https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-climate/new-zealand-passes-law-aiming-for-net-zero-carbon-emissions-by-2050-idUSKBN1XH0RQ
New Zealand passes law aiming for net zero carbon emissions by 2050

—-

Arden has been given a lot of credit, and fair enough too, but let us reflect on the fact that this legislation received 119 ayes versus 1 nay. It went through with the support of the conservative New Zealand National Party, so fair play to them, for showing that being conservative doesn’t necessarily mean being a shortsighted ignorant dingdong.

we are scum.

that’s because it’s 20 years from now, anything could happen

Because 19 + 20 = 50

see ^^ there it says “SCIENCE” not “ARITHME”

SCIENCE said:

that’s because it’s 20 years from now, anything could happen

With a small population and accessible geothermal and lots of water tumbling off high mountains they are in a good position to make such announcements.

AwesomeO said:

SCIENCE said:

that’s because it’s 20 years from now, anything could happen

With a small population and accessible geothermal and lots of water tumbling off high mountains they are in a good position to make such announcements.

true, ARITHME would say Australia is pretty much the most populous country on earth, and hasn’t a single photon of sunlight to its bottom-of-the-ranking land area

SCIENCE said:

AwesomeO said:

SCIENCE said:

that’s because it’s 20 years from now, anything could happen

With a small population and accessible geothermal and lots of water tumbling off high mountains they are in a good position to make such announcements.

true, ARITHME would say Australia is pretty much the most populous country on earth, and hasn’t a single photon of sunlight to its bottom-of-the-ranking land area

Agreed then. Though from what I have read for domestic power at least, solar is making such rapid inroads the “system” itself is having issues. It is a Wookiee world solution to “you just” put solar and battery on every house but that means the price of power goes up funnily enough. Nothing is easy.

indeed, at times the markets do not price common tragedies at the optimal* level

this is something may need a carbon tax, or other method of pricing carbon emissions, to fix**

• according to SCIENCE

• wait

AwesomeO said:

SCIENCE said:

AwesomeO said:

With a small population and accessible geothermal and lots of water tumbling off high mountains they are in a good position to make such announcements.

true, ARITHME would say Australia is pretty much the most populous country on earth, and hasn’t a single photon of sunlight to its bottom-of-the-ranking land area

Agreed then. Though from what I have read for domestic power at least, solar is making such rapid inroads the “system” itself is having issues. It is a Wookiee world solution to “you just” put solar and battery on every house but that means the price of power goes up funnily enough. Nothing is easy.

Well there’s your solution, then. Make distribution of electricity illegal so that each location has to make their own…

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

SCIENCE said:

true, ARITHME would say Australia is pretty much the most populous country on earth, and hasn’t a single photon of sunlight to its bottom-of-the-ranking land area

Agreed then. Though from what I have read for domestic power at least, solar is making such rapid inroads the “system” itself is having issues. It is a Wookiee world solution to “you just” put solar and battery on every house but that means the price of power goes up funnily enough. Nothing is easy.

Well there’s your solution, then. Make distribution of electricity illegal so that each location has to make their own…

Perfect, you forgot to add “you just” though.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

SCIENCE said:

true, ARITHME would say Australia is pretty much the most populous country on earth, and hasn’t a single photon of sunlight to its bottom-of-the-ranking land area

Agreed then. Though from what I have read for domestic power at least, solar is making such rapid inroads the “system” itself is having issues. It is a Wookiee world solution to “you just” put solar and battery on every house but that means the price of power goes up funnily enough. Nothing is easy.

Well there’s your solution, then. Make distribution of electricity illegal so that each location has to make their own…

we could distribute by drone.

Boris said:

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

Agreed then. Though from what I have read for domestic power at least, solar is making such rapid inroads the “system” itself is having issues. It is a Wookiee world solution to “you just” put solar and battery on every house but that means the price of power goes up funnily enough. Nothing is easy.

