tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post308597684179206326..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Sensitive to sensitivity at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33533054208146247282014-02-16T19:33:26.843+11:002014-02-16T19:33:26.843+11:00If anyone has trouble envisaging why there is not ...If anyone has trouble envisaging why there is not a direct relationship between the cost of electricity at the point it enters the grid, and the cost of electricity as it comes into the home and business - there are some similarities with other products, such as milk.<br /><br />The farm gate price of milk is around <a href="http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Statistics-and-markets/Prices/Farmgate-Prices.aspx" rel="nofollow">40c/litre</a>. The retail price of milk is <a href="http://shop.coles.com.au/online/national/dairy-farmers-milk-full-cream-carton" rel="nofollow">around $1.40</a>. The difference goes into processing, transport (similar to electricity distribution), retail/merchandising costs (similar to billing and servicing electricity customers), and profit to the various parties in the value chain. The cost of milk fluctuates most post-farm gate. <br /><br />Dairy farmers are price takers not price makers. On the other hand, the wholesale price of electricity is very dependent on supply/demand. On a stinking hot day in the middle of the week in summer, some electricity suppliers will even limit supply through rationing or price incentives (lifting cost to consumers) rather than pay highly inflated prices.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90004403571748937942014-02-16T19:16:54.597+11:002014-02-16T19:16:54.597+11:00Make that sixteen and thirty six years from now - ...Make that sixteen and thirty six years from now - and, ahem, not so many interestings.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-92135933993908651462014-02-16T19:15:42.480+11:002014-02-16T19:15:42.480+11:00No, your initial claim was this.
"This repor...No, your initial claim was this.<br /><br />"This report suggests renewables deployed in way that would actually reduce emissions, would cost about 3 times what we currently pay for energy"<br /><br />We pay the retail price, and the report you quoted said the retail cost would rise about 8.5c/kWh, inclusive of the rise in the wholesale price. Australia pay's on average about 29c/kWh. If we were to pay 3 times the cost that we pay now, the retail price would have be about 90c/kWh.<br /><br />Look, the current wholesale price is about 5c/kWh, so a doubling of that would be an extra 5c/kWh. The report said that the eventual flow on price including infrastructure and profit would be 8.5c/kWh. A small increase. In fact the increase in the retail price over the last two years was about 6.5c/kWh, so a price rise of about 8.5c/kWh is NOT expensive, the complete opposite to what you asserted in your original tirade.<br /><br />You have been proven to misrepresent the report, but instead of accepting that you were wrong, you went on a pointless gish gallop AGAIN. This is your MO. It's the denier MO. You will shamelessly refuse to accept facts and instead deny, deny and then deny some more. Next you will probably claim that I am bulling you. Anyone can check the report and see that you misinterpreted and misrepresented it. This is not the first time either. You now have a pitiful record of misrepresentation. To be frank, most of us have seen this sort of abhorrent behaviour before, it's the hallmark of the denier troll. I wouldn't expect anything less of you. The fact that you have done this now on multiple threads has only reinforced everyones pitiful view of you. Heck, you even have an entire thread devoted to this behaviour after you gish galloped the Maurice Newman thread to death.<br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/greigs-thread.html<br /><br />The only point that you have ever made is your glaring obsession to try and force your corrupt ideology.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19962618619599982912014-02-16T19:11:45.439+11:002014-02-16T19:11:45.439+11:00For anyone following this exchange, here is the AE...For anyone following this exchange, <a href="http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/files/reducing-carbon/aemo/renewables-study-report-draft-20130424.pdf" rel="nofollow">here is the AEMO report</a> referred to.<br /><br />The impact on wholesale prices and retail prices are set out in Section 5.8 Impact on wholesale prices on pages 34 and 35, including tables on page 35. The scenarios referred to are described on pages 35 to 39. To clarify, wholesale prices mainly relate to the generation and transmission costs. Retail prices include the cost of supply and distribution to the end customer. I doubt the cost of distribution would be hugely different no matter what the source of electricity, but any such differences are included in the model except where otherwise stated.