Originally posted by the squash
Red I think you will find the latest modelling on solar and wind is that its generating at lower cost than fully written down coal assets already, and that renewables with 4hrs of storage are already cheaper than coal or gas in providing dispatchable power. As storage comes down the cost curve, this will go to 8rs, 16hrs, and of course 24hrs soon enough.
Large scale renewables are taking 5c/kWh offtake "all in" - it doesn't need a green power premium anymore to compete with coal. The pollies can't admit it - from the left they can't admit it because ideology says government needs to subsidise renewables, and from the right they can't admit it because they see 1950's Australia as perfection. And not enough occupy a sensible middle ground.
The reason why SA gets screwed on power prices is because gentailers play a constrained system. Look at what is happening with Whyalla - renewables and storage are making it possible to run heavy industry. This is the future.
You simply cannot build new gas, coal or nuclear, and deliver power at a price that competes with renewables and storage today. This is why AGL wants to replace Liddell with renewables and storage.
Bear in mind that baseload demand was actually created to match base load power - the inability of coal to ramp up or down quickly in response to demand fluctuations was a massive problem historically, hence creating cheap off peak power to reward 24/hr demand to solve that problem...the need for baseload power, is in fact the other side of the same coin which says, we need flexible demand.
As for other points about Australia's contribution to climate change - the real picture is far more nuanced. the 1.3% argument ignores our historical contribution of land clearing and pastoralisation, riding the sheeps back to development. In my neck of the woods the creeks used to be flush with fish and platypus, and now they are just full of mud and mosquitos. Assessing a nation's contribution to a global problem 500+yrs in the making, simply can't be done by looking a year to two ahead, or behind.
But then even if you do take that short term view, there is also an argument that we should consider the emissions embedded in the products and services we buy - on that front, Australia has benefitted enormously from outsourcing its pollution to the developing world - a per capita emissions by consumption profile has Australian's way out ahead of the pack. To share carbon pollution equitably, globally, we all have about 1t per annum, per person. Step in a plane to Bali and poooof! you will probably blow your carbon budget for the year.
It is factually correct to say by reducing Australia's emissions to zero, we don't affect climate. But its factually correct to say that about any country in the world because - maybe USA or China would budget the climate needle, but not much, it is the sum total that matters and every country has to get on board, or every country loses. A prisoners dilemma extreme.
No, China are not sacrificing their competitive advantage for this - they have realised competitive advantage is building cheap renewables and storage, and so they are going hell for leather.
Geez we agree on a lot about ARL, but on the stuff above I have us in polar opposite camps right now
the other thing about subsidies and energy?
mate there is absolutely no way we could have built coal fired generators, with transmission and distribution lines spanning the country, without an enormous political, social and economic subsidy. The idea that the free market should prevail always ignores 100+yrs of historical advantage. There never has been, never will be, free markets when it comes to big infrastructure in particular.
Surgeons know that getting off coal is about more than the environment and will be glad we've subsidised the transition to renewables - I lived in Newcastle for a while but breathing coal dust on the ride home and seeing children covered head to tow in coal dust after trying to climb a fence turns you off the beaches and climate pretty quick.