Well there’s your solution, then. Make distribution of electricity illegal so that each location has to make their own…

we could distribute by drone.

surely we could just do some market forcing to make this palette able

why not just put some tariffs on electrical distribution, seems to work for all kinds of

SCIENCE said:

Boris said:

dv said:

Well there’s your solution, then. Make distribution of electricity illegal so that each location has to make their own…

we could distribute by drone.

surely we could just do some market forcing to make this palette able

why not just put some tariffs on electrical distribution, seems to work for all kinds of

palatable?

Make diesel trucks illegal. Have an efficient electrified rail network for freight (handy if all the tracks are the same gauge), use containers or road-rail wagons. Local distribution from each rail yard by electric trucks.

Hey, we’ve been subsidising rich fuckers to put solar panels on houswing for quite a few years, why is this such a stretch?

party_pants said:

Make diesel trucks illegal. Have an efficient electrified rail network for freight (handy if all the tracks are the same gauge), use containers or road-rail wagons. Local distribution from each rail yard by electric trucks.

What?! You want to go back to the past?

sibeen said:

Hey, we’ve been subsidising rich fuckers to put solar panels on houswing for quite a few years, why is this such a stretch?

Can we just call you ‘rich fucker’ from now on?

buffy said:

party_pants said:

Make diesel trucks illegal. Have an efficient electrified rail network for freight (handy if all the tracks are the same gauge), use containers or road-rail wagons. Local distribution from each rail yard by electric trucks.

What?! You want to go back to the past?

No silly. The past is the future.

I have a group project: together we shall endeavor to find out what Australia’s peak electricity generation is versus the average used for most of the year. This will help us determine what a mean redundancy for renewable generation is. I have seen no mention of this in the rebuttals to the ‘when it’s not shining or blowing’ argument for the necessity for non renewable base-load power.

Dv i’m looking at you!

party_pants said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

Make diesel trucks illegal. Have an efficient electrified rail network for freight (handy if all the tracks are the same gauge), use containers or road-rail wagons. Local distribution from each rail yard by electric trucks.

What?! You want to go back to the past?

No silly. The past is the future.

Now and zen.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Hey, we’ve been subsidising rich fuckers to put solar panels on houswing for quite a few years, why is this such a stretch?

Can we just call you ‘rich fucker’ from now on?

Not really.

Who have solar panels on their roofs? It ain’t the poor.

Who pays the additional costs on the electricity bills? It ain’t the rich.

Who pays the additional costs on the electricity bills? It ain’t the rich.

—

The car.

I just sat here under the blanket shivering.

sarahs mum said:

Who pays the additional costs on the electricity bills? It ain’t the rich.

—

The car.

I just sat here under the blanket shivering.

?

I have no idea what you mean.

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

Who pays the additional costs on the electricity bills? It ain’t the rich.

—

The car.

I just sat here under the blanket shivering.

?

I have no idea what you mean.

Bubblecar was complaining today about his electricity bill. Even though he has had money taken out each week there was still a goodly bill.

I didn’t use any electricity for heating. And I didn’t have much firewood this year either. I did an impersonation of Willie Wonker’s grandparents and stayed in bed lots.

sarahs mum said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

Who pays the additional costs on the electricity bills? It ain’t the rich.

—

The car.

I just sat here under the blanket shivering.

?

I have no idea what you mean.

Bubblecar was complaining today about his electricity bill. Even though he has had money taken out each week there was still a goodly bill.

I didn’t use any electricity for heating. And I didn’t have much firewood this year either. I did an impersonation of Willie Wonker’s grandparents and stayed in bed lots.

Did you mean Charlie’s grandparents?

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

sibeen said:

?

I have no idea what you mean.

Bubblecar was complaining today about his electricity bill. Even though he has had money taken out each week there was still a goodly bill.

I didn’t use any electricity for heating. And I didn’t have much firewood this year either. I did an impersonation of Willie Wonker’s grandparents and stayed in bed lots.

Did you mean Charlie’s grandparents?

yes. Sorry.

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

sibeen said:

?

I have no idea what you mean.

Bubblecar was complaining today about his electricity bill. Even though he has had money taken out each week there was still a goodly bill.

