-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Do you know how much of that is government money, and how much is private investment?
From what I can tell a lot is private investment, which suggests the returns on investment are there.
Because governments will have to own any projects that are not financially viable.
No I don’t, but see my previous post #9591. It might have something to do with it.
Hey, I'm not going to disagree that privatisation was a cluster *smile*. Except that privatisation was never intended to save money, make things more efficient, cheaper or any of the other excuses given. It was 2 things: 1) ideology, and 2) it meant the government could try to shift the blame when things went wrong with power, telecommunications, public transport etc (this has not been so successful as people still blame the government).
But, Comrade Dutton leads the minimal government and privatise everything party. So proposing nukes to be government owned is hypocrisy (whatever happened to leaving it up to the magical free market?). Not only that, it is hypocrisy he is forced into because he knows that nukes can only be government owned as government is the only organisation which can fund such an expensive and uncompetitive way to generate power and indemnify for problems.
In any case, this is a fairy tale, which is another reason to claim it will be government owned. It is a diversion to allow the fossil fuel indistries to continue for longer.
DS
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting that our nuclear promoting socialist comrades were incredibly concerned about taxpayers and utilities users given cost of living pressures.
So now it turns out - as many of us free-market renewables promoters said repeatedly it would - that Dutton's scheme will increase utulities bills by $1000 pa. I'm sure they won't say another word about poor pensioners who can't afford to pay their bills.
So now it turns out - as many of us free-market renewables promoters said repeatedly it would - that Dutton's scheme will increase utulities bills by $1000 pa. I'm sure they won't say another word about poor pensioners who can't afford to pay their bills.
Show us the proof ,that bills will increase by $1000 pa.
Show me the costs of rolling out all the renewables,up to now ,and future projects also include all the subsides that Labor are giving to keep their agenda a float.
You don''t mind sniping other's posts ,so maybe put up or shut up.
CSIRO GENCOST MISLEADS AUSTRALIANS WITH
FLAWED ENERGY COST MODEL
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity
methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false
understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of the
Institute of Public Affairs.
The CSIRO’s annual GenCost report released today, follows IPA research, published in April 2024, which
found that relying on the levelised cost of electricity methodology (LCOE) is dangerous, specifically:
LCOE accounting oversimplifies complex energy systems and overlooks crucial factors that
need to be considered in making investment and policy decisions. LCOE's focus on production
cost alone neglects performance, broader system integration, and value creation, rendering it
inadequate for informing energy policy decisions.
“LCOE simply cannot explain the rising costs of energy endured by Australian families and businesses.
Despite repeated GenCost reports predicting the contrary, as more wind and solar has come into the
system, costs have continued to rise, and blackout warnings are becoming regular,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
IPA research demonstrates that LCOE is highly sensitive to the assumptions used, and simply does not
take into account the extra costs that variable renewable energy triggers elsewhere in the market.
“LCOE does not recognise the real value of baseload generation from gas, coal or nuclear, which is
able to consistently produce electricity on demand, whereas renewables simply cannot,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
Forthcoming IPA research will detail the true cost of our energy future, by applying a far more accurate
methodology that takes into account the full costs right across the system. It establishes that any system
built on baseload generation, like gas, coal, or nuclear, will always be significantly less expensive than
one reliant on variable renewable energy.
“Australians have every right to be worried that the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, continues to
hide behind these discredited numbers rather than being honest with them, while at the same time
failing to work to protect our nation’s energy security,” Mr Hargreaves said.
Yesterday, AEMO released its Update to the 2023 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, warning of an
increased risk of blackouts in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, as the nation continues to
remove dispatchable sources of power and scrambles to replace them with weather-dependent
renewables.
“Regardless of your opinion of wind and solar, the cold, hard reality is that more variable renewable
energy means higher costs and lower energy security. More dispatchable power, be it coal, gas or
nuclear, means lower costs and higher reliability,” said Mr Hargreaves.
ipa.org.au
FLAWED ENERGY COST MODEL
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity
methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false
understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of the
Institute of Public Affairs.
