Most ridiculous green proposal

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Agreed Boat

it comes down to the consumer at the end of the day.

As a Brit I am interested to hear from those Californians on this site (or others) regarding the impact of renewables on their power supply and what the benefits other than the obvious reduction in carbon footprint this has had on the State. Or are we talking massive subsidies on green projects to get to the current levels of renewables supplied and unfair additional regulations imposed on utilities that promote fossil fuel/nuclear? How has this affected cost to the consumer compared to other States and is the power supply maintained as it should be or are there outages/blackouts??

Has the whole Green mantra been pushed onto the people of California willingly or is it just a political decision where the people have no say??

Lot of questions I know, and sorry for the rambled way I've asked them, just off the top of my jumbled head!

@Jay McKinsey as a guy who backs renewables I would be interested in your perspective too, so this remains a balanced discussion.

Cheers

To understand California you have to realize that it has about one third conservative residents. Lots of them are considering moving to other states or already have. Many of the liberals will move out of the desire to cut their taxes and buy better homes elsewhere, for half the price. California has the highest number of homeless of any state. There are tents and defunct RVs all over Southern California, especially near the beaches. Traffic and congestion are nearly unbearable. Everyone is moving to the periphery, far from the core communities. 

Blackouts are not common except lately during the wildfires but they will probably become more common due to over dependence on wind and solar. This is already occurring and natural gas plants, they wanted to shut down, will have to be kept open. 

Anyone who lives in California will be paying higher and higher taxes and live under more and more regulations. Parts of it are still great to visit, and I often do, but overall it is a disaster IMHO. 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You are apparently unaware that not all batteries contain nickel. Tesla's LFP battery that they are using for grid applications and some vehicles uses neither cobalt or nickel.

Do you enjoy changing subjects which do not pertain to discussion?  Discussion was transportation Battery requirements, not Grid Storage, which has FAR greater massive requirements than the Transportation sector. 

LFP are useless for anything other than very lightweight transportation(large sector) Limited by charge rate, discharge rate compared to NMC and are 50% less energy dense for same weight.  Trucks, etc, never going to work and we need as much battery capacity for trucking as everything else combined. TESLA owns zero LFP.  Namely CATL is who they are going with. They buy other peoples LFP assuming they will do so in future as it appears for Chinese made Model 3 which will now be severely range and current limited for performance and they had better not use this in Northern or central China, as those batteries will die due to no charge in cold.   I own several of their LFP cells, made my own battery with BMS and it runs my RV.  Now my microwave works whereas Lead acid dropped the voltage too low when it kicked on.  If I lived down south where I could get sun and solar panels I would make my own whole house battery bank out of them.  They last forever if you only use 30% DoD.  Been using Solyndra cells going on 10 years now.  To get same performance out of NMC would require a DoD of 15%.  The newest LFP has an energy density of 160Wh/kg instead of 120Wh/kg and is good for short distance travel, but has drastic problem it cannot be charged below 0C, so must be heated. Yes, LFP works for grid storage.  None of TESLA's powerwalls use LFP.  They should, they do not catch on fire like NMC. 

LFP will be the grid storage of the future if anything will in lithium that is...

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

No one cares about a couple million EV's and that is not the topic of discussion.  It takes a decade to bring a Nickel mine online and all these countries claim they will eliminate ICE by 2030/2040... So, lets assume you can use a calendar and can count to 10 without taking off your socks... Which means hundreds of millions of vehicles if not a Billion or 2 Billion Vehicles not a couple million.  Which brings up my previous calculation using TESLA's numbers for Nickel content in their vehicles.  Need for world Production for ONLY vehicles and no grid storage, uh hem, NO grid storage, to increase by 100MT verses the current 2.7MT... a "small" 3700% change... So, Australia with its supposed "infinite" supply of Nickel needs to get cracking...   Elon Musk has been begging for Nickel production; so has every single car manufacturer.  

You might want to start listening to Eurythmics "sweet dreams"  

 

Ha Ha, I have best of Eurythmics on CD, have to have something for the ladies!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Oh how quaint, can tell you are not an economist. I started 10 years back because anything before that is considered historical j.......

btw  adjusting for inflation the 1983 price needs to be increased by 161%

 

Lovely, and production/.consumption of Stainless steel has done what.... Increased far greater than 161%.  World is just starting its appetite for stainless steel and right now SS is only available to the developed world and starting to be used in developing world.  Do you think they might want some?  Hrmm?  What about our grandkids.  Think they might want some, or should we blow all the nickel in a couple decades to meet some stupid goal which is not real?  Hrmm?

