I saw this quote yesterday..

“As Australia strives to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, energy derived from renewable sources will need to produce about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market.”

40 times seems to me to be a very, very big number to me… and I’m guessing the inherent assumption baked into the statement is that 100% locally produced green hydrogen is basis upon which net zero is achieved.

I’m not across the likely energy requirements in a 2050 world, nor the energy economics of green hydrogen but I know that people here are… so… what do we reckon.. do we call shenanigans on this claim or no?

diddly-squat said:

I saw this quote yesterday..

“As Australia strives to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, energy derived from renewable sources will need to produce about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market.”

40 times seems to me to be a very, very big number to me… and I’m guessing the inherent assumption baked into the statement is that 100% locally produced green hydrogen is basis upon which net zero is achieved.

I’m not across the likely energy requirements in a 2050 world, nor the energy economics of green hydrogen but I know that people here are… so… what do we reckon.. do we call shenanigans on this claim or no?

Even if it was based on every kWh being generated from green hydrogen (which would be a nonsense thing to do), surely 40X current energy generation is way more than you would need.

But no doubt sibeen will be along shortly.

diddly-squat said:

I saw this quote yesterday..

“As Australia strives to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, energy derived from renewable sources will need to produce about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market.”

40 times seems to me to be a very, very big number to me… and I’m guessing the inherent assumption baked into the statement is that 100% locally produced green hydrogen is basis upon which net zero is achieved.

I’m not across the likely energy requirements in a 2050 world, nor the energy economics of green hydrogen but I know that people here are… so… what do we reckon.. do we call shenanigans on this claim or no?

You do wonder that’s a huge increase, what’s coming online to require so much more electricity
I’d be interested to see how much electricity is wasted

diddly-squat said:

I saw this quote yesterday..

“As Australia strives to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, energy derived from renewable sources will need to produce about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market.”

40 times seems to me to be a very, very big number to me… and I’m guessing the inherent assumption baked into the statement is that 100% locally produced green hydrogen is basis upon which net zero is achieved.

I’m not across the likely energy requirements in a 2050 world, nor the energy economics of green hydrogen but I know that people here are… so… what do we reckon.. do we call shenanigans on this claim or no?

Yeah, let’s call it. It is so far away that it will be impossible to make a reasoned guess anyway.

I suppose we have to factor in all transportation becoming electric too, using battery storage, but there are other alternatives to battery-electric vehicles. Like growing hydrocarbon fuels from algae or seaweeds.

We don’t know what the economies of scale are going to be on a lot of emerging green technology.

Maybe they mean 40 times the amount of renewable energy being generated today?
Anyway it should be pretty easy to model our electrical system in 2050.
How much wind, how much solar, how much back up from coal and gas and possibly nuclear and maybe pumped hydro from new dams.

The Rev Dodgson said:

diddly-squat said:

I saw this quote yesterday..

“As Australia strives to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, energy derived from renewable sources will need to produce about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market.”

40 times seems to me to be a very, very big number to me… and I’m guessing the inherent assumption baked into the statement is that 100% locally produced green hydrogen is basis upon which net zero is achieved.

I’m not across the likely energy requirements in a 2050 world, nor the energy economics of green hydrogen but I know that people here are… so… what do we reckon.. do we call shenanigans on this claim or no?

Even if it was based on every kWh being generated from green hydrogen (which would be a nonsense thing to do), surely 40X current energy generation is way more than you would need.

But no doubt sibeen will be along shortly.

careful what you wish for.

diddly-squat said:

I saw this quote yesterday..

“As Australia strives to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, energy derived from renewable sources will need to produce about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market.”

40 times seems to me to be a very, very big number to me… and I’m guessing the inherent assumption baked into the statement is that 100% locally produced green hydrogen is basis upon which net zero is achieved.

I’m not across the likely energy requirements in a 2050 world, nor the energy economics of green hydrogen but I know that people here are… so… what do we reckon.. do we call shenanigans on this claim or no?

What’s the source for the quote? Seems like complete nonsense.

We might as well ballpark this for some fun.

The population is projected to increase by 38% between now and 2050. Electricity makes for about 26% of energy use, so if everything went to electrical you might think electrical power production would have to increase by a factor of 5.3.

