Sorry Hind, can only describe your reply misinformed at best, so I am writing a bit of novel.
The reason AGL will be exiting the coal fired industry is that by 2050 the places will be derelict wrecks that whoever owns them will walk away from, leaving somebody else to foot the bill. The cost of building new ones is prohibitive and , despite your views, will NOT attract any investment in the foreseeable future.
The cost of energy, well ,10 years ago at Hazelwood Power Station the cost of energy sold to the pool (what all bidders of large generating plants, including renewable must sell to) was regularly 40 to 50 dollars per MW.hour. Its now (in December last year when I was last there) consistently below 40 and often less than 30. So where has the price rise come from? Its not the cost of energy it is the cost of maintaining an outdated electrical distribution system. Note your electricity bill, you probably pay around $300 per MW.hr (30 cents per Kw.hr) so 90% of the cost is in the distribution, not then raw cost of energy. likewise the cost of gas, how is the RET or renewables pushing its cost up?
As for renewables getting subsidised , so does the coal power generating by way of the sale of public assets many years ago. When the government built those stations they borrowed from the public purse and created the infrastructure required. Take Loy Yang for example, the water supply is via Blue Rock Lake, a substantial dam and if this water was not used by the Loy Yang complex for cooling, it could have replaced the desal plant. Who owns this dam, southern rural water (the government) and the Loy Yang owners pay for water and maintenance, they did not contribute the fair capital value. The same goes for the 80 km ocean outfall, owned once again by the government (Gippsland Water). These power stations could not have been built by private companies and the sale (some say fire sale)was to reduce government debt largely caused by the cost of the infrastructure required. So the argument that renewable subsidies and the RET are the cause of the energy ills is simply untrue, all energy is subsidised.
You should acknowledge that I have previously posted that a new state of the art coal fired power station is to the best (as in better that the 1960,s Hazelwood) base load option, because it can use that existing infrastructure, but at the current low energy price (the opposite of what you have stated) it is simply not worthwhile building one.
The big problem I have with renewable is still cost effective and efficient storage, so some form of base load is needed. and yes I would support a nuclear option in Australia, even in the Latrobe Valley.
Now that it can be seen that most of the cost is in the distribution network, effective small scale , renewables energy systems, privately owned, can and have reduced the cost of the networks and the actual cost of energy to the consumer. not just those with the systems. The installation of solar panels has reduced the peak summer demand considerably, previously the pool price mentioned above increased in cost (several hundreds dollars per MW,hr) This meant the retailers actually lost money during any hot period. Of course they recouped this during the low cost periods.
As for the RET, don't forget that we are talking employment as a large part of the costs, something with the mining boom over Australia can do with. The low energy price is largely due to excess capacity of the generation side and has, on the employment front, a big negative because companies that don't make money don't employ people so not only is the renewable energy companies shedding jobs so are our fossil fuel friends. At least the RET was a way of creating alternative employment, and had the potential for some real improvements in this field (could have been Solar Systems ???). Those people are probably in dole line now, costing money with no productivity at all, but they will those that don't want to work according to the current government.
On the greenhouse issue, I look at it this way. I have a 15 year old 4 cylinder car, it is our second car, but runs well and is well maintained. The insurance I pay year seems excessive for this car because I don't want to take the risk of wiping at somebody in a top end luxury car, as it if would send me into poverty, and would be actually irresponsible. So I am willing to spend what seems a wasteful amount on insurance. Climate change, if there is the smallest chance that it real and man made I think we should invest in preventative measure, the cost if it is real will send the world into poverty. Think of refuges crises when low lying lands become flooded. If its not real, its like my car insurance, I pay it even though after 25 years of driving with no accidents because I just dont know what happens tomorrow. I really don't want to find out that we are in an irreversible climate change phase and we caused it, just like I don't want to hit that luxury car without insurance.
Anyway the last bit of my rant is about Silex, and unfortunately , a friendly dig at you moosey. I notice you support the dopers, whoops, sorry bombers. I think you support of Silex is like your support of the team. With the exception of the uranium enrichment, I no not believe anything coming from management (actually they don't say anything!!!) I think the "we have potential partners" is sounding a lot like "we don't know what drugs were used"! Hope I am wrong but despite your extensive research I am not convinced it is silex technologies in play.
Expand
(20min delay)