Brisbane Airport welcomes Jet Zero council
Currently China has 700 GWH of solar/wind generation with another 1300 GWH to be online by 2025. The total Australian grid generation including coal and renewables is under 300 GWH. So less than half of Chinas wind and solar, and then they have massive hydro as well.
Actually was reading some local press regarding the CCPs plans for integrating renewables into the grid and dropping coal plant generating hours average across the grids. The plant operators are arleady complaining they are operating at financial loss and the reduced hours will be unsustainable. Their target for 2025 is 33% renewables. Coal is used because of its widespread availability in China and how fast you can bring it online, not really cost. Its still running at a loss there. Have to remember that current renewables in China could power Australia 100%.
Currently China has 700 GWH of solar/wind generation with another 1300 GWH to be online by 2025. The total Australian grid generation including coal and renewables is under 300 GWH. So less than half of Chinas wind and solar, and then they have massive hydro as well.
Currently China has 700 GWH of solar/wind generation with another 1300 GWH to be online by 2025. The total Australian grid generation including coal and renewables is under 300 GWH. So less than half of Chinas wind and solar, and then they have massive hydro as well.
What about all that increased coal imports from North Korea ? seems them ‘trustworthy’ Chinese commys are doing a little bit of sanctions busting. Were that in the press release ?
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/kor...022190512.html
What about the increased coal imports from Russia. Seems the Russians have an on-going rail construction programme to aid in the increased coal exports. Thousands of kilometres of new rail line laid to increase coal freight. And then there’s the increased shipping:
“…There are two large coal suppliers in the region – Kolmar and Elgacoal. Both companies intend to enhance production volumes as well as the existing port capacities. A terminal VaninoTransUgol (VTU), constructed by Kolmar’s subsidiary, assumes a gradual increase in coal handling capacity from current 12 mio t per year up to 24 mio t by 2022.
Albert Avdolyan’s A-Property also plans to construct a coal terminal in the port of Vanino with annual capacity of 30 mio t by 2024 and build a washing plant at Elga with a processing capacity of 32 mio t at the first stage (end of 2021) and 45 mio t at the second stage…”
https://thecoalhub.com/russian-gover...expansion.html
Lets have a look-see at the supposedly ‘official’ China coal imports. Make sure yer hits the past 25 years button on the graph:
https://tradingeconomics.com/china/imports-of-coal
…Down a little..
Hmmm… where’d yer get all that 43Inches ? …CCP press release perhaps..
Here's some basic math, thermal coal runs normally at about $200 USD a ton, the shanghai spot price is just under that presently on old stocks. Working on that a 1000MW generator consumes around 10,000 tons of coal per day to supply roughly 500,000 homes. That's $4 USD per day per household, or roughly, $120 USD per month if you like, that's before adding plant costs, transmission, and retail handling and profit margins. The moment war broke out in Ukraine the trade price rose to over $400 USD per ton, that doubles the houshold cost to around $8 USD per day/$240 USD per month. Assume adding plant/transmission and retail and that number almost doubles and you have our retail rates in Australia. Right now Indonesia has banned coal exports to reserve coal for its own power use, other countries are moving to the same pushing the price further up with Chinas winter demand. China also has large heating plants for cities that run on coal, the goal is to change to gas but that's going to take time, you also have coking coal and other industrial uses, so of course as China grows it needs more coal as a fast method of keeping up with growth.
Point is, it's not generally cheaper than renewables, its just faster to get up and running when you need reliable energy right now and don't have the time to build 50 nuclear plants or more hydro. The real big problem now is that the coal price is skyrocketing making coal plants very costly to the Chinese economy. Once the Ukraine war prices start to filter into actuality in China it's going to be very costly, at the moment they are still burning coal purchased years ago.