<br /><br />As an illustration, under Scenario 1, wholesale prices are projected to be approx double 2012 prices in both 2030 and 2050. Retail prices are projected to be about 6.6 and 6.7 c/kWh more expensive compared to 2012. (That's around 18% to 25% more than today, depending on where you live in Australia.)<br /><br />It's an interesting report if you're interested in the finer details of electricity generation and supply. In sixteen and twenty six years time, it will be interesting to compare electricity supply, demand and price observations and technology - with the model projections described in this report :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76377754729626782852014-02-16T17:48:23.883+11:002014-02-16T17:48:23.883+11:00waffle ... The end cost to consumers, that is dome...<i> waffle ... The end <b>cost</b> to consumers, that is domestic, commercial and industrial users, by the very report that you quoted, would NOT see a tripling in the <b>cost</b> of retail electricity, as was the main thrust of your misrepresentation ... more waffle</i><br /><br />You are still confused about cost and price. In fact the quotes I have produced from the AEMO 100% renewable report categorically show that the <b>cost</b> of both wholesale and retail electricity would be greater than 2-2.4 times current costs, plus the cost of distribution and other out of scope items (ie about triple). <b>Which was my initial claim.</b><br /><br />The <b>price</b> is something different, I have already explained that to you why there is a difference between retail and commercial pricing, and how prices can be skewed by a multitude of external factors., though ultimately the impact of a tripling of the cost of electricity would flow through to everyone as a significant increase in the price of nearly everything (not just electricity). And that is not good.<br /><br />I have made my point. This discussion is at an end.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73513252743046411532014-02-16T17:09:02.741+11:002014-02-16T17:09:02.741+11:00Greig asks
"are you saying that the 8.5c/kWh ...Greig asks<br />"are you saying that the 8.5c/kWh increase in retail price applies to both domestic AND commercial retail pricing?"<br /><br />I am not saying anything. If you go to the next page from your quote you will see this table.<br /><br />"Table 14: Projected impact on retail prices"<br /><br />Domestic, industrial and commercial users purchase electricity from the retail market, and not from the wholesale market. Are you really that stupid that you need to be spoon fed the answer. I mean, the answer was in your own recent quote!!!<br /><br />"The wholesale electricity price increase and the additional transmission prices would be passed on to consumers via retail prices."<br /><br />"industrial and commercial customers … retail cost."<br /><br />I mean, really!!<br /><br />The report does not argue that a doubling of the wholesale cost will not disappear. It is represented in the 8.5c/kWh retail price increase that domestic, industrial and commercial users would all pay. The wholesale cost of electricity represents a fraction of the 29c/kWh retail cost for domestic users. If say industrial and commercial users get a bulk discount and only pay 15-20c/kWh, a price increase of 8.5c/kWh is still only a fraction of the price they pay, and certainly does not mean a tripling of prices. (It's simple math) Look, I did not come up with the 8.5c/kWh figure. It is in the report which you initially quoted!! If you think there are issues with these projections, then take it up with the AEMO.<br /><br />But really, are you so devoid of comprehension skills that you didn't already know the difference between the retail and wholesale electricity market? The end cost to consumers, that is domestic, commercial and industrial users, by the very report that you quoted, would NOT see a tripling in the cost of retail electricity, as was the main thrust of your misrepresentation, and the centrepiece of your alarmist diatribe. You might have that light bulb moment when it finally sinks in, but going by your previous behaviour, and your obvious lack of comprehension skills, I'm not holding my breath.<br /><br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65837138056694367422014-02-16T15:10:27.591+11:002014-02-16T15:10:27.591+11:00From the AEMO report, section 5.8
The wholesale e...From the AEMO report, section 5.8<br /><br /><i>The wholesale electricity price increase and the additional transmission prices would be passed on to consumers via retail prices. The relative impact of these price rises would depend on other retail price components, such as distribution prices, and would be greater for industrial and commercial customers for whom wholesale prices represent a greater proportion of the total retail cost.</i><br /><br />So Dave, speaking of misrepresentation, are you saying that the 8.5c/kWh increase in retail price applies to both domestic AND commercial retail pricing? Please reference your answer.<br /><br />This is important to answer clearly, because if you are arguing that, then you are arguing that we can triple the cost of energy production and then have that cost magically disappear - is that what you are arguing?