Power and gas is to expensive.

[Pete79]

In the interest of balancing fake news with some opposing fake news....

http://abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/living-off-solar-and-lithium-batteries-big-success-wa-farmers/8954740?pfmredir=sm

Those damn unreliable renewables and their lack of power outages....

[suby]

In the interest of balancing fake news with some opposing fake news....

http://abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/living-off-solar-and-lithium-batteries-big-success-wa-farmers/8954740?pfmredir=sm

Those damn unreliable renewables and their lack of power outages....

To add to that, the smart money knows how to fix the high cost of power, and the steel industry's ever increasing costs. I wish our federal government would get a clue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/sanjeev-gupta-buys-controlling-stake-in-renewables-firm/8964448

[tryagain]

In the interest of balancing fake news with some opposing fake news....

http://abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/living-off-solar-and-lithium-batteries-big-success-wa-farmers/8954740?pfmredir=sm

Those damn unreliable renewables and their lack of power outages....

The transmission costs to the extremities of the grid are what makes it a viable solution in this case, not so much the case for the grid at large, technology might change that in the future but as it stands, its not an accurate microcosm of the bigger picture.

To add to that, the smart money knows how to fix the high cost of power, and the steel industry's ever increasing costs. I wish our federal government would get a clue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-20/sanjeev-gupta-buys-controlling-stake-in-renewables-firm/8964448

Again not a great comparison to the grid at large, Their predominate usage would be when the sun is shining which is different to the wider grid, they can put it straight to use which is substantially cheaper than having to store it to use later.

[Pete79]

The transmission costs to the extremities of the grid are what makes it a viable solution in this case, not so much the case for the grid at large, technology might change that in the future but as it stands, its not an accurate microcosm of the bigger picture.

Again not a great comparison to the grid at large, Their predominate usage would be when the sun is shining which is different to the wider grid, they can put it straight to use which is substantially cheaper than having to store it to use later.

Absolutely agree there.

I guess the point is apart from what Liescorp and the COALition keep saying, there are viable alternatives for lots of situations.

If a steel manufacturer can generate their own power that's a massive demand off an old and unreliable network.
If all of these new instant suburbs that pop up nearly every other week on the fringes of our major cities had their own locally generated supply and storage, that would be another huge demand removed from an old and unreliable network.

Keep going along that thought process and soon enough it's only the city centers that need bulk generation.

Obviously old dirty technology will have a place in our power generation network for some time to come. But to subsidize building new versions of old dirty technology is just stupid to most of us.
There would be 100s (if not 1000s) of small regional communities all around the country that could easily go off grid now with today's technology, if only the lobbyists didn't have so much money and power to control government policy (or more importantly, lack of policy).

It's not about Australia's 1% of global emissions or whatever crap the coal fans keep rolling out, it's about moving forward as a society.

I'm sure back in the day the steam society fought hard to stop the rise of petrol engines too. They most likely had a whole bunch of fake facts as to why the world shouldn't step out of the dark ages.

I recon my kids are going to laugh at how stupid us oldies were for even having this debate and not just getting on with it sooner....

[tryagain]

I think both sides can be selective about what "facts" they use to paint the picture they want and whilst I don't doubt there are lobbyists from the coal industry looking after vested interests I also don't doubt there are some from the renewables industry doing exactly the same, the truth I think is often somewhere in the middle.

I haven't followed it too closely but it seems to me we are in a kind of twilight zone where we have;
1) Ageing coal-fired infrastructure that has been very cheap and reliable for providing constant power but due to the environmental impacts, subsidies for renewables and capital costs are not being replaced in kind.
2) Renewables are getting to a point where they are competitive for generation but not so much when you consider the storage required to replace fossil-fueled baseload power.

So we have the slow death of coal-fired generation, but renewables not to the point where they, with storage, are yet financially viable. That's probably where Gas-fired generation looks like a good stop gap but then you have issues with supply and environmental concerns with fracking.

Renewables look to be the future, but the future isn't quite here yet.

[Bigfish]

I think both sides can be selective about what "facts" they use to paint the picture they want and whilst I don't doubt there are lobbyists from the coal industry looking after vested interests I also don't doubt there are some from the renewables industry doing exactly the same, the truth I think is often somewhere in the middle.