The UK tried to stay with coal well beyond it's use by date for transport, hence steam powered trains well into the 50s'. A combination of a huge coal industry and huge workforce of steam specific workers adept at making boilers and engines etc. The government didn't want to face the reality of how much it was costing until it was way beyond a joke. They held onto coal powered trains as they argued coal was available locally and they didn't want to import oil or reduce the coal mining industry. Like in WW2 the UK made ships still with reciprocating steam engines, why, because they still had a huge industry adept at it and they could manufacture the boilers and engines faster than diesel and other forms of power. They worked ok, but cost twice as much to run and had to be overhauled frequently. None of this use of coal was 'cheaper' it was just misguided politics that was trying to win votes by holding onto obsolete jobs, the end result costing the country far more than if they had just rapidly modernised with the rest of Europe.
Last edited by 43Inches; 8th Nov 2022 at 01:36.
Nope general business reports, stuff that deals with coal and international commodities.
Here's some basic math, thermal coal runs normally at about $200 USD a ton, the shanghai spot price is just under that presently on old stocks. Working on that a 1000MW generator consumes around 10,000 tons of coal per day to supply roughly 500,000 homes. That's $4 USD per day per household, or roughly, $120 USD per month if you like, that's before adding plant costs, transmission, and retail handling and profit margins. The moment war broke out in Ukraine the trade price rose to over $400 USD per ton, that doubles the houshold cost to around $8 USD per day/$240 USD per month. Assume adding plant/transmission and retail and that number almost doubles and you have our retail rates in Australia. Right now Indonesia has banned coal exports to reserve coal for its own power use, other countries are moving to the same pushing the price further up with Chinas winter demand. China also has large heating plants for cities that run on coal, the goal is to change to gas but that's going to take time, you also have coking coal and other industrial uses, so of course as China grows it needs more coal as a fast method of keeping up with growth.
Point is, it's not generally cheaper than renewables, its just faster to get up and running when you need reliable energy right now and don't have the time to build 50 nuclear plants or more hydro. The real big problem now is that the coal price is skyrocketing making coal plants very costly to the Chinese economy. Once the Ukraine war prices start to filter into actuality in China it's going to be very costly, at the moment they are still burning coal purchased years ago.
The UK tried to stay with coal well beyond it's use by date for transport, hence steam powered trains well into the 50s'. A combination of a huge coal industry and huge workforce of steam specific workers adept at making boilers and engines etc. The government didn't want to face the reality of how much it was costing until it was way beyond a joke. They held onto coal powered trains as they argued coal was available locally and they didn't want to import oil or reduce the coal mining industry. Like in WW2 the UK made ships still with reciprocating steam engines, why, because they still had a huge industry adept at it and they could manufacture the boilers and engines faster than diesel and other forms of power. They worked ok, but cost twice as much to run and had to be overhauled frequently. None of this use of coal was 'cheaper' it was just misguided politics that was trying to win votes by holding onto obsolete jobs, the end result costing the country far more than if they had just rapidly modernised with the rest of Europe.
Here's some basic math, thermal coal runs normally at about $200 USD a ton, the shanghai spot price is just under that presently on old stocks. Working on that a 1000MW generator consumes around 10,000 tons of coal per day to supply roughly 500,000 homes. That's $4 USD per day per household, or roughly, $120 USD per month if you like, that's before adding plant costs, transmission, and retail handling and profit margins. The moment war broke out in Ukraine the trade price rose to over $400 USD per ton, that doubles the houshold cost to around $8 USD per day/$240 USD per month. Assume adding plant/transmission and retail and that number almost doubles and you have our retail rates in Australia. Right now Indonesia has banned coal exports to reserve coal for its own power use, other countries are moving to the same pushing the price further up with Chinas winter demand. China also has large heating plants for cities that run on coal, the goal is to change to gas but that's going to take time, you also have coking coal and other industrial uses, so of course as China grows it needs more coal as a fast method of keeping up with growth.
Point is, it's not generally cheaper than renewables, its just faster to get up and running when you need reliable energy right now and don't have the time to build 50 nuclear plants or more hydro. The real big problem now is that the coal price is skyrocketing making coal plants very costly to the Chinese economy. Once the Ukraine war prices start to filter into actuality in China it's going to be very costly, at the moment they are still burning coal purchased years ago.