<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10796859543922676582014-02-16T13:26:48.687+11:002014-02-16T13:26:48.687+11:00Greig, you are doing it again. Misrepresenting the...Greig, you are doing it again. Misrepresenting the situation.<br /><br />You said "In other words it is not the price of domestic electricity (which is only about 20% of the market) that matters, it is the overall wholesale price which matters."<br /><br />You seem to equate the domestic market with the retail market. The retail market is what ALL consumers of electricity pays, from the largest corporations to you and me. The wholesale market only applies to the energy retailers. You seem to be missing that crucial difference. The domestic electricity might be 20% of the retail market as you say, but the other 80% of the retail market is small and big business. BUT THEY ALL BUY FROM THE RETAIL MARKET. Why is that so hard to understand? That is why your argument is moot. There was no projected 3x rise in the electricity retail market. It was a misrepresentation by you. Another one in a long line of misrepresentations.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42946711458793414992014-02-16T12:17:27.650+11:002014-02-16T12:17:27.650+11:00It is changes to the retail price that is importan...<i>It is changes to the retail price that is important, the price that every Australian has to pay. </i><br /><br />Actually that assumption is completely wrong, and the reason why you arrive at an invalid conclusion. Retail prices for domestic users impacts on your home's quarterly bill, and it is skewed (typically to accommodate the poor). However the cost burden is then transferred to industry and commerce or to taxpayers via subsidies, and that returns to consumers in the increased price of goods and services, and higher taxes. And that impacts on jobs, health, education and prosperity.<br /><br />In other words <b>it is not the price of domestic electricity (which is only about 20% of the market) that matters, it is the overall wholesale price which matters.</b><br /><br />So whilst it may appear that your quarterly energy bill is all the matters, the reality is more complex. You can't triple the cost of energy production and then have that cost magically disappear - I hope that is not what you are arguing.<br /><br />I have quoted verbatim from the report to quantify that <b>the cost renewable energy is expensive</b>. I am not lying, you are simply failing to understand because you do not understand the subject (Dunning Kruger effect?). And it is not "gish gallop" to succinctly explain to you when you are making base error of assumption.<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14374932388352431742014-02-16T11:53:53.963+11:002014-02-16T11:53:53.963+11:00Greig, you need to read this, as you are having di...Greig, you need to read this, as you are having difficulty understanding the Australian electricity market.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electricity_Market<br /><br />You wrote "Lots of wishful thinking and rationalising to reach a preconceived conclusion including conspiracy theories and mischaracterising the opposing view", and that is exactly what YOU have done, and continue to do in spades. <br /><br />The general population of Australia purchases their electricity from the dozen or so electricity retailers, not directly from the highly variable wholesale spot market. Whatever prices changes occurs at that level is moot, be it demand related or because of a change in the technology mix It is changes to the retail price that is important, the price that every Australian has to pay. The report that you quoted projected the retail price would rise by a maximum of 8.5c/kWh, which is a fraction of the 29c/kWh that we a paying now. The report actually showed that a move to renewables would NOT be expensive, a direct contradiction to your characterisation of the report.<br /><br />I am not advocating any particular energy source, but when I see misrepresentation because of ideology, I simply will not let that stand. If you are going to cite a report in support of your argument, do not misrepresent it. And when your misrepresentation is highlighted, the civil thing to do is man up, admit you were wrong, and continue with the debate. You on the other hand, will get into a tizzy, and start on a tirade of gish gallop and even further misrepresentation. You do it EVERY time. You now have a soiled reputation that is beyond help, and I really see little point in you posting here. You are a proven liar.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13031623962607929352014-02-16T07:36:00.232+11:002014-02-16T07:36:00.232+11:00Which is why I use the 30% estimate for renewables...Which is why I use the 30% estimate for renewables in 2050, not a higher figure:<br /><br /><i>More than half of the scenarios show a contribution from RE in excess of a 17% share of primary energy supply in 2030 rising to more than 27% in 2050.