I didn’t use any electricity for heating. And I didn’t have much firewood this year either. I did an impersonation of Willie Wonker’s grandparents and stayed in bed lots.

Did you mean Charlie’s grandparents?

I don’t know how you can confuse Willy Wonka master chocolateer and Willie Wonker who lives in Snug and drives a truck.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar was complaining today about his electricity bill. Even though he has had money taken out each week there was still a goodly bill.

I didn’t use any electricity for heating. And I didn’t have much firewood this year either. I did an impersonation of Willie Wonker’s grandparents and stayed in bed lots.

Did you mean Charlie’s grandparents?

I don’t know how you can confuse Willy Wonka master chocolateer and Willie Wonker who lives in Snug and drives a truck.

And Wonker backwards is Reknow

dv said:

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

dv said:

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

Can’t argue with that.

sibeen said:

dv said:

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

To say that something can be achieved during a 31 year period is not to say that it is “easy”. It’s a very long baseline on which to make a change.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

To say that something can be achieved during a 31 year period is not to say that it is “easy”. It’s a very long baseline on which to make a change.

surely these Australians could go better and carbon negative for world peace

if there was will

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

To say that something can be achieved during a 31 year period is not to say that it is “easy”. It’s a very long baseline on which to make a change.

We could crank up the CSIRO again.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

To say that something can be achieved during a 31 year period is not to say that it is “easy”. It’s a very long baseline on which to make a change.

We could crank up the CSIRO again.

remember csyrony

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

To say that something can be achieved during a 31 year period is not to say that it is “easy”. It’s a very long baseline on which to make a change.

We could crank up the CSIRO again.

Moll does seem to have been looking for something to do lately.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

In 100% dread earnest there would be no trouble at all with Australia going carbon neutral by 2050. We are extraordinarily well placed (physically and economically, not politically) to achieve this, compared to most countries on Earth.

Christos, I’d love it.

I really have been at the forefront of some of the trials on all of this. Some may have even detected a little anti-Tesla bias, but that’s cannot be true (Oh, wait, the NDA is over).

I’d love full on carbon neutral electricity, but it ain’t as easy as some would wish.

To say that something can be achieved during a 31 year period is not to say that it is “easy”. It’s a very long baseline on which to make a change.

Yeah. Fusion will be well going by then so I don’t know why there’s all the troubling.

I mean here is how I think of it. Just ballpark the costs, making overestimates.

We’ve hardly begun the journey in developing renewable energy and cheap storage: there are no doubt huge economies of scale ahead.

But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh. Of course not every place is going to be in reasonable transmission range of such a large and cheap project. Some parts of the country are not within cooee of sizeable reservoirs: most of the population and industry are, but not all. Ballpark it again and suppose 80% of the country can use such pumped storage and the rest has to use Darth Elon’s blocks of doom.

Australia’s power consumption is around 30 GW mean.

Take some dire scenario renewables case and figure you need 24 mean hours worth of storage for everywhere. I think that with reasonable planning that’s overkill but go with that: 720 GWh of storage.

Of course we aren’t starting from zero: 24% of Australia’s power already derives from renewables, and has something like 60 GWh in various forms of storage already.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion. To put that in perspective: that is considerably less than the $230 billion tax in cuts for the wealthy, over the forward estimates, that the Coalition introduced with the last budget. If they, say, didn’t introduce those tax cuts, and instead put that revenue in a fund, than the conversion to renewables plus storage is already paid for.

On a 31 year time line, it would represent about 1/300 of GDP, about $4 per person per week.

In reality the power demand will increase but on current long term trends that power demand will be outstripped by increase in GDP, so our ability to pay for it will only improve.

But I’ve chosen a very pessimistic model: there will be economies of scale, there will be technological improvements. The _net cost of these installations as an alternative to non-renewable sources will be less than the total cost of the renewables, and as older plant is decommissioned it can be replaced by carbon neutral sources. I’d fall off my chair if the actual price was more than half the abovementioned upper bound.

dv said:

I mean here is how I think of it. Just ballpark the costs, making overestimates.

We’ve hardly begun the journey in developing renewable energy and cheap storage: there are no doubt huge economies of scale ahead.

