Jerry_Atrick

This is why I don't do politics or science by meme, or in this case a simple graph, because we are find a set of numbers that suits our agenda and just publish it. Is the above the cost of generation, the wholesale price, or the retail price. Because, the latter two have factors that can distort the market. For example, Denmark's wholesale price is connected to the European markets believe it or not, so if an expensive dirty coal plant happens to produce and sell energy at the same time or within a price setting period, the wholesale price is largely set to be based on that price... which is far more expensive than wind or solar. That is wholesale price distortion. Of course, other European markets are subject to this as well, but since the grid is segmented, not all are setting the same wholesale price. Then the distortions at the retail price are local market conditions, taxes (of which Denmark has a lot - even VAT (GST) on electricity! Wowsers. Not even the UK levies VAT on electricity. So the retail price may not be at all reflective of the generation price. I prefer the Levilised Cost of Electricity comparison, which seeks to take out some of the more artificial price setting. According to Google AI, Denmark wins on wind, but loses on Gas and Solar: Note, the cheapness of fracked shale gas does not include the cost of cleaning up. Also, if Denmark decided to stay gas (or presumably coal, etc), from the above, they would be paying roughly double or more to produce electricity. I would suggest that the numbers show that wind and solar is much cheaper - for them. Not so much for the USA, again except this does not cover the true clean up costs. Which sort of shows the point of renewables - the optimum mix will be determined by local conditions. And, yeah, in some cases, even fossil fuel generation will make sense.. So, lets do a like for like comparison. South Australia, according to Google has around 84% of its electricity generated from wind (44% of total electricity generated) versus solar (33%). According to your chart, Denmark has a touch under 70%. That would suggest for South Australia, solar and onshore are very cost effective producers of electricity and offshore not so much (at least not yet). Also, because of SA's rapid deployment of storage, they seem to be already reaping some economies of scale benefits because of a rapid roll out, but as there is only commentary, it is hard to tell. In addition, in SA, gas is more than double solar and coal is almost triple the cost of solar, and around double of offshore wind. It does though, beat offshore wind, so unless we can address the issues that cause that, offshore wind (which probably has more constant wind). But interesting, SA is more wind and solar as a percentage of its generation, yet on a levelised basis, SA is cheaper. And as someone who has worked in the generation business, I am sure you're aware of the importance of this measure over retail or wholesale prices as a true indication of the comparative cost of generation. Thee price that is paid at the "pump" is only in a small way related to the cost of generation.. that, in @pmccarthy's vernacular, is the politics end of the argument. The cost of generation is the data end, and renewables are already at a big advantage there. Take politics out of it, and there really is no compelling reason to do so., The sun doesn't always shine - no.. Only at night or seriously overcast days is it that bad, but when it is shining brightly, we can store the excess and save it for when it isn't shining brightly. Even today, they are developing nocturnal solar panels which can harvest the infrared rays during radiating cooling of the earth to generate electricity (https://www.moeveglobal.com/en/planet-energy/sustainable-innovation/nocturnal-solar-panels-energy-without-sunlight). And there is a new technology that it looking at capturing vibrations from the wind and earth instead of using blades to generate electricity - fewer parts, cheaper and less landfill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibration-powered_generator This is the point. Fossil fuel burning is destroying the planet (in conjunction with a lot of other stuff we do). And now, it is no longer cheap to do it; and it will get more expensive. So we have to seek out alternatives. To not do it is kicking the can down the road and just making it more expensive to fix. It can be done; the tech is already here and it is improving very quickly. It is the politics that is the issue. In the mean time, if you want to take a meme-led approach, go for it. As for wind and solar not yet powering most of a country - well - no.. but it does most of a state that is the physical (admittedly not population) size bigger than many countries. But it's a ridiculous assertion because a place should use the most appropriate renewable/s, not an arbitrary renewable, anyway.