</i><br /><br />I am trying to be conservative and avoid any misrepresentation. Equally, the 30% estimate is not exact - just a guide to what might realistically be achieved with substantial efforts. The take-away is always the same: decarbonisation of the global electricity supply is of necessity a holistic process as no one technology can do it alone. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42174191806969930982014-02-16T07:31:22.788+11:002014-02-16T07:31:22.788+11:00Perhaps you should go back and read the comment in...Perhaps you should go back and read the comment in question again, Greig. Pointing out error is not the same as a substance-free attempt at delegitimisation. It's the difference between commenting in good faith and its opposite. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17259719772083345462014-02-16T07:06:26.408+11:002014-02-16T07:06:26.408+11:00but empty attempt to delegitimise another commente...<i> but empty attempt to delegitimise another commenter.</i><br /><br />Funny. Most of the post were your words, attempting to "delegitimise another commenter". :-)Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89205517570273598162014-02-16T07:01:11.951+11:002014-02-16T07:01:11.951+11:00Further BBD, I am not pushing renewables off the t...Further BBD, I am not pushing renewables off the table. I am pointing out (with references) the limitations. If you don't do that, then you will get too much "we need 100% renewables now!" which isn't practical.<br /><br />The IPCC report is <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/09/ipcc-renewables-critique/" rel="nofollow"> discussed here. </a> The obvious flaw is the over-reliance on biomass potential, and near zero discussion about the environmental and economic drawbacks of large-scale moves to bioenergy.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75340690785582767472014-02-16T06:54:17.577+11:002014-02-16T06:54:17.577+11:00Shub's post: crude but empty attempt to delegi...Shub's post: crude but empty attempt to delegitimise another commenter. Still, when you have absolutely nothing else, I suppose you must make do. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9059415933658404172014-02-16T06:48:48.359+11:002014-02-16T06:48:48.359+11:00Victor, I don't know much about 4th generation...Victor, I don't know much about 4th generation nuclear power, but James Hansen is big on it and seems to think it would work without many of the problems of today's reactors. He also seems to think there was some kind of conspiracy (maybe too strong of a word) that got research in it killed, sometime back around the Clinton administration. He spoke about this at some length at his talk at the recent AGU conference. I can't find video of that talk, but here is a 10-minute interview where he makes similar points:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7650039397737998262014-02-16T06:43:13.303+11:002014-02-16T06:43:13.303+11:00Greig
IPCC SRREN:
The global primary energy supp...Greig<br /><br /><a href="http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_SPM.pdf" rel="nofollow">IPCC SRREN:</a><br /><br /><i>The global primary energy supply share of RE differs substantially among the scenarios. More than half of the scenarios show a contribution from RE in excess of a 17% share of primary energy supply in 2030 rising to more than 27% in 2050. The scenarios with the highest RE shares reach approximately 43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050. [10.2, 10.3]</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,3906,en.html" rel="nofollow">IEA Technology Roadmaps: Nuclear</a><br /><br /><i>This nuclear energy roadmap has been prepared jointly by the IEA and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). It finds that one quarter (24%) of global electricity could be generated from nuclear power by 2050, assuming no major technological breakthroughs. This would make nuclear the single largest source of electricity in 2050, with a correspondingly significant contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.</i><br /><br />There's plenty more. Get off your arse and find it.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61441856240706734152014-02-16T06:17:41.454+11:002014-02-16T06:17:41.454+11:00BBD, writes
All credible analyses show something...BBD, writes<br /><br /><i> All credible analyses show something like 30% nuclear and 30% renewables by 2050 if we go FLAT OUT starting now. </i><br /><br />BBD, stop wasting time and reference your credible analysis of global energy technology mix, attaching to a suitable study. Otherwise you are just making assertions and expressing opinions that match with your predilections. Which is what your so-called denialists do, right?