I haven't followed it too closely but it seems to me we are in a kind of twilight zone where we have;
1) Ageing coal-fired infrastructure that has been very cheap and reliable for providing constant power but due to the environmental impacts, subsidies for renewables and capital costs are not being replaced in kind.
2) Renewables are getting to a point where they are competitive for generation but not so much when you consider the storage required to replace fossil-fueled baseload power.

So we have the slow death of coal-fired generation, but renewables not to the point where they, with storage, are yet financially viable. That's probably where Gas-fired generation looks like a good stop gap but then you have issues with supply and environmental concerns with fracking.

Renewables look to be the future, but the future isn't quite here yet.

Maybe the future is here but big business doesnt like it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530

[Pete79]

I think both sides can be selective about what "facts" they use to paint the picture they want and whilst I don't doubt there are lobbyists from the coal industry looking after vested interests I also don't doubt there are some from the renewables industry doing exactly the same, the truth I think is often somewhere in the middle.

I haven't followed it too closely but it seems to me we are in a kind of twilight zone

.....

So we have the slow death of coal-fired generation, but renewables not to the point where they, with storage, are yet financially viable. That's probably where Gas-fired generation looks like a good stop gap but then you have issues with supply and environmental concerns with fracking.

I would say that's a pretty good summary.

There are a couple of other factors with gas, mostly around exports. But your twilight zone is about right.

Despite as it may appear by my posts, I'm not actually that passionate about the topic.
I mean, I do strongly believe that as a global society we do need to progress with our energy technologies. We've started the conversation, that's a good start, but we've been talking for a long time now...

But my input on this one is mostly just to counter the Newscorp lies.
As you so rightly said, for every selective fact or one sided story there's always another side, I just thought it was worth the effort to keep this one (slightly) balanced.

It has been interesting to see that the line on this one is so clearly drawn between Newscorp and the ABC.... It will be more interesting to see if we still get both sides after Pauline finishes her ABC inquiry. But's that's for another thread, I don't want to steer this one off topic and get it locked too...

[tryagain]

Maybe the future is here but big business doesnt like it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530

Big business likes money, they generally don't care too much where it comes from. I think pumped hydro has a big future but as the guy in the vid said, the economics don't stack up yet. Then there is the environmental aspect as well, how many dams's have we built recently, most I have read about like the Traveston dam don't go ahead due to their environmental impact.

[suby]

Big business likes money, they generally don't care too much where it comes from. I think pumped hydro has a big future but as the guy in the vid said, the economics don't stack up yet. Then there is the environmental aspect as well, how many dams's have we built recently, most I have read about like the Traveston dam don't go ahead due to their environmental impact.

The guy in the vid didn't say the economics don't stack up yet?  I will fix it for you.

The vid from Bigfish's link said  that it would not cost anything factoring in the lower cost of solar and wind over the period and could be built by 2030. Professor Blakers said that it's off the shelf technology used throughout the world, and he identified 22K sites that could used for power generation and only a small fraction of sites are needed. That is 100% renewable storage by 2030!

In another article, I saw that this technology is one third the cost of gas generation, to put this into comparison against fossil fuels. The sites are all outside national parks etc.

Cheers,

[tryagain]

The guy in the vid didn't say the economics don't stack up yet?  I will fix it for you.

I was referring to the main video where the energy economist said: "I don't think the economics stacks up."

The vid from Bigfish's link said  that it would not cost anything factoring in the lower cost of solar and wind over the period and could be built by 2030. Professor Blakers said that it's off the shelf technology used throughout the world, and he identified 22K sites that could used for power generation and only a small fraction of sites are needed. That is 100% renewable storage by 2030!

In another article, I saw that this technology is one third the cost of gas generation, to put this into comparison against fossil fuels. The sites are all outside national parks etc.

Can you link me to the article? All too often people include or exclude the cost of construction to favor their arguments, that my guess as to what is happening here.

Professor Blakers seems to be making some pretty big claims that I haven't seen supported elsewhere and I suspect he is using some selective "facts" in an effort to secure additional research funding.

[prodigyrf]

Some aren't saying but you can hazard an educated guess-

https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/psychology/polls/aust/newspoll-aust-2017-amount-to-pay-3.gif

[gronk]

Renewables look to be the future, but the future isn't quite here yet.

That's what I keep trying to say....too many think it can happen overnight, and no amount of money can make it happen, and a slow transition is what's needed, WHEN we get base load power sorted !

