30% generated by renewable energy sources, page-49

Finally had a chance to read the Grumpy Denier post.

It raises a few questions for mine .

Considering the author attempts a representative comparison , I'm a bit surprised how simplistic a comparison it is . Because of it's simplicity , I have to question how accurate it can be .

I have previously posted about the lack of costing for pollution production . Surely if you could achieve zero emission ongoing electricity production compared to coal fired emission , that difference should be costed and added to the model therefore altering the numbers ?

I couldn't find the reference material about the Chinese power station costs so I have no way of being able to assess if the comparison is accurate . What I do know however is that China is leading the world in renewable energy installations . Even though they are building new coal stations , they are also replacing old ones with gas fired versions.

http://theenergycollective.com/michael-davidson/279091/transforming-china-s-grid-sustaining-renewable-energy-push

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/singapore/chinas-beijing-city-to-abolish-coal-fired-power-27490804

With regard to the German Neurath power station , what the author fails to mention is that the two new units are an addition to the existing power station . I would suggest that if the station was a new build then the costs would be higher . How much ? Who knows ? For sure to establish a new mine etc would add significant cost .

The comparison mentions the King Island development . While we can get some pricing in this example , the economies of scale can be skewed because of it's size. I might also mention that King Island burns 4.5 million litres of diesel per year . Don't know how much that costs but I imagine it's pretty pricey . No coal fired plant there . So I wonder how those numbers stack up ?

http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/project-information/overview

The capital costs . We know up front that coal is cheaper than renewables . But what about the ongoing costs ?

We know that a cfps outage is very expensive and takes a significant portion of capacity from the grid. Wind turbines have been criticized because of the number of individual machines . Looking at it another way , wouldn't that mean that the maintenance is split up so that the vast majority of the machines are available all the time ?

For those who have not read it , have a look at the Beyond Zero Emissions website . Talking of comparisons , here is an energy plan for Australia fully costed by people qualified in the respective disciplines . It's well worth a read for those who are interested in the discussion .