The UK tried to stay with coal well beyond it's use by date for transport, hence steam powered trains well into the 50s'. A combination of a huge coal industry and huge workforce of steam specific workers adept at making boilers and engines etc. The government didn't want to face the reality of how much it was costing until it was way beyond a joke. They held onto coal powered trains as they argued coal was available locally and they didn't want to import oil or reduce the coal mining industry. Like in WW2 the UK made ships still with reciprocating steam engines, why, because they still had a huge industry adept at it and they could manufacture the boilers and engines faster than diesel and other forms of power. They worked ok, but cost twice as much to run and had to be overhauled frequently. None of this use of coal was 'cheaper' it was just misguided politics that was trying to win votes by holding onto obsolete jobs, the end result costing the country far more than if they had just rapidly modernised with the rest of Europe.
It weren’t that many years ago that China tried to buy up a lot of Australia’s coal mines. Obviously something to do with long term planning for building more wind and solar power..
Poor old England. Unions and war stuffed it. Post war/s they had huge debts and no foreign exchange available to buy all them imports of new gadgets so they had to rely upon what they produced at home. Much like when yer blow the credit card limit..
Interestingly, if they stuck to coal and nuclear they would be trillions of dollars ahead right now and with a reliable power system with power available for income earning export to them Euro-numpties stuck with un-reliable wind and solar power..
Looks like them euro-numpties are starting to wake up… one by one..
“…For years they told us that the green transition would deliver cheap energy, and that if we just subsidized them enough, prices would keep falling. The promise of free energy on the horizon led whole nations (stupidly) to believe that closing coal plants was viable. But now that damage is done, suddenly the Vestas chief admits that telling people that wind can only get cheaper “was a mistake”…”
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/11/no...y-get-cheaper/
“…For years they told us that the green transition would deliver cheap energy, and that if we just subsidized them enough, prices would keep falling. The promise of free energy on the horizon led whole nations (stupidly) to believe that closing coal plants was viable. But now that damage is done, suddenly the Vestas chief admits that telling people that wind can only get cheaper “was a mistake”…”
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/11/no...y-get-cheaper/
I think in a broader sense, with the relative prosperity and peace since the 1950s we have allowed ourselves, as societies, to go soft and forget what gave us this prosperity. We now have small but vocal groups getting us to argue over pronouns and what is a woman. We have lost sight of the cheap reliable power that underlies our society and our standard of living. Also whilst “western” armed forces struggle with diversity and inclusion, Russia annexed Crimea with no penalty, so then they invaded Ukraine, some penalties but Europe needs what they sell. China is eyeing off Taiwan and North Korea is testing missiles. We really need to refocus our attention.
“…Jesus some of you are dense…”
Jesus eh. The name of god in vain. Straight to hell for ye Fonz121.. …and an excellent segway to:
Lets have a look-see at how an uneducated novice could question someone with a highly educated ‘expertise’ of a subject.
Fonz121, there are millions of scholars who have spent their life studying and interpreting Islam. Me, i’m an atheist who has done very little study of any religion.
Fonz121, by your reasoning as I am not an expert on religions I can not ‘deny’ the scholarly reasoning behind religion or reject all ‘man made’ religions outright as I have done because I am not ‘educated’ on the subject.
For an example, why would I question Islam: When Islam dictates that a female is worth half a man I am unable to see how that would pass the most basic test of common sense. And yet, it seems to uneducated me to be one of the central ‘themes’ of that religion - apparently the ‘proof’ is to be found in the scholarly texts.
Back to climate. One of the central themes of the ‘proof’ of man changing climate is how current events are unusually hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more flammable than the past. That’s something any atheist can check…
.
.
…
.
.
…
.
.
Jesus eh. The name of god in vain. Straight to hell for ye Fonz121..