[Rumpig]

Big business likes money, they generally don't care too much where it comes from. I think pumped hydro has a big future but as the guy in the vid said, the economics don't stack up yet. Then there is the environmental aspect as well, how many dams's have we built recently, most I have read about like the Traveston dam don't go ahead due to their environmental impact.

Traveston was a poor location, they couldn't even find decent bedrock where the wall was supposed to go apparently...a big shallow dam where the deepest section was 20mtrs deep, but it averaged being only 4 metres deep due to how shallow most of it was.

[tryagain]

Traveston was a poor location, they couldn't even find decent bedrock where the wall was supposed to go apparently...a big shallow dam where the deepest section was 20mtrs deep, but it averaged being only 4 metres deep due to how shallow most of it was.

Probably all true, from my understanding though the reason it got knocked back though was on environmental grounds from the federal government, which was my main point. It will be interesting though when sites getting chosen to see the green groups conflicted, on one hand, they will likely want to oppose dam building but on the other like the renewable baseload potential of pumped hydro. 

[gronk]

Pumped hydro is a good idea, but, like all other options, not a guaranteed 24/7 power source.

[Bird]

And there lies the problem.
Green groups applying their agenda selectively around the world, and dragging us back to the Stone Age.

Still think Rob has the best post in this thread...

[suby]

I was referring to the main video where the energy economist said: "I don't think the economics stacks up."

Can you link me to the article? All too often people include or exclude the cost of construction to favor their arguments, that my guess as to what is happening here.

Professor Blakers seems to be making some pretty big claims that I haven't seen supported elsewhere and I suspect he is using some selective "facts" in an effort to secure additional research funding.

Okay,
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-coal-still-cheaper-than-renewables-as-an-energy-source-81263
http://www.reputex.com/media-releases/rising-gas-price-falling-storage-costs-makes-renewables-cheapest-for-reliable-power-in-australia/

And how pumped storage in the middle of QLD is cheaper then gas:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4729057.htm
--------- snip ----------
DOMINIQUE SCHWARTZ: Simon Kidson says the hydro scheme will be able to provide six hours of power for 200,000 homes across north Queensland.

SIMON KIDSTON: Coal-fired power is the cheapest power: and that's baseload power. What this project does is turns on or turns off very rapidly. So it really competes with the peaking generators, which are historically gas. And we're a fraction of the cost of gas.

DOMINIQUE SCHWARTZ: A fraction? What sort of fraction?

SIMON KIDSTON: Less than a third.
--------- /snip ----------

--------- snip ----------
ROGER PRICE, CEO, WINDLAB: About 80 kilometres that way there is another project which we call 'Big Kennedy' or phase two, which is an enormous plateau: 80,000 hectares, with a world-class wind resource on it. That project will support up to 1,200 megawatts of wind, enough to support nearly 1 million Australian homes.

DOMINIQUE SCHWARTZ: Roger Price says the national energy debate has focused too much on gas.

ROGER PRICE, CEO, WINDLAB: Wind and solar is now by far the cheapest form of technology you can build to produce electricity. And if we want to reduce the cost of electricity, we need to build more renewables. We need to have a stale policy framework that allows the investors to make those 10-, 20-, 30-year commitments to renewable energy.
--------- /snip ----------


https://theconversation.com/pumped-hydro-energy-storage-making-better-use-of-wind-18565

This gives a good overview:
https://theconversation.com/want-energy-storage-here-are-22-000-sites-for-pumped-hydro-across-australia-84275

Can you reciprocate and point me to recent article/report outlining the cost benefits of coal Vs renewables?

Considering Australia reported the hottest winter 2 degrees above historic temperatures recently! We do need to consider all options. If coal is equal, we should use renewable energy by default. yes?

I know climate change will not affect me much, but our kids and grand kids deserve a future. Why stuff it up for them. This is about changing the way we look at the power problems and getting an affordable outcome that does not screw or kids future. The world is moving to renewables for good reason. It's both economic and green.

In previous work many years ago I worked on large scale construction, coal mines and a power station and many large construction projects. Yes cost of construction is a factor, but I can't see how pumped storage construction would be larger then building coal powerstations! No way. Pump water up hill and generate down hill, not many moving parts compared to a power station, or coal wash plant and infrastructure.