The CSIRO’s annual GenCost report released today, follows IPA research, published in April 2024, which
found that relying on the levelised cost of electricity methodology (LCOE) is dangerous, specifically:
LCOE accounting oversimplifies complex energy systems and overlooks crucial factors that
need to be considered in making investment and policy decisions. LCOE's focus on production
cost alone neglects performance, broader system integration, and value creation, rendering it
inadequate for informing energy policy decisions.
“LCOE simply cannot explain the rising costs of energy endured by Australian families and businesses.
Despite repeated GenCost reports predicting the contrary, as more wind and solar has come into the
system, costs have continued to rise, and blackout warnings are becoming regular,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
IPA research demonstrates that LCOE is highly sensitive to the assumptions used, and simply does not
take into account the extra costs that variable renewable energy triggers elsewhere in the market.
“LCOE does not recognise the real value of baseload generation from gas, coal or nuclear, which is
able to consistently produce electricity on demand, whereas renewables simply cannot,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
Forthcoming IPA research will detail the true cost of our energy future, by applying a far more accurate
methodology that takes into account the full costs right across the system. It establishes that any system
built on baseload generation, like gas, coal, or nuclear, will always be significantly less expensive than
one reliant on variable renewable energy.
“Australians have every right to be worried that the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, continues to
hide behind these discredited numbers rather than being honest with them, while at the same time
failing to work to protect our nation’s energy security,” Mr Hargreaves said.
Yesterday, AEMO released its Update to the 2023 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, warning of an
increased risk of blackouts in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, as the nation continues to
remove dispatchable sources of power and scrambles to replace them with weather-dependent
renewables.
“Regardless of your opinion of wind and solar, the cold, hard reality is that more variable renewable
energy means higher costs and lower energy security. More dispatchable power, be it coal, gas or
nuclear, means lower costs and higher reliability,” said Mr Hargreaves.
CSIRO GenCost Misleads Australians With Flawed Energy Cost Model
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of...
ipa.org.au
Tell them they can use google.
You can expect all the green Councils, scientists, climate “experts” to weigh in over any nuclear proposal.
They love the renewables at any cost.
They have their place but are not the full answer to climate change or a secure 24/7 energy solution. Even a simpleton would know that
You can expect all the green Councils, scientists, climate “experts” to weigh in over any nuclear proposal.
They love the renewables at any cost.
They have their place but are not the full answer to climate change or a secure 24/7 energy solution. Even a simpleton would know that
Last edited:
CSIRO GENCOST MISLEADS AUSTRALIANS WITH
FLAWED ENERGY COST MODEL
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity
methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false
understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of the
Institute of Public Affairs.
The CSIRO’s annual GenCost report released today, follows IPA research, published in April 2024, which
found that relying on the levelised cost of electricity methodology (LCOE) is dangerous, specifically:
LCOE accounting oversimplifies complex energy systems and overlooks crucial factors that
need to be considered in making investment and policy decisions. LCOE's focus on production
cost alone neglects performance, broader system integration, and value creation, rendering it
inadequate for informing energy policy decisions.
“LCOE simply cannot explain the rising costs of energy endured by Australian families and businesses.
Despite repeated GenCost reports predicting the contrary, as more wind and solar has come into the
system, costs have continued to rise, and blackout warnings are becoming regular,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
IPA research demonstrates that LCOE is highly sensitive to the assumptions used, and simply does not
take into account the extra costs that variable renewable energy triggers elsewhere in the market.
“LCOE does not recognise the real value of baseload generation from gas, coal or nuclear, which is
able to consistently produce electricity on demand, whereas renewables simply cannot,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
Forthcoming IPA research will detail the true cost of our energy future, by applying a far more accurate
methodology that takes into account the full costs right across the system. It establishes that any system
built on baseload generation, like gas, coal, or nuclear, will always be significantly less expensive than
one reliant on variable renewable energy.
“Australians have every right to be worried that the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, continues to
hide behind these discredited numbers rather than being honest with them, while at the same time
failing to work to protect our nation’s energy security,” Mr Hargreaves said.
