in OZ
I can understand some of these power plants in freezing countries, but risk v reward never seems to fit and the consequences of getting it wrong are notable
Guess I'm a NIMBY in this regard
Radiation fallout across the world doesn't bring a warm glow to me
I can understand some of these power plants in freezing countries, but risk v reward never seems to fit and the consequences of getting it wrong are notable
Guess I'm a NIMBY in this regard
Radiation fallout across the world doesn't bring a warm glow to me
Last edited:
Japan's TEPCO has been nationalised in all but name, partly because the mid north east of Japan's main island will be uninhabitable for decades if not centuries thanks to TEPCO putting profits before safety. All of the country's 54 or so reactors have been shut down, and not one prefecture in all of Japan has allowed a single reactor to go back on-line. Siting nuclear reactors in a country positioned directly atop highly active tectonic fault lines now appears wantonly suicidal, even for the usually astonishingly nuclear threat-complacent Japanese. They will certainly be throwing everything they've got into alternative energy research and implementation from now on, you can be sure of that. But curiously, according to some here, Australia would be unwise to do so. Um . . . . duh?
...agreed....silly site choice.
At the other end of the spectrum, one of the most stable geological formations in the world, the Yilgarn block, upon which the majority of WA sits, would be ideal.
Of course, if you are opposed to Nuclear power, you'll be able to find 17 reasons why that area, covering vast tracts of land, is also unsuitable.
Actually, I'd be fine with that should the need genuinely arise, as long as we buried the waste in the same stable geology here in Oz and the plant was not run by the private sector. But as it's a horribly dirty and dangerous technology, every alternative should be pursued with serious haste.
Such a frustrating subject. The quality of public debate on the matter is abysmal. Some inconvenient truths about nuclear:
1) There has never been a nuclear power station built anywhere in the world without a government guarantee sitting behind it for either its performance, finance or both.
2) If the governments of the world all said today that it's open slather and anyone can build a nuclear power station anywhere they like to compete openly in the power market without government subsidy, there would never be another nuclear power station built anywhere in the world in the foreseeable future.
3) No private company will take on the risks involved. Only governments do that. And generally only when they are running out of options.
If people believe renewable energy gets a lot of subsidy then they really have no idea about nuclear - it absolutely takes the cake, with cherries and cream on top on the subsidy front. Loan guarantees, performance guarantees, massively long guaranteed off take contracts for full output day and night, indemnities against accident risks, funding for decommissioning - you name it, nuclear gets it. Private equity owners in the US get all the upside, get massive leverage of their capital at bargain basement rates through loan guarantees and any losses get socialised - including under Obama.
Personally I believe the Australian govt should allow nuclear power in Australia but refuse to support it financially - let it compete with the benefit of a carbon price! Or even let it be eligible for renewable energy certificates - it wouldn't matter. Just don't give them any government indemnities or loan guarantees.
At least then we would never hear these bum steer arguments about nuclear again!
1) There has never been a nuclear power station built anywhere in the world without a government guarantee sitting behind it for either its performance, finance or both.
2) If the governments of the world all said today that it's open slather and anyone can build a nuclear power station anywhere they like to compete openly in the power market without government subsidy, there would never be another nuclear power station built anywhere in the world in the foreseeable future.
3) No private company will take on the risks involved. Only governments do that. And generally only when they are running out of options.
If people believe renewable energy gets a lot of subsidy then they really have no idea about nuclear - it absolutely takes the cake, with cherries and cream on top on the subsidy front. Loan guarantees, performance guarantees, massively long guaranteed off take contracts for full output day and night, indemnities against accident risks, funding for decommissioning - you name it, nuclear gets it. Private equity owners in the US get all the upside, get massive leverage of their capital at bargain basement rates through loan guarantees and any losses get socialised - including under Obama.
Personally I believe the Australian govt should allow nuclear power in Australia but refuse to support it financially - let it compete with the benefit of a carbon price! Or even let it be eligible for renewable energy certificates - it wouldn't matter. Just don't give them any government indemnities or loan guarantees.
At least then we would never hear these bum steer arguments about nuclear again!