[tryagain]

So quite a few issues to address, here goes

Okay,
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-coal-still-cheaper-than-renewables-as-an-energy-source-81263

I'd agree with that article, I think it's fairly balanced and consistent with what I have said, it's actually a good read for people to get their head around the coal vs renewable costs.

Previously I asked you for a source for your claim

In another article, I saw that this technology is one third the cost of gas generation, to put this into comparison against fossil fuels. The sites are all outside national parks etc.

and your source

And how pumped storage in the middle of QLD is cheaper then gas:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4729057.htm
--------- snip ----------
DOMINIQUE SCHWARTZ: Simon Kidson says the hydro scheme will be able to provide six hours of power for 200,000 homes across north Queensland.

SIMON KIDSTON: Coal-fired power is the cheapest power: and that's baseload power. What this project does is turns on or turns off very rapidly. So it really competes with the peaking generators, which are historically gas. And we're a fraction of the cost of gas.

DOMINIQUE SCHWARTZ: A fraction? What sort of fraction?

SIMON KIDSTON: Less than a third.

So, a couple of major fundamental issues here, firstly you are you mentioned "gas generation" he is talking about "peaking gas generation" peaking gas generation is where they generally spend 100's of millions to build a gas-fired power plant that can sit idle for literally 99.99% of the year and just kicks in for the 50-100 hours a year when everyone wants to turn their Aircon on at the same time. So, because you have large outlays, and a very small window for returns the cost per MWh is astronomical. This example you give could easily be a third of the cost of "peaking gas generation" but not general "gas generation" as claimed.
Secondly, this is a bad example in comparing the "technology" as the site where they are developing it is an exceptionally good site for PWH compared to just about anywhere else. The construction costs they have are minimal due to the fact the reservoirs already exist, as does piping between them and even some transmission lines, this all greatly reduces the time and cost involved in this instance but isn't indicative of the wider picture.

This gives a good overview:
https://theconversation.com/want-energy-storage-here-are-22-000-sites-for-pumped-hydro-across-australia-84275

Here is a reasonable critique of Andrew Blaker's report which includes a number of major issues with it. https://www.brightnewworld.org/s/Blakers-et-al-review-gz3p.pdf
For the tl;dr, from their conclusion "The confidence they express in the conclusions and their implications in both the document itself and recent media reports is not supported by evidence they provide."

Can you reciprocate and point me to recent article/report outlining the cost benefits of coal Vs renewables?

I can't see where I have ever claimed that so I don't know why you would want me to provide a link to it? I think that it isn't anywhere near as simple as a cost per unit generation comparison anyway, you need to also factor in certainty. For example, wind generation in and of itself might be the cheapest form of generation to build now (still more expensive than existing coal generation) but unless you only want to use electricity when the wind is blowing you need to factor in storage as well, that then makes it more expensive than its fossil-fueled alternatives.

If coal is equal, we should use renewable energy by default. yes?

If coal and renewables are the same cost for the same level of reliability, of course we should go with renewables. The issue is it's not yet close to the same price when you factor in a reliable system, I know Blaker's has claimed it can be in the near future but if you read the critique of his report, you will see some incorrect assumptions lead to incorrect costings. I am in no way against renewables or pro-coal, just try to be realistic about the situation.

In previous work many years ago I worked on large scale construction, coal mines and a power station and many large construction projects. Yes cost of construction is a factor, but I can't see how pumped storage construction would be larger then building coal powerstations! No way. Pump water up hill and generate down hill, not many moving parts compared to a power station, or coal wash plant and infrastructure.

Just to clarify, I am not for building new power plants, and yes building new coal-fired power plants would be a big job, but just to make sure you are comparing like for like, The Liddell plant that is scheduled for shutdown can produce 2000MW the QLD PWH you linked earlier will produce 250MW but only for 5 hrs a day, That means you would almost need 40 equivalent PWH setup's to produce the same power as the one coal-fired power plant, no small undertaking either.   

[suby]

Tryagain, It is disappointing that you can't even give one credible link to backup you arguments! This is just drivel. I must apologise, I just get sometimes frustrated that our government is pushing coal, for their own financial benefit from what I can see. The economics in my view just don't match up and its demonstrated in my posts . I think I have shown in recent times renewable power is cheaper or at a minimum equal to the cost of coal power, including storage. ( don't forget the huge time and cost to build coal power, and keeping it running) I have first hand experience working in both industries.