[Wombat + 1,028]

7 hours ago, Richard D said:

Australia has nickel sulphide deposits,not nickel sulphate.

Don't be so anal, you know what I mean. Point is that the SULPHIDES are much cheaper to process and NO country has a great deal of them. That is all I was trying to say. I repeat, there will not be much exploration until the the price of Nickel hit's $40,000 a tonne. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

36 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lovely, and production/.consumption of Stainless steel has done what.... Increased far greater than 161%.  World is just starting its appetite for stainless steel and right now SS is only available to the developed world and starting to be used in developing world.  Do you think they might want some?  Hrmm?  What about our grandkids.  Think they might want some, or should we blow all the nickel in a couple decades to meet some stupid goal which is not real?  Hrmm?

In case anyone is wondering, that isn't how you adjust for inflation. 

Musk is a huge fan of SS. If we need more nickel in a few decades to make it then he'll no doubt grab a nickel asteroid and bring it back to earth.

Turns out there are high concentrations of nickel on the Moon. So we don't even need to go get an asteroid.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Wombat + 1,028]

5 hours ago, markslawson said:

Okay, I'll add in an $A16 billion ($US11.2 billion) project to run an undersea power cable from Australia to Singapore, in order to transmit green power. Is there enough demand in either Singapore or the adjacent Malaysia to justify such an expensive connection and would either country  be willing to buy power from it? For that matter where is the green power to send over this cable to come from? The top end of Australia is sparsely populated and the bulk of the renewable projects are at the other end of the continent. It is madness yet there are those who take it seriously.

The electricity will be 10% cheaper for Singapore (compared to LNG) and will supply 10% of their needs. I recommend you google "Sun Cable" before you dismiss the project. You clearly paid no attention last time I posted the link and don't even know that the panels will be located close to Darwin, which will also draw a lot of power from it too.

[Wombat + 1,028]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

😃  Yes, annoying my minions in the office currently playing it... Ah, back to work. 

EDIT: To Wombat.  Oh yea, and Australia has the largest reserves of Nickel on the planet of the Sulphide stuff... Dear Wombat... Australian production has nothing to do with Hydroxide vrs Sulphate... So, while I do not know for sure, I would say the COST of Australian Nickel was way too high due to Environmental regulations of the Sulphide mines and NOT the Hydroxide deposits as YOU claim.  Same reason Phillipine production has tanked recently. 

Note to footeab, there are reserves and there are resources. Russia has twice the land mass of Australia so who do you think has the greater resources? They are also about to pinch Chinese market share from us in thermal coal. Our Reserve bank is struggling to get our dollar below 70 US cents so that we can compete with EM's such as Russia, Indonesia etc. Their currencies have fallen much further than ours. We are one of the few countries left with AAA rating and the RBA may have to employ negative rates next year to subdue the Aussie but as usual, our housing market is already taking off like a rocket again so that is holding them back.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Okay, I'll add in an $A16 billion ($US11.2 billion) project to run an undersea power cable from Australia to Singapore, in order to transmit green power. Is there enough demand in either Singapore or the adjacent Malaysia to justify such an expensive connection and would either country  be willing to buy power from it? For that matter where is the green power to send over this cable to come from? The top end of Australia is sparsely populated and the bulk of the renewable projects are at the other end of the continent. It is madness yet there are those who take it seriously.

the main issue with any major development project in outback Oz will be Welders etc demanding $300K a year for a 2 on 2 off FIFO number. 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

To understand California you have to realize that it has about one third conservative residents. Lots of them are considering moving to other states or already have. Many of the liberals will move out of the desire to cut their taxes and buy better homes elsewhere, for half the price. California has the highest number of homeless of any state. There are tents and defunct RVs all over Southern California, especially near the beaches. Traffic and congestion are nearly unbearable. Everyone is moving to the periphery, far from the core communities. 

Blackouts are not common except lately during the wildfires but they will probably become more common due to over dependence on wind and solar. This is already occurring and natural gas plants, they wanted to shut down, will have to be kept open. 