But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh. Of course not every place is going to be in reasonable transmission range of such a large and cheap project. Some parts of the country are not within cooee of sizeable reservoirs: most of the population and industry are, but not all. Ballpark it again and suppose 80% of the country can use such pumped storage and the rest has to use Darth Elon’s blocks of doom.

Australia’s power consumption is around 30 GW mean.

Take some dire scenario renewables case and figure you need 24 mean hours worth of storage for everywhere. I think that with reasonable planning that’s overkill but go with that: 720 GWh of storage.

Of course we aren’t starting from zero: 24% of Australia’s power already derives from renewables, and has something like 60 GWh in various forms of storage already.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion. To put that in perspective: that is considerably less than the $230 billion tax in cuts for the wealthy, over the forward estimates, that the Coalition introduced with the last budget. If they, say, didn’t introduce those tax cuts, and instead put that revenue in a fund, than the conversion to renewables plus storage is already paid for.

On a 31 year time line, it would represent about 1/300 of GDP, about $4 per person per week.

In reality the power demand will increase but on current long term trends that power demand will be outstripped by increase in GDP, so our ability to pay for it will only improve.

But I’ve chosen a very pessimistic model: there will be economies of scale, there will be technological improvements. The _net cost of these installations as an alternative to non-renewable sources will be less than the total cost of the renewables, and as older plant is decommissioned it can be replaced by carbon neutral sources. I’d fall off my chair if the actual price was more than half the abovementioned upper bound.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

sibeen said:

dv said:

I mean here is how I think of it. Just ballpark the costs, making overestimates.

We’ve hardly begun the journey in developing renewable energy and cheap storage: there are no doubt huge economies of scale ahead.

But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh. Of course not every place is going to be in reasonable transmission range of such a large and cheap project. Some parts of the country are not within cooee of sizeable reservoirs: most of the population and industry are, but not all. Ballpark it again and suppose 80% of the country can use such pumped storage and the rest has to use Darth Elon’s blocks of doom.

Australia’s power consumption is around 30 GW mean.

Take some dire scenario renewables case and figure you need 24 mean hours worth of storage for everywhere. I think that with reasonable planning that’s overkill but go with that: 720 GWh of storage.

Of course we aren’t starting from zero: 24% of Australia’s power already derives from renewables, and has something like 60 GWh in various forms of storage already.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion. To put that in perspective: that is considerably less than the $230 billion tax in cuts for the wealthy, over the forward estimates, that the Coalition introduced with the last budget. If they, say, didn’t introduce those tax cuts, and instead put that revenue in a fund, than the conversion to renewables plus storage is already paid for.

On a 31 year time line, it would represent about 1/300 of GDP, about $4 per person per week.

In reality the power demand will increase but on current long term trends that power demand will be outstripped by increase in GDP, so our ability to pay for it will only improve.

But I’ve chosen a very pessimistic model: there will be economies of scale, there will be technological improvements. The _net cost of these installations as an alternative to non-renewable sources will be less than the total cost of the renewables, and as older plant is decommissioned it can be replaced by carbon neutral sources. I’d fall off my chair if the actual price was more than half the abovementioned upper bound.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

Of course, the electricity would be just about the easiest part of Australia’s carbon neutral effort.

The real kicker will be transport.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

I mean here is how I think of it. Just ballpark the costs, making overestimates.

We’ve hardly begun the journey in developing renewable energy and cheap storage: there are no doubt huge economies of scale ahead.

But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh. Of course not every place is going to be in reasonable transmission range of such a large and cheap project. Some parts of the country are not within cooee of sizeable reservoirs: most of the population and industry are, but not all. Ballpark it again and suppose 80% of the country can use such pumped storage and the rest has to use Darth Elon’s blocks of doom.

Australia’s power consumption is around 30 GW mean.

Take some dire scenario renewables case and figure you need 24 mean hours worth of storage for everywhere. I think that with reasonable planning that’s overkill but go with that: 720 GWh of storage.