Last week, a packet of Tim Tams were £1.85 in Tesco (on sale from £2.50). Needless to say, to support Australian manufacturing, if not ownership, I bought a few packets 😉

My point was it is immaterial if it were nuclear or fossil; France's generation planning has been better than the UK and Germany's.. The fact that France exports energy is not in itself an advertisement for nuclear. I get it is a predictable load "comapred to renewables", or intermittents as you call them. Yes, their source is intermittent, but, again, you ignore that the actual generation bit is only part of the puzzle of supply.. there is this thing called storage you are leaving out of the equation. Solar and wind are not the only net zero generation technologies. If we are talking non nuclear, zero emissions, there are a few already around the world. But you don't need me to tell you.. But here are a few: Iceland, Paraguay, Albania, Ethiopia. Greater than 90% includes Netherlands, Cost Rica, Congo, and a few others. Google can help list them all. The UK today, from offshore wind farms alone; so that does not include onshore wind farms, and solar farms, with the right investment, can power its country for free (well, amortisation, maintenance, and depreciation costs alone). That includes industrial use. Yes, the up front cost and initial amortisation and depreciation costs are high, but in the mid - longer term, the costs reduce dramatically.. the costs only increase in fossil and nuclear fuel... and with nuclear, you still have to factor the real cost of decommissioning and handling waste... And mining uranium, transporting it, etc.. And you still have the depreciation, amortisation, and maintenance costs.. and the latter ain't cheap. It takes investment - as does nuclear and indeed new fossil plants; it takes time to build and deploy... Your argument is today we don't have the capacity for renewables.. That is correct. There is no arguing that. That does not mean we stop. We still have horses running around and wood to make carriages from; but cars became a more efficient technology. They weren't for a long time.. but investment continued as people could see they would become more efficient. Renewables are now coming up the same maturity curve. As I say, follow the money.. most banks are not interested in lending to new fossil developments because they look at the two elements that can cost them money - credit risk and market risk. And the models are telling them to stay well away from old technology.

Like everything, you have to do your homework to make sure it works. Sadly, Aussie consumer law, or its approach to it, is not quite as robust as the UK or the USA, where they tend to make illegal bumping up prices to compensate. In fact, in the UK, sadly in my case with the exception of heating oil, pricing for retail energy is regulated and if retailers don't pass on the savings through subsidy schemes, then they get big time fines. That is a political, not science thing. The fact is still, without the abundant cheap generation of electricity, which fossils can't match, you wouldn't have an option. And from the article, it seems like the roll out of smart meters is coming anyway.

I have just been catching up on here. There is still some disbelief in the science.. And there is the argument for nuclear, which hasn't really changed for a while. @pmccarthy - from October, I believe you will, like it or not, be the beneficiary of the economics of renewables. As I understand, all of Victoria will be able to receive free electricity between the hours of 11am - 2pm every day if they have a smart meter or opt in through their energy retailer. Of course, you don't have to, but it is there.. because of solar - a renewable. Not because of fossil fuels, etc. For working couples/families/households, this is not going to give much - the fridge I guess plus any alarms and compute they may have on.. But, if one has an electric car and takes the train or other means to work, set it to charge in this time.. better still with a fast charger.. Suddenly you are now getting a chink of your vehicle fuel for free, too. Can't do that with fossils... You can thank renewables for that.. @Siso - I get that France, with a well developed pwoer generation network exports a lot of electricity especially to the UK and Germany. This is not because of nuclear. They would be doing this if they had all fossil plants, too. This is because the governments of the UK and Germany (Merkel, in this case) are crap at energy planning. Pre Fukishima, Germany was producing enough of its own power without needing top ups from France.. one of two blunders of Merkel's reign, and in this case, as she is a physicist by training is harder to fathom, she knee-jerked the closure of the county's nuclear generation plants without allowing a transition to other generation. Germany is playing catch up. There was talk of recommissioning one of the plants, but the decom process had progressed sufficiently to make it uneconomic. I am not completely across of Germany's capacity increasing plans, but the irony of this is that they are importing electricity generated by the same means that they shut it down, and some of it on their own front door. I honestly believe Merkel was losing her marbles towards the end of her reign. At first, I agreed with the development of new nuclear in the UK - we already have a nuclear industry - of which I was part of and still have the occasional dip of my toes in it; and renewables in the form of efficient electricity generation is not really viable, right? Well, as it turns out, that is... wrong. A couple of days ago, I was in a discussion at work, where, amongst other things, we provide project finance for electricity generation.. and one of the originators said the UK today has the generation capacity to power the country from its offshore wind farms alone. I scoffed at it (I don;t know why; part of an originators' job is to know the industry they are trying to sell finance to inside out). I did my research and yes - offshore wind farms alone have enough capacity to power the country, at least mathematically, but would need investment in infrastructure (storage, cabling, and grid connectivity). Accoirding to Gemini AI, this would be about 30% more than the cost of nuclear - but nuclear already has infra in place... However, a full lifecycle cost of nuclear v renewables, by Gemini has renewables has renewables between a little over 1/3 and 2/3 of the cost of nuclear. Of course, there has to be a transition; you can't day 1 replace on a like for like basis, so the cost comparison has to be refined. But suddenly, nuclear as a long term strategy is not looking as compelling as it did.