<br /><br />Victor, non-hydro renewables are currently <a href="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com.au/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/world-electricity-mix/" rel="nofollow">2% of global electricity generation</a>. Getting to 30% by 2050 is very unlikely, and quoting EU political ambitions is not reality and not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Wind_Energy_Council" rel="nofollow">an accurate view of global growth prospects</a>. Nuclear is already at 17% of the global mix. The <a href="http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates-nuclear-company-explores-molten-salt-reactors-thorium/" rel="nofollow">new nuclear reactor designs </a>are not "backward", you are obviously looking at old plants like Chernobyl, TMI and Fukushima which is 1950s tech.<br /><br />Dave, I'll try to keep it simple. Retail prices to specific consumers (which is what you are apparently referencing) are often deliberately skewed, and do not reflect the overall costs. Base wholesale price is directly linked to the costs, the most accurate indicator of <b>overall impact of the high cost of renewables on the community</b>. Read the references, they prove that you are wrong.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31970371694443773942014-02-16T06:01:27.424+11:002014-02-16T06:01:27.424+11:00Example of BBD post:
tedious diversionary waffle ...Example of BBD post:<br /><br />tedious diversionary waffle ...problem is denial ... policy response ... requires ... decarbonisation of the electricity supply ... nuclear (monolithic and modular micro nukes) AND renewables ... wholistic process ... Deniers ... push renewables ... stupidly misguided ... anti-nuclear ideologues ... credible analyses ... ideological grounds ... dangerous lunatic ... wittering ... rational adult ... fuckwitteryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15292831943246988722014-02-16T05:25:37.707+11:002014-02-16T05:25:37.707+11:00Victor
BBD, the EU target for 2030 is 27% renewab...Victor<br /><br /><i>BBD, the EU target for 2030 is 27% renewables. In my estimate that is not a particularly ambitious target. </i><br /><br />There are several things we need to bear in mind here. First, I was talking about the <i>global</i> technology mix for electricity generation in 2050, not the European region. Second, projected global electricity demand is expected to rise considerably by 2050. Third, if you are correct and renewables do manage to take a larger share of the global technology mix then we will be closer to 100% global electricity generation without fossil fuels. But I know of <i>no credible research</i> that projects 100% world electricity supply from renewables by 2050. <br /><br />Nobody really wants nuclear, but nobody wants emissions either. Decarbonisation of the electricity supply by the fastest means is paramount, and that requires a holistic approach. We cannot afford to push nuclear off the table.<br /><br /><i>If you would like to increase that by an order of magnitude, one nuclear plant will explode every year. </i><br /><br />You have used false equivalence to argue that modern Gen III+ reactors are as likely to suffer catastrophic failures as dangerous and obsolete reactors (Chernobyl; Fukushima). This is a logical fallacy.<br /><br /><i>I would already be happy if the current nuclear power plants were protected against aircrafts flying into them.</i><br /><br />They are. There's reams written about it, but <a href="http://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-Releases/Analysis-of-Nuclear-Power-Plants-Shows-Aircraft-Cr" rel="nofollow">this will do</a> as a start point.<br /><br />Micro nukes are extremely robust. As with large-scale reactors, the containment vessel would have to be breached, and that is going to provide terrorists with a technical challenge. Especially as the reactors can be buried underground to prevent lunatics damaging them. But of course there is risk. Climate change is risk. Intelligent design and deployment is essential. I think we can do this and I believe circumstances provide us with no real choice anyway. <br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12914967845490961292014-02-16T04:17:35.660+11:002014-02-16T04:17:35.660+11:00BBD, the EU target for 2030 is 27% renewables. In ...BBD, the EU target for 2030 is 27% renewables. In my estimate that is not a particularly ambitious target. And it should be possible to get the remaining 3% in until 2050. :)<br /><br />Getting nuclear to a 30% level would be quite ambitious. No one is willing to invest in such a backward technology. Already now one nuclear power plant explodes per decade. And it only provides a few percent of the electricity. If you would like to increase that by an order of magnitude, one nuclear plant will explode every year. <br /><br />How do you want to protect your modular micro nukes against terrorists? I would already be happy if the current nuclear power plants were protected against aircrafts flying into them.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7997806835659466362014-02-15T23:14:24.471+11:002014-02-15T23:14:24.471+11:00@Greig