Yesterday, AEMO released its Update to the 2023 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, warning of an
increased risk of blackouts in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, as the nation continues to
remove dispatchable sources of power and scrambles to replace them with weather-dependent
renewables.
“Regardless of your opinion of wind and solar, the cold, hard reality is that more variable renewable
energy means higher costs and lower energy security. More dispatchable power, be it coal, gas or
nuclear, means lower costs and higher reliability,” said Mr Hargreaves.
CSIRO GenCost Misleads Australians With Flawed Energy Cost Model
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of...
I doubt the IPA will have any credibility with the left given its funding sources and given it is anti-climate change science.
Institute of Public Affairs - Wikipedia
LCOE has issues in that supply doesn't have to meet demand so it doesn't account for infrastructure and storage - we see it play out in the market with the ever reducing price paid for those who have excess solar generation and even charges to connect back in to the grid and much higher prices during peak demand periods to purchase electricity.
I posted the separate analysis that shows the asymptotiing cost of renewables to support demand as the penetration increases in the SA market. This is the point that everyone needs to try and understand so we can come up with sensible policy vs what looks like is going to be a pendulum on the clock all the way left then all the way right (implication intended).
Electrification which pretty much leads to less demand due to its efficiency in the home makes a lot of sense. I'm in gas, but I'm a chemical engineer and its hard with a straight face to argue gas heating vs reverse cycle air conditioning / heat pumps / induction cooking etc in the house. Electricity is just more efficient to shift energy around. There is a massive capital / retrofit component however to do this to existing homes.
I think EV penetration could do a massive amount to load shift where we charge the car in the middle of the day with excess solar and use some of that storage in the evening / overnight, then recharge the next day. This times millions of cars will massively change the situation in a way that is hard to comprehend. So lots and lots of micro storage close to where demand is means no need for poles and wires and therefore solar+battery being the likely technical winner IMO (but still with a massive recycling issue at end of life that needs to be dealt with). Owners of electrical infrastructure won't want this situation and I imagine will have a lot of power.
That however is decades aways, so we have the problem of how to get there, manage the cost of living and not destroy the planet permanently in the interim.
The IPA appear to be suggesting their future research will prove their opinion is correct. Shouldnt they be waiting until they do the research?CSIRO GENCOST MISLEADS AUSTRALIANS WITH
FLAWED ENERGY COST MODEL
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity
methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false
understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of the
Institute of Public Affairs.
The CSIRO’s annual GenCost report released today, follows IPA research, published in April 2024, which
found that relying on the levelised cost of electricity methodology (LCOE) is dangerous, specifically:
LCOE accounting oversimplifies complex energy systems and overlooks crucial factors that
need to be considered in making investment and policy decisions. LCOE's focus on production
cost alone neglects performance, broader system integration, and value creation, rendering it
inadequate for informing energy policy decisions.
“LCOE simply cannot explain the rising costs of energy endured by Australian families and businesses.
Despite repeated GenCost reports predicting the contrary, as more wind and solar has come into the
system, costs have continued to rise, and blackout warnings are becoming regular,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
IPA research demonstrates that LCOE is highly sensitive to the assumptions used, and simply does not
take into account the extra costs that variable renewable energy triggers elsewhere in the market.
“LCOE does not recognise the real value of baseload generation from gas, coal or nuclear, which is
able to consistently produce electricity on demand, whereas renewables simply cannot,” said Mr
Hargreaves.
Forthcoming IPA research will detail the true cost of our energy future, by applying a far more accurate
methodology that takes into account the full costs right across the system. It establishes that any system
built on baseload generation, like gas, coal, or nuclear, will always be significantly less expensive than
one reliant on variable renewable energy.
“Australians have every right to be worried that the federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, continues to
hide behind these discredited numbers rather than being honest with them, while at the same time
failing to work to protect our nation’s energy security,” Mr Hargreaves said.
Yesterday, AEMO released its Update to the 2023 Electricity Statement of Opportunities, warning of an
increased risk of blackouts in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, as the nation continues to
remove dispatchable sources of power and scrambles to replace them with weather-dependent
renewables.