I think there is.. The science is more or less settled and contrary opinion, which is healthy, doesn't really hold water. Even the economics points wildly in favour of renewables. Yes, there is an initial cost, as there was with setting up fossil fuel generation. But if you stop investing, you eventually stop growing and wither and die in the competition of emerging forces. Even China can see this. What is stopping progress is... politics.. or vested interests with money and ideology.. not the science. Therefore, it is the bit that does need comment.

On another random thought track, walking along a deserted train platform as the train company reduced their services and the trains in service are buckling under this heatwave, I wondered if the doomsday preppers inadvertently got it right for the wrong reasons. The earth is getting drier and food will become more scarce. Having a decent sized bunker underground with enough food to last one or two generations and enough weapons to defend it from all but bunker buster bombs may result in them surviving heree others fall, and fornicating a brave new world..

Actually he does have form.. Not only as a councillor in Manchester, but also as a an ex parliamentarian and secretary of state (cabinet minister): https://members.parliament.uk/member/1427/career I honbestly wish my house was completed and sold.. He is likely to suff things up more than most.

Longest for me... And this week is expected to shatter warmest day in June records in the UK. Apparently in Seville in Spain, it hit 48 yesterday or the day before

I don't support the one nor the twenty. The evidence should be gathered, heard and tested in the appropriate court, with any appeals to the higher court, after which I would accept judgement. I am generally against the court of public opinion in these types of matters

Er.. ahhh.. ahem... yes... yes... i suppose it was

Hookers will have to find new clients 😉 In the same vain, Chump has probably cost the US arms manufacturers and other military suppliers many more billions. Most of the big spending ex property leases will be on US companies.. Even construction of their bases, etc, will likely be US suppliers vetted by the military (I am guessing). I know someone who worked at RAF Lakenheath, and and I think it was RAAF Tindal (can't remember). He worked for an American company, ironically at the time, supplying the ADF and MoD, and not the USDF. At Lakenheath, there is a permanent USAF facility separated and at I think it was Tindal, there was a temporary command centre set up of the USAF. On both occasions, as a friendly American he went to introduce himself to the yanks at each base (probably trying to sell them something) and he was met with a very terse response equivalent to eff off. When he spoke to the UK/Aus personnel, on both occasions he was told they operate entirely separately and barely a word is spoken between them; a lot lived on the base and they had US supplies of their favourite home treats shipped in. Certainly, his antics will have his allies relying less on US manufacturers and after sales provisions as a result. For example, Spain and Portugal have cancelled or stop going ahead with procurement of the F35s, Europe is looking at shifting much of their military supply from US to their own suppliers; the UK is accelerating its Tempest fighter development; I don't think anyone in Europe is even looking at US drone manufacturers at the moment. If Chump unilaterally withdraws troops because of his childish antics, you can bet the long term damage to the US will be much more than a few landlords, supermarkets, and hookers. Yeah, there would be stuff that won't make sense to buy anything other than locally - normal food, civvie clothes, etc. And yeah, the sudden withdrawal of a large number of troops from the country will make a dent, but they rarely have a vast number at a single location, so the loss is probably minimal in the grand scheme of things, except where business are set up solely or mainly to service a local posting.

I don't think any of the western world mistook Chump for anything other than what he is, except in one way. They though that pandering to him would soften the economic blows he is capable of inflicting and attract favourable treatment. I have always maintained that is not the way to deal with transactional narcissistic bullies; and that they have to be stared down right from the get go. As I have mentioned on this forum, the pandering Starmer - a technocrat who was an unedifying capability of political self-alienation - was sickening to watch; at home though, many were initially claiming he played Chump skilfully, but quickly ate humble pie. The "allies" that did the best - Trudeau/Carney (the latter an ex head of the Bank of England), Albo, and the like - none of whom caved - seemed to get the better outcomes relative to their situations. For the rest, the horse has well and truly bolted; the only thing they can do is what Meloni has done - stare down Chump and correct him. However, I have to be honest, European (inc. British) leaders are generally spineless these days; and beholden to what they think may cost them an election, which, from my very small conversations with Europeans (mainly Germans), does not correlate to what at least some people think will cost them an election. Any move to push back will now be seen as fodder to carry out threats and treated as if the Europeans are withdrawing their hand of friendship. The new and improved "Art of the Deal".