Yeah, renewables are definitely cheaper than gas. All that talk of late about high domestic gas prices impacting the cost of living also directly affects the cost of gas fired generation. Add to that the awkward reality that Victoria’s gas production is falling off a cliff, the impact of more gas generators in the south will just drive up gas prices even more.
GFG needs to pay for gas in seriously bulk amounts and has to be maintained to a high standard as high pressure gas can be very explodey if not looked after. They are basically aircraft jet engines bolted to a generator, so need the TLC of the aviation industry. Solar just sits there and basically needs a wash every once in a while, unless it either burns or gets smashed by a cyclone.
Yeah but the economic case for renewables will be accepted by mainstream media and clearly expressed to a concerned public by then, maybe by Kevin Costner on a mule
So it was a mountain collapse? They spoke to multiple experts who said it was difficult to pin it on climate change, with only one so called climate scientist from Zurich saying it was climate related. Doesn’t sound very definitive. But climate zealots will use any tragedy to push their green Marxism.
Climate change is causing the glaciers - frozen rivers of ice - to melt faster and faster, and the permafrost, often described as the glue that holds the high mountains together, is also thawing.
The most recent report into the condition of Switzerland’s glaciers suggested they could all be gone within a century, if global temperatures could not be kept within a rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, agreed ten years ago by almost 200 countries under the Paris climate accord.
Many climate scientists suggest that target has already been missed, meaning the glacier thaw will continue to accelerate, increasing the risk of flooding and landslides, and threatening more communities like Blatten.
Actually DMapo, you need to be pragmatic about your ideology.
If we take this Woodside fiasco as the example, there is no doubt until renewables and storage becomes 100% reliable, then gas is the best backup option. So if this project was about ensuring energy needs for Australia, then the pragmatic action is to approve this source.
However in reality, no gas from this Woodside pit will be used locally. There is no pipeline from there to the East, and no plans to build a pipeline or the shipping infrastructure needed. So all this gas will be liquified and exported.
Now if our cut was 50% or more on the revenue, again I could be pragmatic and conclude that we need more schools and hospitals and this income would help.
In the last 15 years, Woodside revenue from Australia has been about $300 billion, and reportedly they have paid $11 billion in tax and royalties.
So then my ideology kicks in, that if we actually are committed to nett zero emission and arresting global warming then, Woodside must stop it production and leave our shores as there is no incentive for me to be pragmatic.
On a local level, I did the sums on the running costs for my solar and wind energy supply vs gas. My figures show that I am already ahead. So do your own calculations.