“Regardless of your opinion of wind and solar, the cold, hard reality is that more variable renewable
energy means higher costs and lower energy security. More dispatchable power, be it coal, gas or
nuclear, means lower costs and higher reliability,” said Mr Hargreaves.
CSIRO GenCost Misleads Australians With Flawed Energy Cost Model
“The CSIRO’s latest GenCost report has again relied on the discredited levelised cost of electricity methodology to calculate energy system costs. This gives Australians and policymakers alike a false understanding of the cost of our energy future,” said Scott Hargreaves, Executive Director of...
It’s apparently obvious with some thought that you need to deal with the immediate supply demand balance of any energy solution. LCOE doesn’t deal with this so it is good to get a feel of marginal impact but not of system impacts. It’s just too one dimensional and unfortunately gets used politically.
The genCost report does show 80% renewables is the cheapest option iirc, and you're right, it won't make sense to be at 100% VRE. There will have to be a peaking energy source, be that storage/pumped hydro or gas. The issue with nuclear is that it's like coal in that it needs to be constantly on producing the baseload - not very effective in a peaking use case.I doubt the IPA will have any credibility with the left given its funding sources and given it is anti-climate change science.
With that said, there is a lot of merit to what is said.Institute of Public Affairs - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
LCOE has issues in that supply doesn't have to meet demand so it doesn't account for infrastructure and storage - we see it play out in the market with the ever reducing price paid for those who have excess solar generation and even charges to connect back in to the grid and much higher prices during peak demand periods to purchase electricity.
I posted the separate analysis that shows the asymptotiing cost of renewables to support demand as the penetration increases in the SA market. This is the point that everyone needs to try and understand so we can come up with sensible policy vs what looks like is going to be a pendulum on the clock all the way left then all the way right (implication intended).
Electrification which pretty much leads to less demand due to its efficiency in the home makes a lot of sense. I'm in gas, but I'm a chemical engineer and its hard with a straight face to argue gas heating vs reverse cycle air conditioning / heat pumps / induction cooking etc in the house. Electricity is just more efficient to shift energy around. There is a massive capital / retrofit component however to do this to existing homes.
I think EV penetration could do a massive amount to load shift where we charge the car in the middle of the day with excess solar and use some of that storage in the evening / overnight, then recharge the next day. This times millions of cars will massively change the situation in a way that is hard to comprehend. So lots and lots of micro storage close to where demand is means no need for poles and wires and therefore solar+battery being the likely technical winner IMO (but still with a massive recycling issue at end of life that needs to be dealt with). Owners of electrical infrastructure won't want this situation and I imagine will have a lot of power.
That however is decades aways, so we have the problem of how to get there, manage the cost of living and not destroy the planet permanently in the interim.
As a tech though, fundamentally nuclear can provide a great energy source, it just may be too late to start implementing here given the high costs etc.
You're also right that our transmission and distribution networks can be redesigned for more optimal usage with renewables, reducing the need for more poles and wires.
Yes, I'm sure they are very confident that their 'research' will give them the answer they want.
Well let’s see now. With another offshore wind turbine farms on the horizon, let’s do some (very rough) calculations.
If the Illawarra wind farm cost $10 billion for a 20 wind turbine farm and there’s another 300 offshore wind turbines planned.
Let’s use the same figures as the Illawarra setup.
15 wind farms with 20 wind turbines each = 300 wind turbines in total.
15 wind farms at $10 billion each = $150 billion
Wind turbines are estimated to cost between $US 42,000- 48,000 per turbine per year in maintenance costs
So, we’ve already got these 20 + the new ones = 320 plus the ones near Portland Vic (72) Bunbury WA (37) Kingston (75) = 184
5 Key Factors Affecting Offshore Wind Farm Cost
Explore how turbine size, location, installation methods, maintenance strategies, and financing impact offshore wind project costs.www.blackridgeresearch.com
Approx 504 turbines (so far) x $AUS 50,000 (I’m not going to do an exchange rate conversion,just using this figure for ease of calculation)
= $AUS 25,200,000 just in maintenance for a year. (I hope my maths is correct)
Now not knowing the actual cost breakdown of installing the turbine towers into the seabed, the assembly, the cabling, switchgear etc.