The running costs of solar, wind and storage, are under that of coal, and gas.  Adding the environmental impact in my view we need to away from Coal. The UN and developed countries are all moving this way (Though - Not trump, but the industry is because of economics). .   

Your only link (pdf) led me to the authors latest paper. Peer review tore it to shreds by real scientists .

Its a good read, though a lot of funny  comments from non scientists :
http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/17/new-paper-100-renewable-energy-not-feasible-unsupportable-and-reckless-keeps-poor-impoverished/#sthash.272knz1M.sG9iBzn1.dpbs
http://johnquiggin.com/2017/04/10/burden-of-proof/
And many more:

You also did not mention my link to Reputex, which has expertise in energy & climate policy and market analysis and you gave me a students paper to back up your view. Admittedly I did update my post to include the Reputex link this morning 2 hrs before your post. Still disappointed!

http://www.reputex.com/media-releases/rising-gas-price-falling-storage-costs-makes-renewables-cheapest-for-reliable-power-in-australia/

This sums it up:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/21/energy-policy-would-not-be-that-hard-if-the-government-wasnt-hamstrung-by-ideologues

[Pete79]

Here it is. The cold hard facts, not written by a journalist, no bias and no agendas.

It's long and detailed, but worth the read because once you know the whole story you can see why some of us get so agitated when we see the blatant lies that get printed by 'that' media outlet.

https://www.accc.gov.au/speech/shining-a-light-australia’s-gas-and-electricity-affordability-problem

Wholesale electricity prices have only increased recently, largely it seems in response to the closure of the Hazelwood and Northern power stations. The size of the wholesale price increases in response to these closures, of over 100%, has surprised most observers.

Two explanations for these stronger than expected wholesale price increases have been given.

First, changes in bidding patterns by the coal-fired generators that do not appear fully linked to increases in the cost of production. While such behaviour is clearly allowed under the rules, there is doubt about whether the rules ever envisaged a generation market as concentrated as what we now have.

In each state the combined market shares of the two or three most significant generators is well over 70%, sometimes much higher.

The closure of Hazelwood and Northern increased this level of concentration in Victoria and South Australia, and pushed overall capacity closer to demand levels such that more often the generators with high market shares could bid in high prices knowing they will be dispatched.

Generator market power was clearly seen in Queensland with two generators having two thirds of capacity and prices spiking. When the Queensland Government directed its generators to tone down their bidding, prices immediately reduced significantly.

While more generation investment would lower wholesale electricity prices, there are some important questions to be examined.

Do the major coal-fired generators have an incentive to invest given it would lower their current high profits?
What would happen to future demand if the current government subsidies to particular aluminium smelters were removed? Indeed, what would have been the effect on wholesale electricity prices if the Portland smelter in Victoria had closed when Hazelwood did?
How much of the perceived generation gap will be filled by now apparently competitive renewable energy projects, and who will own these projects?
The second explanation for the higher than expected increase in wholesale electricity prices post the closure of Hazelwood and Northern is much higher gas prices and tighter availability. Gas generation now sets the wholesale price around a third of the time in South Australia, and also at important times elsewhere.

While some gas-fired generators are on legacy contracts, some are now or soon could be paying at least three times what they once were for gas.

The third factor increasing electricity prices is the cost of the various green schemes; mostly the Renewable Energy Target and the various premium solar feed-in tariffs, but also energy efficiency measures.

We have had some stunningly generous green schemes. For example, in some states consumers were paid solar feed-in tariffs of 40-60 cents per kWh, many times the cost of energy, not only on the electricity they sent back to the grid, but also, amazingly, on the electricity they consumed themselves.

The cost of green schemes is not transparent; it is smeared over all electricity consumers and can appear costless to some. But they do cost consumers, often inequitably as those with solar panels are being subsidised by those who do not have them.

The average bill of a non-solar customer in the above chart is $1,749. An average residential solar customer has a much lower bill both through lower usage and through a benefit of $700 per year, on average, from solar feed-in payments.

Finally, increased retail costs and margins have played a significant part. Both seem higher than expected.

The retail electricity market is also highly concentrated, with three players (Origin, AGL and Energy Australia) with over 70% of customers. The next largest two players, taking shares in most states to around 90%, are also vertically integrated.