Anyone who lives in California will be paying higher and higher taxes and live under more and more regulations. Parts of it are still great to visit, and I often do, but overall it is a disaster IMHO. 

 

Thanks Ron 

That is in essence my take on it as it is presently

I agree with the initial rationale that @Jay McKinsey says the initial idea was to curb air pollution and I totally agree with his point there, however I still believe the costs are too high to debunk NG also I think you have to have NG and nuclear in may parts of the world to maintain a stable grid to avoid blackouts.

The world is an economic disaster post Covid and the last thing we need is to be paying over the odds on energy and heating costs, which I think is where we are still at with renewables. Thats not to say they may well be the future in many areas of the world but not yet.

I'm still hoping someone cracks the fusion conundrum, whether thats ITER or MIT or whoever, it doesnt really matter, as surely long term thats the answer.

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In case anyone is wondering, that isn't how you adjust for inflation. 

Musk is a huge fan of SS. If we need more nickel in a few decades to make it then he'll no doubt grab a nickel asteroid and bring it back to earth.

Turns out there are high concentrations of nickel on the Moon. So we don't even need to go get an asteroid.

Yep I bet that nickel will be cheap lol

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 36]

On 10/28/2020 at 11:50 AM, Boat said:

In a more practical sense the fact that around 50% of Americans make less than $30,000 will be a bigger problem going to EV’s. I have yet to read of an electric car that will transport a family of four for less than 10,000 which is what many of these folks drive.

People who earn $30,000 per year don't buy new cars, they will be unaffected 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

30 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yep I bet that nickel will be cheap lol

In 30 or 40 years it will be no more expensive than mining it in Oz or Russia.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

In 30 or 40 years it will be no more expensive than mining it in Oz or Russia.

I'll be dead by then so I dont care

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I'll be dead by then so I dont care

Well we aren't running out of Nickel on Earth before then so it is solved. We have plenty of Nickel.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,600]

2 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Well we aren't running out of Nickel on Earth before then so it is solved. We have plenty of Nickel.

 

Never said we didnt Jay

[pfarley@bigpond.net.au + 36]

On 10/28/2020 at 11:36 AM, markslawson said:

We've all seen bizarre suggestions concerning hydrogen, electric cars, renewable energy and so on. I thought we might compile a few of them. For me the top two picks would have to be ..

1 - After a period of rolling blackouts in California, Governor Newsom does not declare the state will fix the problem by building or encouraging more firm power generation. Instead he declares that the state will put an already struggling grid under more pressure by pledging to ban petrol car sales in the state by 2035 - effectively boosting electric car sales. This is just a token, of course. In 15 years, Newsom will be a memory, and his policy announcement forgotten. If it ever was implemented, the only important result of the policy would be to kill off the new car market in California. Those who want petrol cars will turn to the used car market or go across the state border to buy.  However, the symbolism is entertaining. Never mind reality, let's make a policy statement that will make our nutty supporter base happy.

2 - Hydrogen making project. The Asian Renewable Energy Project, a consortium of companies in the  renewable energy field, proposes dropping around $A30 billion ($US21.3 billion) building a heap of renewable energy projects in North Western Australia and to ship the energy out stored in hydrogen. Never mind that using hydrogen for that purpose is not a commercial proposition as of yet, or that the project is literally in the middle of no where. The designated area is between the towns of Port Hedland and Broome which have permanent populations of about 14,000 each - by far the largest towns in the region - and by between, I don't mean a polite 15 minute drive or so.. I'm talking about hours of driving. Port Hedland in turn is about two hours flying time North of the state capital Perth (2.1 million). To get the energy out transmission lines just aren't going to cut it, so maybe they could transmit the power to Eighty Mile Beach, which is a caravan park for those who want to visit a wetlands of international importance (oh no!). I would call it a swamp with a few birdies, but there are those who would disagree. The project map seems to indicate that they want to build a port in this environmentally sensitive area for pumping hydrogen into ships. Its not likely anyone's going to object, right? Then there is the little matter of finding customers for this hydrogen. Supporters say that the H2 can be injected into natural gas up to about 3 per cent of the mix, although there is still the little matter of why anyone would want to mix expensive H2 with cheap gas for a small reduction in emissions.. 

Any other suggestions?