Of course we aren’t starting from zero: 24% of Australia’s power already derives from renewables, and has something like 60 GWh in various forms of storage already.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion. To put that in perspective: that is considerably less than the $230 billion tax in cuts for the wealthy, over the forward estimates, that the Coalition introduced with the last budget. If they, say, didn’t introduce those tax cuts, and instead put that revenue in a fund, than the conversion to renewables plus storage is already paid for.

On a 31 year time line, it would represent about 1/300 of GDP, about $4 per person per week.

In reality the power demand will increase but on current long term trends that power demand will be outstripped by increase in GDP, so our ability to pay for it will only improve.

But I’ve chosen a very pessimistic model: there will be economies of scale, there will be technological improvements. The _net cost of these installations as an alternative to non-renewable sources will be less than the total cost of the renewables, and as older plant is decommissioned it can be replaced by carbon neutral sources. I’d fall off my chair if the actual price was more than half the abovementioned upper bound.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I’ll have a look on the morrow.

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I’ll have a look on the morrow.

Coolios.

Should be noted that this is my WCS estimate, and that other authors suggest significantly lower costs.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I’ll have a look on the morrow.

Coolios.

Should be noted that this is my WCS estimate, and that other authors suggest significantly lower costs.

but won’t somebody please think of the jobs ¿ ¿¿ ¿¿¿

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

I’ll have a look on the morrow.

Coolios.

Should be noted that this is my WCS estimate, and that other authors suggest significantly lower costs.

but won’t somebody please think of the jobs ¿ ¿¿ ¿¿¿

Well someone is going to have to build and install and maintain this stuff.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

Coolios.

Should be noted that this is my WCS estimate, and that other authors suggest significantly lower costs.

but won’t somebody please think of the jobs ¿ ¿¿ ¿¿¿

Well someone is going to have to build and install and maintain this stuff.

that’s what we mean, we don’t have anyone who can do that, i heard it on the wireless, we only have people who can build mines and install mining facilities and maintain mines, we only have environmental scientists who know how to environmental science the mines, we only have accountants who know how to account for mines, we only have minors, that’s thinking of the children right there

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I’ll have a look on the morrow.

Mañana

Boris said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I’ll have a look on the morrow.

Mañana

It is helped bu half their population being in Oz.

dv said:

…
But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh.
…

My maths doesn’t seem to be working properly this morning. I can’t get 350GWh @$5 billion to come to 1.4c/GWh.

dv said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

I mean here is how I think of it. Just ballpark the costs, making overestimates.

We’ve hardly begun the journey in developing renewable energy and cheap storage: there are no doubt huge economies of scale ahead.

But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh. Of course not every place is going to be in reasonable transmission range of such a large and cheap project. Some parts of the country are not within cooee of sizeable reservoirs: most of the population and industry are, but not all. Ballpark it again and suppose 80% of the country can use such pumped storage and the rest has to use Darth Elon’s blocks of doom.

Australia’s power consumption is around 30 GW mean.

Take some dire scenario renewables case and figure you need 24 mean hours worth of storage for everywhere. I think that with reasonable planning that’s overkill but go with that: 720 GWh of storage.

Of course we aren’t starting from zero: 24% of Australia’s power already derives from renewables, and has something like 60 GWh in various forms of storage already.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion. To put that in perspective: that is considerably less than the $230 billion tax in cuts for the wealthy, over the forward estimates, that the Coalition introduced with the last budget. If they, say, didn’t introduce those tax cuts, and instead put that revenue in a fund, than the conversion to renewables plus storage is already paid for.

On a 31 year time line, it would represent about 1/300 of GDP, about $4 per person per week.

In reality the power demand will increase but on current long term trends that power demand will be outstripped by increase in GDP, so our ability to pay for it will only improve.

But I’ve chosen a very pessimistic model: there will be economies of scale, there will be technological improvements. The _net cost of these installations as an alternative to non-renewable sources will be less than the total cost of the renewables, and as older plant is decommissioned it can be replaced by carbon neutral sources. I’d fall off my chair if the actual price was more than half the abovementioned upper bound.