But I think this is a very pessimistic estimate on at least four counts.
Efficiencies have improved tremendously over the last 50 years and can be expected to continue to improve.
Estimates of energy consumption includes all of the energy produced by combustion of fuels, but ICE engines sre inefficient and waste the great majority of the energy they use. Even allowing for transmission losses, EV vehicles will use less energy, like for like.
Zero net carbon doesn’t require all of the current activities to be done by electrical power. Some of it can be dealt with by overall change of practice: less needless transport, particularly. Some of it can be dealt with by direct use of solar furnaces, or windpowered pumps. Some of it can continue to be hydrocarbon powered balanced by offsets such as reforestation. It’s beyond my ken to make a proper estimate other than to say “significantly below 5.3 times current electrical production”.

that might involve max capacity requirements, given increased supply variability along with demand variability

sort of a mid july situation southern hemisphere, three weeks of continuous cloud cover, and windless, and having to recharge all the batteries on the system

How many GHG targets have already come and gone since the Rio Summit in 1990? Did any of them get close?

My thoughts are that this ^ is just kicking the can down the road for another 25+ years.

australia takes in at least 250,000 new people every year

the only way to account for these new arrivals so we still have electrical power and fresh water is to either raise taxes (or invent a new tax like GST – remember howards economic miracle ?) or make power and water much more expensive or both.

the future for australia is much higher taxes and falling living standards

in 4 years we would need to provide power for an extra million people – see what i mean ?

regardless of the death rate power useage will continue climbing

when i worked for the power authority i was watching a transformer install

thats not a very big transformer is it? wouldn’t it be better to install a much larger transformer to account for more people moving into the area?

no, the paperwork to put a much larger transformer in is much more onerous and time consuming / harder in every way – we’ll just use the smaller tx and be damned to try and get something put in sooner.

wookiemeister said:

australia takes in at least 250,000 new people every year

the only way to account for these new arrivals so we still have electrical power and fresh water is to either raise taxes (or invent a new tax like GST – remember howards economic miracle ?) or make power and water much more expensive or both.

the future for australia is much higher taxes and falling living standards

What is the increase in population?

wookiemeister said:

in 4 years we would need to provide power for an extra million people – see what i mean ?

regardless of the death rate power useage will continue climbing

when i worked for the power authority i was watching a transformer install

thats not a very big transformer is it? wouldn’t it be better to install a much larger transformer to account for more people moving into the area?

no, the paperwork to put a much larger transformer in is much more onerous and time consuming / harder in every way – we’ll just use the smaller tx and be damned to try and get something put in sooner.

At the hydro station we installed a larger tx with no onerous paperwork.
A large python had shorted out the old one & the resulting fire destroyed the tx.

Tamb said:

wookiemeister said:

in 4 years we would need to provide power for an extra million people – see what i mean ?

regardless of the death rate power useage will continue climbing

when i worked for the power authority i was watching a transformer install

thats not a very big transformer is it? wouldn’t it be better to install a much larger transformer to account for more people moving into the area?

no, the paperwork to put a much larger transformer in is much more onerous and time consuming / harder in every way – we’ll just use the smaller tx and be damned to try and get something put in sooner.

At the hydro station we installed a larger tx with no onerous paperwork.
A large python had shorted out the old one & the resulting fire destroyed the tx.

What happened to the python ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

wookiemeister said:

in 4 years we would need to provide power for an extra million people – see what i mean ?

regardless of the death rate power useage will continue climbing

when i worked for the power authority i was watching a transformer install

thats not a very big transformer is it? wouldn’t it be better to install a much larger transformer to account for more people moving into the area?

no, the paperwork to put a much larger transformer in is much more onerous and time consuming / harder in every way – we’ll just use the smaller tx and be damned to try and get something put in sooner.

At the hydro station we installed a larger tx with no onerous paperwork.
A large python had shorted out the old one & the resulting fire destroyed the tx.

What happened to the python ?

Very dead & partly incinerated.

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

At the hydro station we installed a larger tx with no onerous paperwork.
A large python had shorted out the old one & the resulting fire destroyed the tx.

What happened to the python ?

Very dead & partly incinerated.

ok. It must have missed the Keep Out sign.

wookiemeister said:

australia takes in at least 250,000 new people every year

the only way to account for these new arrivals so we still have electrical power and fresh water is to either raise taxes (or invent a new tax like GST – remember howards economic miracle ?) or make power and water much more expensive or both.

the future for australia is much higher taxes and falling living standards

No. Australia’s population growth over the past decade is more or less equal to what it was over the past 40 years. It was even higher before then and with this growth living standards have risen substantially:

https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+population+growth&rlz=1CAEVJI_enAU961AU961&oq=australia+population+growth&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.11516j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tamb said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

What happened to the python ?

Very dead & partly incinerated.

ok. It must have missed the Keep Out sign.

