Sorrycut and paste on our ongoing energy saga isn south australia. Good read

[malleefarmer]

I know some people who say zero till will never work.

Some people are completely unable to use a computer.

Others can't parallel park.

Is it renewable energy, or is it the lack of skills of the south Australian energy planners? Article did not mention.

The crux of article is you still need non renewable back up from day one in your own state rather have to rely on interstate back up.
And as tweety or chuck said maybe RET was to high and perhaps no organized enough.

The article wasn't a pro or con for renewable energy just associated problems in state with highest costs electricity in the world now it seems.

[Hamloc]

Couple of thoughts Chuck2. First the insolation factor in Australia is higher than anywhere in Canada so solar power should work better than in Canada. If it raises costs there imagine what it will do in Canada. As for President Obama's environmental legacy, there was 19200 Kim's of oil pipeline built and oil production was doubled during his Presidency. Is that the environmental movements definition of what constitutes being good for the environment? I would say Obama was very good for the oil industry!

[tweety]

There is always huge risk of adapting new technology too quickly. Especially mission critical like power. Wow, it has to be hard for those spearheading the resolve to the problems.

[sofa.king]

When we go totally green in canada I can't wait till the Toronto and Vancouver cities have a blackout. Between the traffic chaos and the crime wave that will hit who will these greenish blame. I will sit back and smile while I get my generator fuelled up.

[oneoff]

About the time anyone gives me a sensible lecture on synchronous electrical generation vs. wind powered asynchronous power vs. inverter based systems...then I'll start to develop some respect for their knowledge. Seems that there is a reluctance to even accept what real life experience has proven to be a fact of life eg. Austrailia

Conversely; for those who know little about what they promote; perhaps they could first show some of their own cash...and perhaps a whole lot more commitment that is more confined to their own business.

The challenge for today is therefor; Explain in as many words as you choose...

windmills, windmills everywhere but not a volt to link. Hint : You could plagiarize a pretty succint answer from the headline post at the top of this thread

[chuckChuck]

There is an old adage in the media, "if it bleeds it leads" which means most often bad news is what is reported.

There is not much interest in reporting when everything is going well. As the business report by Reguly pointed out there are many jurisdictions where there are a lot of renewables and we don't hear about it. I wonder how Germany, France, Spain and China manage to integrate multiple sources into their grid? I am sure there are challenges but it must be going relatively well or we would be hearing about the blackouts.

I know many people seem to seize on any negative news to prove that renewables will cause the world economy to collapse. Perhaps for them anything that causes too much change to the status quo is a threat.

[SASKFARMER3]

Ok chuck bad news stories are lead article is correct. But why all the feel good stories on climate change etc. They pushed it forward without checking the facts. They make it seem that every one loves JT and his climate agenda and tax. Its the media that pushes the bullshit lie.

Wind solar are very costly and not so clean check it out cost to build each one. Those propellors don't come made from china.

But chuck its good to see you promote the feel good tec and never show the true cost.

States and Provinces and Countries that adapted it are going broke but yet its such a good energy.

[chuckChuck]

SF3 Many times I have posted the LCOE of energy cost comparisons from the US that show renewables as being cost competitive. Real case examples in China, Chile and the middle east show costs are often much lower than fossil sources. Solar at 2.4 cents per Kwh, compared to Sask power at 11.8 kwh cents retail.

So when you factor in all the hidden costs of fossil energy, pollution, health costs, environmental damage, and climate change then clean energy is much cheaper.

We are not there yet and we will still be dependent on fossil energy for a long while yet, but the transition is happening.

[chuckChuck]

Germany is not going broke by the way. Strongest economy in Europe! So again generalizations don't apply.

[stonepicker]

Someday i'll learn to cut and paste like ccc ( cut,paste,chuck ) but for now,. Thomas J pyle, pres. of inst.for energy research ( non-partisan ) says- " like spain, germany just another example of billions of tax dollars forced to support wind and solar energy without a hint of economic or enviromental benefits." Some key findings- Green jobs created by gov. actions dissappear as soon as gov. support is terminated.- gov. aid for windpower is now 3 times the cost of conventional electricity. This is part of a study on germany and renewable power.

[oneoff]

SF3 Many times I have posted the LCOE of energy cost comparisons from the US that show renewables as being cost competitive. Real case examples in China, Chile and the middle east show costs are often much lower than fossil sources. Solar at 2.4 cents per Kwh, compared to Sask power at 11.8 kwh cents retail.

So when you factor in all the hidden costs of fossil energy, pollution, health costs, environmental damage, and climate change then clean energy is much cheaper.

We are not there yet and we will still be dependent on fossil energy for a long while yet, but the transition is happening.

When the factors that are ignored are not considered in the equation; then inappropriate conclusions are jumped to.

All credibility is lost when the end conclusion is we will still be dependent on fossil energy for a long time yet.
Why wouldn't everyone be all in on 2.4 cent per kilowatt energy production when 5 times that amount doesn't come close to what our electrical grids apparently must charge?

And the classic example is that purveyors haven't taken their own beliefs and propaganda to heart. It seems that; everyone else must subsidize green energy promoters; and still we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a long time yet.

[chuckChuck]

When the factors that are ignored are not considered in the equation; then inappropriate conclusions are jumped to.

All credibility is lost when the end conclusion is we will still be dependent on fossil energy for a long time yet.
Why wouldn't everyone be all in on 2.4 cent per kilowatt energy production when 5 times that amount doesn't come close to what our electrical grids apparently must charge?

And the classic example is that purveyors haven't taken their own beliefs and propaganda to heart. It seems that; everyone else must subsidize green energy promoters; and still we will be dependent on fossil fuels for a long time yet.

Oneoff whether my arguments or the arguments of other convince you or not you cannot deny that solar, wind, tidal, bio-gas production is being installed and planned to be installed in numerous countries including in your own province.

I am not suggesting we can replace all fossil fuels in the forseeable future. We are in a transition. You seem to want no innovation or new technology at all. You have never ever suggested that renewables can be used at all. Meanwhile Saskpower is moving ahead with lots of wind and some solar. Have you got your head in the sand?

If 2.4 cents per kwh is before distribution costs it is pretty clear that it is still cheaper than new coal.

If your arguments is none of this stuff works or isn't feasible then you must be wrong.

You also forget to acknowledge that fossil energy is subsidized and has indirect and direct costs that are not accounted for. Environmental damage, additional health costs and climate change. Do you have any idea of what the total massive costs of those might be? Because when you talk about how cheap fossil energy is those costs need to be added in.