The cost of replacing a turbine, tower, nacelle, and blades after….??? 10 years (could be less, but on land approx 20 year lifespan?).
Say 10% of the cost? $1 billion every 10 years maybe for each wind turbine farm. And so far we have or will have 20 of them.
So that ends up being $2 billion per year to be set aside for replacing only the turbine tower, nacelle and blades. Plus install, removal etc.
The figure they use are for 100% efficiency of the total output of the wind turbine farms. Everyone knows that’s a fallacy. In fact Offshore wind farms are usually rated up 65% efficiency.
Given the variables in wind speed and direction.
Wind Turbine Cost: Worth The Million-Dollar Price In 2022?
Multimillion dollar price tag? Huge wind turbine cost a good investment? Do they really pay for themselves in 2022? How much power do they produce? Answers hereweatherguardwind.com
So if the wind speed happens to die down and the wind direction changes the output could be very low, less than 10% of the rated output of the total farm.
The Illawarra Wind Farm at its maximum rated output is “supposed” to power up to 1.8 million homes
If it drops by 90% Where does the backup power come from to power those homes? How often would/could it happen?
What is the redundancy plan in case of an outage. If a ship wonders aimlessly through the wind farm (they not supposed to, but they’re not supposed to hit bridges at low speed either)
View attachment 23170
Get ya speed boats and skis out
No big boats if you please. *smile* whales can’t read a detour sign if they tried
*edit* please note, if any of my maths is incorrect it’s not to distort any figures. It’s to give a rough guesstimation.
Not disputing anything you else said, but Dutton said on the radio this morning that the $10bn for Illawarra was life of asset costing, so would include all annual maintenance costings etc. Whether it includes a cost to remove and recycle at the end I'm not sure, but I don't see those costings for things like nuclear either (maybe pollies think they are out of sight, out of mind).
Now these are just rough back of the envelope calculations, but I'm coming up with a cost per mwh of about $344 for this project, which I thought sounded high, but when you compare to this article from the bbc, then its probably not too far wrong.
Price paid for offshore power to rise by over 50%
The increase in the price paid to generate electricity aims to entice energy firms to invest.
www.bbc.com
Floating wing prices of about 176GBP per mwh. Its high.
I wouldn't say your love however of nuclear is much different.
Hinckley C is a perfect example, originally quoted at 16bn GBP (based on 2012 prices), now expected to cost at least 46bn GBP (based on 2022 prices. Thats close to $90bn!! Thats a 3.2GW installation so similar in size to the offshore wind. Dutton said on the radio this morning, that whilst the offshore wind would be used up around 10 years (life of asset), that we could amortise the cost of nuclear over 80 years instead of 10. So by Duttons own assumptions there, the extra production would be 8 times, but the cost would be 9 times more expensive than something thats already pretty damn expensive.
Personally I don't really see a scenario where either floating offshore wind, or nuclear is the best option from a cost perspective. You bring up good points with regard to lithium supply and how long new batteries can be built using lithium so there is certainly a longevity issue. Personally for me, it still comes back to gas being the obvious interim power source to provide base powerload whilst renewables don't. I'd love to see more money go into development of tidal power, turbines that are turned by water sound perfect, but I understand that with the tech where it is right now, even our underwater currents aren't powerful enough to make the tech financially viable, so more research needs to be done into those options.
I didn’t get the costings of that project from Dutton. The $10 billion was capital expenditure.. It’s not a quick build either. Energisation in 2031. Funny it’s now expect3d to power.. Down from 1.8 million last week to 1 million homes. Now to 825,000 homes
They must have done a lot of homework, they’ve just sliced powering up a million homes from what they previously stated.
So $10 billion for 825, 000 homes. How much is that each?