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I really was quite smashed last night when I saw this post and responded.

Let’s just take this portion:

The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh

The Tesla battery in SA cost about $90 million and has a storage capacity of 129 MW/h. So call it an even $700 per kW/h.

sibeen said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

But even at current prices, with no allowance for new technology or economies of scale, the sticker is only $160 billion.

OK, even without much thinking involved I’d have to call bullshit. Three times the cost of the NBB? Call me princess, but come on.

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I really was quite smashed last night when I saw this post and responded.

Let’s just take this portion:

The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh

The Tesla battery in SA cost about $90 million and has a storage capacity of 129 MW/h. So call it an even $700 per kW/h.

Take out a / :)

I was the lead engineer on the first large Tesla battery installation in Australia, and as far as I know the first in 50 Hz world. Admittedly only 1.2 GWh of storage but the two inverters had serial numbers of 00002 and 00003. 00001 was back in the States in the Tesla test lab. I just wish 30 cents per kWh was the price for the batteries, I’d never be out of work.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

Well I’d welcome your estimate.

I really was quite smashed last night when I saw this post and responded.

Let’s just take this portion:

The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh

The Tesla battery in SA cost about $90 million and has a storage capacity of 129 MW/h. So call it an even $700 per kW/h.

Take out a / :)

I was the lead engineer on the first large Tesla battery installation in Australia, and as far as I know the first in 50 Hz world. Admittedly only 1.2 GWh of storage but the two inverters had serial numbers of 00002 and 00003. 00001 was back in the States in the Tesla test lab. I just wish 30 cents per kWh was the price for the batteries, I’d never be out of work.

Sorry, hungover and not proof reading, the system I worked on was 1.2 MWh of storage.

btm said:

dv said:

…
But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh.
…

My maths doesn’t seem to be working properly this morning. I can’t get 350GWh @$5 billion to come to 1.4c/GWh.

I get about $14/kWh.

These things need to be worked out on the back of a beer coaster.

sibeen said:

btm said:

dv said:

…
But despite that, the price for big renewable power projects is around $4.8 per installed mean-watt. The price for huge scalable battery storage is around 30 cents per kWh and the price of setting up pumped hydro varies, but to give an example, Snowy 2 will have a capacity of 350 GWh for a price of about $5 billion: about 1.4 cents per GWh.
…

My maths doesn’t seem to be working properly this morning. I can’t get 350GWh @$5 billion to come to 1.4c/GWh.

I get about $14/kWh.

Err, 1.4 c/kWh.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

btm said:

My maths doesn’t seem to be working properly this morning. I can’t get 350GWh @$5 billion to come to 1.4c/GWh.

I get about $14/kWh.

Err, 1.4 c/kWh.

I get about 1.4c/Wh, or about $14.29/kWh. I suspect dv meant 1.4c/Wh.

btm said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

I get about $14/kWh.

Err, 1.4 c/kWh.

I get about 1.4c/Wh, or about $14.29/kWh. I suspect dv meant 1.4c/Wh.

Me too.

$5000
————-
350 kWh

btm said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

I get about $14/kWh.

Err, 1.4 c/kWh.

I get about 1.4c/Wh, or about $14.29/kWh. I suspect dv meant 1.4c/Wh.

I love being stupid in the morning :)

I did mean c/Wh: typo or braino. But my calcs relied on the appropriate conversion.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/16/power-to-the-people-how-suburban-solar-could-become-the-uber-of-the-energy-grid

ruby said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/16/power-to-the-people-how-suburban-solar-could-become-the-uber-of-the-energy-grid

Shades of Bill Mollison.

Morning Pilgrims, what news?

ruby said:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/16/power-to-the-people-how-suburban-solar-could-become-the-uber-of-the-energy-grid

This is one of the ways forward and I’ve been involved in the next level up on this. The systems mentioned in the article are used as the storage and can provide power to the grid when called upon. The next level also has them as Frequency Control Ancillary Services (FCAS) where they can react in less than 100 milliseconds to conditions on the grid and source or sink power in that time frame as required. This is basically what the big Tesla battery in SA is used for.