If you want to pontificate you should at least have some facts to work with. Hydrogen requires about 40 MWh per tonne. 26 GW of renewables will therefore at best produce 2 m tonnes of hydrogen a year Port Headland handles about 50-60 m tonnes of cargo a month so handling the cargo would result in a  0.2-0.3% increase in volumes if all the hydrogen was exported.  On the other hand the hydrogen could be used to turn the iron ore of the Pilbarra into direct reduced iron, reducing the shipping volume by 1/3rd.  Port Headland ships about 530 m tonnes of iron ore per year, To turn just 10% of that into direct reduced iron would require 2.7 m tonnes of hydrogen. Alternatively it could be turned into ammonia. 2m tonnes of hydrogen could be turned into about 24 m tonnes of ammonia which can be used directly or as a carrier for hydrogen. World production of ammonia is 175 m tonnes and rising. 

However the NWIS has 400 MW of generating capacity producing about 2 TWh per year, the mines, railways and processing plants use 2-3 times as much energy from diesel as the power system provides so provably another 2-3 TWh would be diverted into industry and transport.

So in spite of your completely ignorant post there is no problem with handling the proposed volumes of hydrogen even if every MWh was used for electrolysis.

As for your 3% mix. Most gas turbines can run on 25-30% hydrogen mix without modification and MHI, GE and Siemens are already offering conversion kits for 100%. Most municipal gas systems were built for town gas which contains about 50% hydrogen and all of them can run at 10-15% without modification. If higher hydrogen share was required burners can be modified just as they were in the past during the swap from town gas to natural gas.

I am amazed you are so proud of your ignorance

Edited October 30, 2020 by pfarley@bigpond.net.au

[JoMack + 547]

5 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

If you want to pontificate you should at least have some facts to work with. Hydrogen requires about 40 MWh per tonne. 26 GW of renewables will therefore at best produce 2 m tonnes of hydrogen a year Port Headland handles about 50-60 m tonnes of cargo a month so handling the cargo would result in a  0.2-0.3% increase in volumes if all the hydrogen was exported.  On the other hand the hydrogen could be used to turn the iron ore of the Pilbarra into direct reduced iron, reducing the shipping volume by 1/3rd.  Port Headland ships about 530 m tonnes of iron ore per year, To turn just 10% of that into direct reduced iron would require 2.7 m tonnes of hydrogen. Alternatively it could be turned into ammonia. 2m tonnes of hydrogen could be turned into about 24 m tonnes of ammonia which can be used directly or as a carrier for hydrogen. World production of ammonia is 175 m tonnes and rising. 

However the NWIS has 400 MW of generating capacity producing about 2 TWh per year, the mines, railways and processing plants use 2-3 times as much energy from diesel as the power system provides so provably another 2-3 TWh would be diverted into industry and transport.

So in spite of your completely ignorant post there is no problem with handling the proposed volumes of hydrogen even if every MWh was used for electrolysis.

As for your 3% mix. Most gas turbines can run on 25-30% hydrogen mix without modification and MHI, GE and Siemens are already offering conversion kits for 100%. Most municipal gas systems were built for town gas which contains about 50% hydrogen and all of them can run at 10-15% without modification. If higher hydrogen share was required burners can be modified just as they were in the past during the swap from town gas to natural gas.

I am amazed you are so proud of your ignorance

 In order to produce 175 m tonnes of ammonia aren't you actually using the conversion of natural gas (i.e. methane) to obtain the amounts of ammonia you discuss.  I don't see an advantage.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

If you want to pontificate you should at least have some facts to work with. Hydrogen requires about 40 MWh per tonne. 26 GW of renewables will therefore at best produce 2 m tonnes of hydrogen a year Port Headland handles about 50-60 m tonnes of cargo a month so handling the cargo would result in a  0.2-0.3% increase in volumes if all the hydrogen was exported.  On the other hand the hydrogen could be used to turn the iron ore of the Pilbarra into direct reduced iron, reducing the shipping volume by 1/3rd.  Port Headland ships about 530 m tonnes of iron ore per year, To turn just 10% of that into direct reduced iron would require 2.7 m tonnes of hydrogen. Alternatively it could be turned into ammonia. 2m tonnes of hydrogen could be turned into about 24 m tonnes of ammonia which can be used directly or as a carrier for hydrogen. World production of ammonia is 175 m tonnes and rising. 