High levels of vertical integration can make it very difficult for others to compete. This concentration was, of course, made worse by the sale by the NSW Government of the Bayswater and Liddell generators (known together as Macquarie Generation) to AGL a few years back, which the ACCC strenuously but unsuccessfully opposed.

The retail electricity market is also characterised by very wide price dispersion (a consumer can save hundreds of dollars by moving from the worst to the best offer), great complexity (the best offers can be hard to find) and a lot of regulation with some unintended consequences.

And solutions??

First, getting rid of Limited Merits Review so that the regulator’s decisions (the AER) are subject to a review to see that an appropriate process was followed, rather than a review that in effect remakes the decision in ways that appear to always favour the network businesses.

That is, the electricity network sector will have the same regulatory regime as now applies in telecommunications. Consumers will not have to pay for inefficiency; network owners will still be appropriately rewarded for efficient costs.

Second, the Government is currently trying to get people off the worst retail offers, and the retailers have in response offered to take steps to do this. The ACCC will now monitor these steps, and more importantly the outcomes, carefully.

There are many lessons to be learnt from my description in section 2.2 above of what drove our high electricity prices, as follows.

First, weigh carefully what is spent to improve reliability, because consumers will pay for these measures.

Second, be very careful with new or enhanced ideas that incur costs that are to be smeared across all electricity users.

Third, think carefully about new retail regulations; they can have unintended consequences.

Fourth, and closely linked, realise that moves to re-regulate electricity prices will see many consumers pay more, and may see less of the innovation we now need.

Fifth, factor the existing market power in retail and generation into policy measures. Take steps that improve rather than worsen this situation.

Finally, and overall, keep a clear and separate focus on electricity affordability. We are told we have three issues to deal with in electricity: reliability, sustainability and affordability. Basic economics says with three problems you need three different solutions. Beware of “silver bullets” that are said to address all three objectives.

The ACCC has a tough job ahead. Australia’s electricity affordability issues have been a long time in the making and will be a long time in the solving, unfortunately. In our Interim Report we will lay out a full agenda which I will not pre-empt now.

Figure 7 below, however, lists some important issues that are or need to be considered to make electricity more affordable. They are helpfully aligned with the contribution to electricity affordability from each part of the value chain. Doing this focusses attention on the key cost areas.

Figure 7 addressing affordability


This list is different from much of the current discussion concerning electricity affordability.

If the above lessons are learnt, and given the steps already taken by the Government or that will hopefully be taken as a result of our work, I am hopeful of some quick improvements, and continued downward pressure on electricity prices.

I haven't quoted any of the ACCC chairman's comments on gas. Have a read of the whole speech in the link above as the picture is much bigger then these couple of quotes.

It's a real pity that basically none of these facts will make it into the vast majority of articles or 'news' stories about this topic.

[gronk]

I think I have shown in recent times renewable power is cheaper or at a minimum equal to the cost of coal power, including storage.

Can you explain the bit about storage.......or in a simpler term, base load power ? To my (limited) knowledge, except during winter when the snowy dams are full and we can generate some hydro, which isn't renewable energy, I don't know of anywhere in Australia that is AT PRESENT storing renewable energy ?

[tryagain]

Tryagain, It is disappointing that you can't even give one credible link to backup you arguments!

sigh

Most of my points are pretty explanatory and therefore don't really need a link to "back it up" but feel free to actually point out what is wrong with them, not just for some strange reason think if I haven't attached a link at the bottom it is wrong. Then there is the issue of that a number of your linked documents don't actually back up the claim you are making.

I must apologise, I just get sometimes frustrated that our government is pushing coal, for their own financial benefit from what I can see. The economics in my view just don't match up and its demonstrated in my posts . I think I have shown in recent times renewable power is cheaper or at a minimum equal to the cost of coal power, including storage. ( don't forget the huge time and cost to build coal power, and keeping it running) I have first hand experience working in both industries.

I think the distinction between new coal-fired power and existing coal-fired power needs to be made here, I haven't ever contented that the LCOE for new power plants for cleaner coal is cheaper, nor do I think the government is contending this, from one of your earlier links "In 2017, the marginal cost of generating power from an existing coal station is less than $40/MWh, while wind power is $60-70/MWh" I haven't seen the government arguing for new coal-fired power plants, what I think they would like to with Liddell, for example, is hold onto the $40/MWh generation as long as possible before realistically doubling the cost (factoring in storage) for its replacement. Whether that is even possible to do due to the ageing infrastructure is debatable. 