I can't believe that you are still quo...@Greig<br /><br />I can't believe that you are still quoting the wholesale price, and then accusing me of obfuscation. Oh, the irony.<br /><br />It is you who cannot accept reality. The rise in the RETAIL price was at most only 8.5c/kWh, a fraction of the about 29c/kWh that we pay now. <br /><br />Obviously it is you who cannot read, as you don't know the difference between wholesale and retail, kWh and MWh, and that it's the retail price that business and consumers pay.<br /><br />You have been caught with your pants down, AGAIN, and you will now try and squirm yourself out of this gargantuan and colossal mistake with never ending gish gallop and pedantic sematics. Just give up before you lose all sense of credibility.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45955966190744413782014-02-15T23:06:27.082+11:002014-02-15T23:06:27.082+11:00More tedious diversionary waffle. The problem is e...More tedious diversionary waffle. The problem is emissions. Your problem is denial. The policy response requires decarbonisation of the electricity supply (to start with) and that will require a large-scale build out of nuclear (monolithic and modular micro nukes) AND renewables. Engineering a low-carbon infrastructure is a wholistic process, not a selective one. Deniers who try to push renewables (or policy response in general) off the table are as stupidly misguided as anti-nuclear ideologues who think we can do this with renewables alone. All credible analyses show something like 30% nuclear and 30% renewables by 2050 if we go FLAT OUT starting now. The rest is still fossil fuels. Anyone trying to ditch a 30% reduction in FF dependence by mid-century on ideological grounds is a dangerous lunatic and needs to stop wittering and start thinking like a rational adult. We do not have the time or the leisure for this sort of fuckwittery any more. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14516181307653987492014-02-15T22:59:59.125+11:002014-02-15T22:59:59.125+11:00Yup. Lost count of the number of times I've ha...Yup. Lost count of the number of times I've had to say this. That is why I now put scare quotes around "observational" data. That and the large uncertainties over early instrumental records for surface temp and the huge effect that transient variability in ocean mixing has on upper ocean OHC. And anyway, you can't estimate ECS reliably from a short sample of "observational" data because we don't know how non-linear feedbacks will impact equilibrium. Although the oddly warm periods during the mid-Pliocene provide a troubling hint. So I'm happy to apply scientific objectivity to Lewis13 and discount the result. Ditto for Otto et al. and all the other lowball estimates of TCR and ECS based on "observational" guesswork. Subjectively I hope the recent fad for uninformative estimates of S based on "observational" data has run its course. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27454100177370417132014-02-15T22:19:48.856+11:002014-02-15T22:19:48.856+11:00Dave,
Quoting form section 5.8 of the AEMO repor...Dave, <br /><br />Quoting form section 5.8 of the AEMO report:<br /><br /><i>Using the hypothetical capital costs presented above and making allowances for O&M, fuel and financing costs, AEMO estimated the hypothetical annualised costs for generation and storage required for each case, including network connection costs. Again, while these estimates are consistent with the study scope, they do not represent what costs might be in practice.<br /><br />To cover the hypothetical capital and operating cost of generation and storage plant and connections only, wholesale electricity prices in the range of $111/MWh (in Scenario 1 2030) to $133/MWh (in Scenario 2 2050) would be required. These costs are in 2012 dollars. For comparison, <b>this component is over double the average 2012 wholesale electricity spot price of around $55/MWh</b>. Currently many renewable generators receive financial support from outside the electricity market through schemes such as LRET, SRES and feed-in-tariffs. The costs of these schemes have not been estimated and are not included in this comparison.<br /><br />Additional investment required in new shared network transmission infrastructure would add another $6 to $10/MWh to the above estimates.<br /><br /><b>The wholesale electricity price increase and the additional transmission prices would be passed on to consumers via retail prices.</b> The relative impact of these price rises would depend on other retail price components, such as distribution prices, and would be greater for industrial and commercial customers for whom wholesale prices represent a greater proportion of the total retail cost.<br /><br />The projected wholesale prices include the impact of wholesale energy prices and transmission costs but do not include other possible factors such as distribution costs, land acquisition, stranded assets or any other government policy schemes. If these costs were included, retail prices would be likely to be higher. </i><br /><br />Obviously you can't read Dave, or you you deliberately obfuscating because this report is saying something you don't want to accept. You are acting like one of those so-called deniers.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.com