However the NWIS has 400 MW of generating capacity producing about 2 TWh per year, the mines, railways and processing plants use 2-3 times as much energy from diesel as the power system provides so provably another 2-3 TWh would be diverted into industry and transport.

So in spite of your completely ignorant post there is no problem with handling the proposed volumes of hydrogen even if every MWh was used for electrolysis.

As for your 3% mix. Most gas turbines can run on 25-30% hydrogen mix without modification and MHI, GE and Siemens are already offering conversion kits for 100%. Most municipal gas systems were built for town gas which contains about 50% hydrogen and all of them can run at 10-15% without modification. If higher hydrogen share was required burners can be modified just as they were in the past during the swap from town gas to natural gas.

I am amazed you are so proud of your ignorance

To be far to Mark the 3% quote probably comes from me. Its 3% by calorific value than by volume which is about 10%. The basis of this was a UK HSE study looking at additions of H2 into the existing network to feed domestic uses. One of the limitations is that at the same pressure H2 only has about a third of the energy content as Methane. Many domestic heating appliances stipulate a minimum energy content of the feed gas to work properly. 

However if you have a dedicated source and  supply line no reason why you can't have 100% H2 turbines. Also I like your comment about processing the Iron ore onshore in Oz. As a dual citizen would love to see more onshore manufacturing and processing although I have my doubts as expressed in my previous post. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, JoMack said:

 In order to produce 175 m tonnes of ammonia aren't you actually using the conversion of natural gas (i.e. methane) to obtain the amounts of ammonia you discuss.  I don't see an advantage.

If the electricity to run the electrolysers and atmospheric compression units (to source the N) costs next to nothing there is an advantage.

For countries with decent  renewable resources but no natural gas its a potential import substitution measure. 

[Marcin2 + 724]

On 10/28/2020 at 2:20 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Further, the ban is on new ICE cars only, used ICE will remain for a while. Regardless, this gives us decades to work out the grid and charging. 

From wiki here are many of the proposed bans

Country	Ban announced	Status and proposed commencement	Scope	Details
Austria	2016	2020 (government plan)[29] [needs update]	Non-electric	New vehicle sales[29]
Norway	2017	2025 (tax and usage incentives)[43]	Diesel, petrol	All cars
Belgium	2020	2026[30]	Diesel, Petrol	New company cars
Israel	2018	2030[20]	Diesel, petrol	New imported vehicles
Germany	2016	2030 (Bundesrat decision)[38]	Emitting	New car sales[38]
Iceland	2018	2030 (climate plan)[39]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales
Netherlands	2017	2030 (coalition agreement)[42]	Diesel, petrol	All cars
Sweden	2018	2030 (coalition agreement)[47]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales
Slovenia	2017	2030 (emission limit of 50 g/km)[45]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales
Ireland	2019	2030 (government bill)[41]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales[41]
India	2017	2030 (government target)[40]	Non-electric	All vehicles[40]
Denmark	2018	2030–35[36]	Diesel, petrol	New vehicle sales (2030), all vehicle use (2035).[36]
United Kingdom	2020	2030,[49] 2035 (hybrid)[50]	Emitting	New car sales
California	2020	2035[31]	Emitting	New vehicle sales
Egypt	2018	2040[2]	ICE[note 2]	New vehicle sales[2]
Spain	2018	2040[2]	ICE	New vehicle sales[2]
Sri Lanka	2017	2040[46]	Diesel, petrol	All vehicles
Taiwan	2017	2040[48]	Diesel, petrol	All bus use (2030), all motorcycle sales (2035), all car sales (2040).[48]
Canada	2017	2040 (climate plan)[32]	Emitting	New vehicle sales
France	2017	2040 (climate plan)[37]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales
Singapore	2020	2040 (incentives on electric vehicles)[44]	Diesel, petrol	All vehicles
Costa Rica	2019	2050[34][35]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales
China	2017	researching a timetable[33]	Diesel, petrol	New car sales

Seems like it might be a trend...

This is a clear winner for me:

1. It seems real ( like government plans & bills),

2. It is totally impossible with current civilization, technology etc.

3. It is global (idea encompassing over 3 billion people, 40% of global population).

Good idea for Monthy Python sketch.

Strong contender but finally second place was the one that involved  nickel mining on the Moon or on the asteroid.