South Pacific Offshore Wind Project
The South Pacific Offshore Wind Project is to be located between Shellharbour and Clifton off the Illawarra coast of New South Wales, in the anticipated offshore renewable energy zone in the Pacific Ocean. The 1.6GW project will use floating wind turbines and generate enough electricity to power 82
southpacificowp.com
Illawarra Offshore Wind
Energising the Illawarra with Illawarra Offshore Wind and Oceanex Energy.
illawarraoffshorewind.com.au
Offshore wind more expensive than previously thought: CSIRO
The report found the technology could cost $1000 more per kW.
I had read some articles with mwh costs, but the size, output etc seems to change depending on which article is it. I’ll see if I can find them again.
I don’t think I have a love of nuclear, I’m trying to find some middles ground and what will actually complement renewables. Seeing, coal and diesel is out. Gas would be ideal except for the security of supply and price issues. Most of our LNG exports go overseas, our imported gas is priced on the some market value that made the Feds put a price cap on it for 12 monthsPrice paid for offshore power to rise by over 50%
The increase in the price paid to generate electricity aims to entice energy firms to invest.
Floating wing prices of about 176GBP per mwh. Its high.
I wouldn't say your love however of nuclear is much different.
I think we exported more and locally we had to 8mprot it back in. Someone may correct me on that. I think @Wildride or @RoarEmotion might be across that more than me.
Why Natural Gas Price Caps in Australia are Poor Policy | Baker Institute
Australia’s domestic natural gas price caps are poor policy, writes nonresident scholar Kelly Neill. A better idea is a tax enabling the Australian government to share resource profits and losses with the gas industry.
Even though we have something like 2 trillion cubic metres (proven) of natural gas reserves. But being a fossil fuel the greenies and Labor have kicked it out as well to meet their net zero targets.
Yes! I think there will be a mass of projections and counter projections as we go a long. It’s a topic that can really polarise people.
I’d like to listen to the facts. To hear what type of technology, size etc from truly independent sources. Not from those people who have a vested interest one way or another.
Id read figures from the CSIRO of $8.6 billion then some time later they estimate approx $15 billion or $16 billion. Without knowing the type of reactor, the size. It’s all guesstimates by different parties.
Longevity and a national security implication
I’ve been having a read on tidal generation. Quite a few types. Very expensive. But who is to say in some areas it might be an alternative, one day.
Tidal power - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Tidal power for electricity generation and locations of tidal power facilities around the world.
Last edited:
Ove been having a read on tidal generation. Quite a few types.Bery expensive. But who is to say in some areas it might be an alternative, one day.
Tidal power - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Tidal power for electricity generation and locations of tidal power facilities around the world.www.eia.gov
Tidal appears to have had much less spent on research compared to other forms of renewable energy, but appears to logically be one of the best sources, due to its relative predictability of supply. The lack of research leads to the high costs at the moment. From what I can see, most tidal power plants around the world currently use tidal barrage technology but this is very costly to build and can have significant environmental impacts as its very similar tech to hydro, as in it essentially creates a reservoir (on a much smaller level to hydro) which impacts on tidal patterns.
I much prefer the option of tidal fences, they seem a really good option but need more funding to investigate how to make the current uneconomic designs (largely due to flow rate and therefore efficiency) more efficient and therefore a much better economic option.
There are so many more benefits potentially from tidal power compared to other renewables IF we can get the cost down as currently its too expensive to build on a big enough scale.
Tidal Fence and Underwarter Tidal Fence Turbines
Alternative Energy Tutorials about how a Tidal Fence used in Tidal Energy Systems converts the kinetic energy of the tides into electrical power
www.alternative-energy-tutorials.com
I'd be looking more at tidal power than batteries. Batteries have a lot of problems unless something changes in the technology. Tidal is a reliable source of energy.
But we should also be looking at solar collecting power stations, Australia is so well suited to them it is just not funny. They are up and running in a few countries, why we don't have any is a mystery. Victorian SEC should build some in the NW of the state.
DS
But we should also be looking at solar collecting power stations, Australia is so well suited to them it is just not funny. They are up and running in a few countries, why we don't have any is a mystery. Victorian SEC should build some in the NW of the state.
DS