…and an excellent segway to:Lets have a look-see at how an uneducated novice could question someone with a highly educated ‘expertise’ of a subject.
Fonz121, there are millions of scholars who have spent their life studying and interpreting Islam. Me, i’m an atheist who has done very little study of any religion.
Fonz121, by your reasoning as I am not an expert on religions I can not ‘deny’ the scholarly reasoning behind religion or reject all ‘man made’ religions outright as I have done because I am not ‘educated’ on the subject.
For an example, why would I question Islam: When Islam dictates that a female is worth half a man I am unable to see how that would pass the most basic test of common sense. And yet, it seems to uneducated me to be one of the central ‘themes’ of that religion - apparently the ‘proof’ is to be found in the scholarly texts.
Back to climate. One of the central themes of the ‘proof’ of man changing climate is how current events are unusually hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more flammable than the past. That’s something any atheist can check…
.
.
…
.
.
…
.
.
Christians jump up and down and say "But we don't follow the Old Testament". Then when someone mentions the words homosexual, gay or their other synonyms the same people that 'don't follow the OT because they're Christians' reach straight for Leviticus which of course is in the OT.
I don't care who's studied what religious texts for how long, they are meaningless nonsense. Those who claim to have studied them respond with "Well, it doesn't say to stone a woman, you need to know how to see the hidden meaning" - straight-out gaslighting and BS - someone who believes in invisible friends in the sky is telling me that I don't understand?
The difference with climate scientists in my view is that they actually use the scientific method, there is some sort of empirical research and study whether you agree with their data or conclusions or not. Studying religious texts by comparison is analogous to predicting the weather by turning around three times licking your finger and holding it up to the wind.
Don't know why any criticism has to be limited to Islam. The Bible commands that people who plant two crops side-by-side be stoned (not in the good way) and wearing clothes of two different threads attracts the penalty of being set fire to (doesn't state whether the clothes remain on or not). My favourite one when I poke the Christian bear is "Stoning a girl to death at the door of her father's house if she fails to exhibit the tokens of a damsel" (i.e. not a virgin).
Christians jump up and down and say "But we don't follow the Old Testament". Then when someone mentions the words homosexual, gay or their other synonyms the same people that 'don't follow the OT because they're Christians' reach straight for Leviticus which of course is in the OT.
I don't care who's studied what religious texts for how long, they are meaningless nonsense. Those who claim to have studied them respond with "Well, it doesn't say to stone a woman, you need to know how to see the hidden meaning" - straight-out gaslighting and BS - someone who believes in invisible friends in the sky is telling me that I don't understand?
The difference with climate scientists in my view is that they actually use the scientific method, there is some sort of empirical research and study whether you agree with their data or conclusions or not. Studying religious texts by comparison is analogous to predicting the weather by turning around three times licking your finger and holding it up to the wind.
Christians jump up and down and say "But we don't follow the Old Testament". Then when someone mentions the words homosexual, gay or their other synonyms the same people that 'don't follow the OT because they're Christians' reach straight for Leviticus which of course is in the OT.
I don't care who's studied what religious texts for how long, they are meaningless nonsense. Those who claim to have studied them respond with "Well, it doesn't say to stone a woman, you need to know how to see the hidden meaning" - straight-out gaslighting and BS - someone who believes in invisible friends in the sky is telling me that I don't understand?
The difference with climate scientists in my view is that they actually use the scientific method, there is some sort of empirical research and study whether you agree with their data or conclusions or not. Studying religious texts by comparison is analogous to predicting the weather by turning around three times licking your finger and holding it up to the wind.
Just because a ‘scientist’ uses a ‘scientific method’ do not mean they get a correct or useful conclusion or finding. Also, one do not need to be a university educated scientist to utilise a scientific method. Nor do you need to be a ‘scientist’ to debunk so-called scientific research.
Great video..
But I see a problem. Can a current scientist tell me the answer to “What is a Woman” ?……