Edited October 30, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

 

Strong contender but finally second place was the one that involved  nickel mining on the Moon or on the asteroid.

Seems that lefty greenie Donald Trump even thinks mining the Moon is soon to be a capitalist, commercial reality:

US President Donald Trump signed an order in April encouraging citizens to mine the Moon and other celestial bodies with commercial purposes. 

https://www.mining.com/moon-richer-in-metals-than-previously-thought-nasa/

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

13 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

On the other hand the hydrogen could be used to turn the iron ore of the Pilbarra into direct reduced iron, reducing the shipping volume by 1/3rd.  Port Headland ships about 530 m tonnes of iron ore per year, To turn just 10% of that into direct reduced iron would require 2.7 m tonnes of hydrogen. Alternatively it could be turned into ammonia. 2m tonnes of hydrogen could be turned into about 24 m tonnes of ammonia which can be used directly or as a carrier for hydrogen. World production of ammonia is 175 m tonnes and rising. 

However the NWIS has 400 MW of generating capacity producing about 2 TWh per year, the mines, railways and processing plants use 2-3 times as much energy from diesel as the power system provides so provably another 2-3 TWh would be diverted into industry and transport.

So in spite of your completely ignorant post there is no problem with handling the proposed volumes of hydrogen even if every MWh was used for electrolysis.

There is no need for the silly abuse. Please observe Parliamentary rules in this debate. I regret that despite your jibes you didn't read the post. The proposal doesn't say anything about using Port Hedland - I merely mentioned it was between Port Hedland and Broome. Instead the developers seem to want to use Eighty Mile Creek where there is nothing but a caravan park. Port Hedland would make more sense, but we're talking about major distances. So they'd have to build the green projects, with some means of converting the hydrogen/ammonia then ship it to Broome, somehow, and you seriously expect it to compete economically with Natural Gas? The 3 per cent figure has already been discussed by others - in fact its the figure often quoted - but I take your point about the conversion. However, you still have the problem of shipping H2 in quantities - the developers themselves say it can't be done in volume commercially (note commercially) as of yet. Take your objections up with them. I might point out that your reaction to this absurd proposal highlights the extreme difficultly of having sensible debates, when even the most ridiculous project is defended bitterly and abusively by people who are willfully blind to economic realities. Leave it with you.

[markslawson + 1,042]

18 hours ago, Wombat said:

The electricity will be 10% cheaper for Singapore (compared to LNG) and will supply 10% of their needs. I recommend you google "Sun Cable" before you dismiss the project. You clearly paid no attention last time I posted the link and don't even know that the panels will be located close to Darwin, which will also draw a lot of power from it too.

Wombat - do you believe everything you're told or do you occasionally screen stuff out? Sure the project developers have managed to doctor up a case for the line but look at the distances involved. An $11 billion cable to pump renewables? And that figure does not cover the setting up the solar farms. What they should do is set up these panels and try selling power to Darwin first and maybe later build a line. But they would need a Price Purchasing Agreement from someone in Singapore first. As it is reports say the buyers have "expressed interest" which could mean almost anything. Sure they might buy cheap power if some lunatic Australians want to build the line. There is no indication any investor other than Mike Cannon-Brookes will go near this ridiculous proposal, apart from developer assurances, and developers will say anything.

Here are a few words from an article in the Australian Financial Review. I regret I cannot link the article as its behind a pay wall. By "some" analysts the journalist means all (I used that phrase myself) .. Note "potential customer" .. that means no commitment, so no line.. 

Singapore's largest independent electricity retailer iSwitch has emerged as the first potential customer for a $20 billion-plus solar power export venture backed by tech billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes.

But some analysts were sceptical the plan was viable despite the deep pockets of the Atlassian co-founder, because of the vast distances power must be pumped to make it work.

I might point out, as I have with pfarley that your reaction to this absurd proposal highlights the extreme difficultly of having sensible debates in this area. You insist on defending what is obviously nonsense, simply because it involves green power. Leave it with you.   

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, markslawson said:

 There is no indication any investor other than Mike Cannon-Brookes will go near this ridiculous proposal, apart from developer assurances, and developers will say anything.

 

Billionaire and Fortescue Metals chairman Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest has become the latest big investor in Sun Cable, a giant Northern Territory solar farm.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/andrew-forrest-twiggy-sun-cable-solar-cannon-brookes-renewables-2019-11