Your only link (pdf) led me to the authors latest paper. Peer review tore it to shreds by real scientists .
Its a good read, though a lot of funny  comments from non scientists :
http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/17/new-paper-100-renewable-energy-not-feasible-unsupportable-and-reckless-keeps-poor-impoverished/#sthash.272knz1M.sG9iBzn1.dpbs
http://johnquiggin.com/2017/04/10/burden-of-proof/

A number of points here, 1)The 2nd linked article is too an economist, not a "real scientist" the first I can't find any information on to know what his qualifications might be. 2) I think "tore it to shreds" is a very unrepresentative conclusion from his critique. 3) That paper has nothing to do with his critique of Blaker's. 4) The Irony of your position of an unrelated paper not (in your opinion) standing up to peer review, yet you happily base a lot of your points on Blaker's report that he hasn't submitted it to any journals to be peer-reviewed, contrary to standard practice.
This whole point has just been a red herring.

You also did not mention my link to Reputex, which has expertise in energy & climate policy and market analysis and you gave me a Published award-winning post grad PhD students paper who is researching in this exact field. FTFY to back up your view. Admittedly I did update my post to include the Reputex link this morning 2 hrs before your post. Still disappointed!

http://www.reputex.com/media-releases/rising-gas-price-falling-storage-costs-makes-renewables-cheapest-for-reliable-power-in-australia/

I didn't see this link until this reply, I had already started on my response before you made the change as I was just doing it in among other things, it also takes a lot more time to rebut incorrect assertions than to make them.

This is the best source you have provided so far, I always said gas would predominantly be used for the transition from coal to renewables. According to this article that window has closed, I would like to see a bit more of a detailed report and it's critique before I accept it just based on their say so, especially as they are a private entity working for companies with vested interests. The bigger picture on this that makes this possible is the trebling of the domestic gas price and the predicted continued price hikes due to the cartel-like pricing currently on the east coast which has seen Australian gas in Japan at half the price it is in Australia. Some (not unlikely) government intervention in gas supply would see this equation change somewhat.
 

This sums it up:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/21/energy-policy-would-not-be-that-hard-if-the-government-wasnt-hamstrung-by-ideologues

Well, that's an opinion piece from the Guardian that has areputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing editorial. It seems way too simplistic and convenient to place all the blame at the feet of the Federal Liberal party. That's not to say that they shouldn't have anything to say, just that I read it realising they have a left-leaning agenda, just like The Australian has a right-leaning agenda.
 

[suby]

Here it is. The cold hard facts, not written by a journalist, no bias and no agendas.

It's long and detailed, but worth the read because once you know the whole story you can see why some of us get so agitated when we see the blatant lies that get printed by 'that' media outlet.

https://www.accc.gov.au/speech/shining-a-light-australia’s-gas-and-electricity-affordability-problem

And solutions??


I haven't quoted any of the ACCC chairman's comments on gas. Have a read of the whole speech in the link above as the picture is much bigger then these couple of quotes.

It's a real pity that basically none of these facts will make it into the vast majority of articles or 'news' stories about this topic.

Thanks, Its a good read.
What I take away from this is, Gas and Electricity are in a mess for lots of reasons. The main points I think are:
- Successive governments not investing in or developing policy and or regulation of power generation and network improvement and development,
- Privatisation without proper oversight or legislation/rules to govern operation of both Gas and electricity markets and supply,
- Vertical integration by the large players
- Unforeseen events without having contingency plans to address both gas and electricity supply.   

Cheers,

[suby]

Tryagain, I am not going to debate you any more, I have a life to live.  You and the COALition keep trying to flog Liddell. Its a dead horse. I think you would be better reading Pete79 post, and get an understanding of the problems. If you know the problems you know how to fix the the problem, yes?

Gas and Electricity are in a mess for lots of reasons. The main points I think are:
- Successive governments not investing in or developing policy and or regulation of power generation and network improvement and development,
- Privatisation without proper oversight or legislation/rules to govern operation of both Gas and electricity markets and supply,
- Vertical integration by the large players
- Unforeseen events without having contingency plans to address both gas and electricity supply.   

[GeoffA]

Is there an echo in here, in here, in here?