I think it has a death wish. Got through the fence & climbed about 5 metres to get the the tranny terminals.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

australia takes in at least 250,000 new people every year

the only way to account for these new arrivals so we still have electrical power and fresh water is to either raise taxes (or invent a new tax like GST – remember howards economic miracle ?) or make power and water much more expensive or both.

the future for australia is much higher taxes and falling living standards

No. Australia’s population growth over the past decade is more or less equal to what it was over the past 40 years. It was even higher before then and with this growth living standards have risen substantially:

https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+population+growth&rlz=1CAEVJI_enAU961AU961&oq=australia+population+growth&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.11516j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Note that immigration has ameliorated the tax burden, as immigrants are disproportionately of working age and hencecontribute a greater % of their income as taxes on average than native born Australians.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

australia takes in at least 250,000 new people every year

the only way to account for these new arrivals so we still have electrical power and fresh water is to either raise taxes (or invent a new tax like GST – remember howards economic miracle ?) or make power and water much more expensive or both.

the future for australia is much higher taxes and falling living standards

No. Australia’s population growth over the past decade is more or less equal to what it was over the past 40 years. It was even higher before then and with this growth living standards have risen substantially:

https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+population+growth&rlz=1CAEVJI_enAU961AU961&oq=australia+population+growth&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.11516j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Note that immigration has ameliorated the tax burden, as immigrants are disproportionately of working age and hencecontribute a greater % of their income as taxes on average than native born Australians.

Obviously but try telling Wookie that.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No. Australia’s population growth over the past decade is more or less equal to what it was over the past 40 years. It was even higher before then and with this growth living standards have risen substantially:

https://www.google.com/search?q=australia+population+growth&rlz=1CAEVJI_enAU961AU961&oq=australia+population+growth&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.11516j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Note that immigration has ameliorated the tax burden, as immigrants are disproportionately of working age and hencecontribute a greater % of their income as taxes on average than native born Australians.

Obviously but try telling Wookie that.

Prefer not to engage with him directly so perhaps you could pass it along

dv said:

We might as well ballpark this for some fun.

The population is projected to increase by 38% between now and 2050. Electricity makes for about 26% of energy use, so if everything went to electrical you might think electrical power production would have to increase by a factor of 5.3.

But I think this is a very pessimistic estimate on at least four counts.
Efficiencies have improved tremendously over the last 50 years and can be expected to continue to improve.
Estimates of energy consumption includes all of the energy produced by combustion of fuels, but ICE engines sre inefficient and waste the great majority of the energy they use. Even allowing for transmission losses, EV vehicles will use less energy, like for like.
Zero net carbon doesn’t require all of the current activities to be done by electrical power. Some of it can be dealt with by overall change of practice: less needless transport, particularly. Some of it can be dealt with by direct use of solar furnaces, or windpowered pumps. Some of it can continue to be hydrocarbon powered balanced by offsets such as reforestation. It’s beyond my ken to make a proper estimate other than to say “significantly below 5.3 times current electrical production”.

Just spotted this.

I’m going to have to disagree with dv on this. It of course depends upon what sort of electrical generation we are going to be using in 30 years’ time, but if there is no alternative to the current (sic) renewable alternatives of wind and solar coupled with some form of storage media, then it’s going to be a lot higher than 5.3 times.

Again, I’m assuming current renewable technology and here you need to take into the capacity factors, ballparking about 25% for solar and 33% for wind. A shedload more generation needs to be built, along with the associated storage, to keep up with the dispatchable technologies of coal and gas and of course nuclear.

If we go down the nuclear route then I’d be in agreement with dv. So I could see how someone could come up with a figure of 40 times without any real wild assumptions having to be made, just by ignoring the nuclear option.

¿

SCIENCE said:

¿

Would you like to tell us what that is all about?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

¿

Would you like to tell us what that is all about?

Exactly, that’s what we meant too. It looks like prices in the context of demand versus generation, broken down state wide.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

¿

Would you like to tell us what that is all about?

Exactly, that’s what we meant too. It looks like prices in the context of demand versus generation, broken down state wide.

But where did it come from?

Spose I’ll have to do my own Binge.

Why Bitcoin could be an unlikely saviour for global electricity supply

https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemos-jaw-dropping-prediction-for-coal-power-all-but-gone-from-the-grid-in-a-decade/

Link

Bogsnorkler said:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemos-jaw-dropping-prediction-for-coal-power-all-but-gone-from-the-grid-in-a-decade/

Link

QI the different spin that different news sources put on that: