Wasting money down under

[markslawson + 1,042]

When it comes to throwing taxpayer's money away the Americans and the Europeans may consider themselves to be in a class of their own, but occasionally Australians can show the older countries a trick or two. A case in point is pumped hydro project known as the Snowy 2.0 in the South East of the country intended to back-up the developing network of renewable energy projects being built in a (in my view) vain attempt to shift the East Coast power grid from coal and gas to zero carbon. This was announced in 2017 by a long gone Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull as a sort-off adjunct to the long established Snowy River hydro scheme, hence the name. The original estimate for the project which might store 350 GWh or maybe 12 hours worth of demand for the East Coast grid was $A2 billion. The estimates are now up to $A20 billion ($US12.76 billion) counting all the required grid connections, or ten times the original estimate, and still counting. As one of the staunch proponents of renewable energy notes in the this article which includes a link to the original media item revealing the cost blowout, the project faces ever increasing problems including the main boring machine getting bogged, deep underground. About all that is saving the project at the moment is the government's reluctance to write-off the $4 billion already spent on it.

To back up the proposed renewable grid at least of three such projects are needed and I have seen estimates that ten will be required, but the Snowy 2.0 saga shows just how difficult it is to build pumped hydro in areas where hydro power has always been a relatively small part of the power story. Norway and Sweden; no problem. Norway's power grid is 100 per cent renewable because its all hydro. In relatively flat Australia; problem. The author of the article cited points hopefully to batteries but it is difficult to see how sufficient battery capacity can be built at less than truly exorbitant cost. The problem remains insoluble.           

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

Oz has the opportunity to be a global hub for ammonia and hydrogen production. This should create massive wealth for Oz long term just like coal has, LNG has etc etc its just another energy source. The FF projects in and around Oz cost billions to set up so this shouldnt come as a surprise that its the same for renewables.

Maybe embrace the possibilities of how this will gain Oz wealth long term rather than looking at the short term costs to set it all up.

I know youre against H2 and renewables in general but these projects will go ahead and one day actually earn you a shed load of cash.

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Oz has the opportunity to be a global hub for ammonia and hydrogen production. This should create massive wealth for Oz long term just like coal has,

Rob - how may times does this stuff have to be skewered before you stop repeating it, and why are you bothering to repeat it to me? Renewable energy can be generated anywhere. Why would anyone bother to buy hydrogen from another country, as a store of energy, when they can generate the same energy within their borders or at least nearby and use a transmission line? Europe, for example, can be serviced from Northern Africa - Morocco, Algeria? Whatever, and then sent via a transmission line. Of course, that's a dumb way to do things, but the use of hydrogen and ammonia as a means of sending energy long distance is way dumber. Australia simply has no role in this. After decades of this nonsense being repeated without anything happening its time to kill the fantasy. 

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

Mark you continue to see the negative in everything instead of the opportunities. I keep repeating it as yu are repeatedly wrong and I have posted dozens of examples and backed my point up with facts whereas you cant.

I am assuming your government and your previous governments all have the same facts in front of them which is why they are making these decisions. I am sure none of them would go down this route if it was all a white elephant and economic disaster, but then again you obviously know better and are privy to information your various governments over the last decade arent.

You started a thread on why H2 is never going to happen based on outdated tech and outdated info. If you simply google the projects that are underway for this you will see hundreds of billions of dollars are already outlaid on these projects that you claim will never happen.

Keep burying your head in the sand if it helps make you feel safe, dont look and it wont happen!

[TailingsPond + 476]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

 Renewable energy can be generated anywhere. Why would anyone bother to buy hydrogen from another country, as a store of energy, when they can generate the same energy within their borders or at least nearby and use a transmission line? Europe, for example, can be serviced from Northern Africa - Morocco, Algeria? Whatever, and then sent via a transmission line. Of course, that's a dumb way to do things, but the use of hydrogen and ammonia as a means of sending energy long distance is way dumber. Australia simply has no role in this. After decades of this nonsense being repeated without anything happening its time to kill the fantasy. 

Things like shipping boats need fuel, you can't power them with a transmission line.

Not all energy is electricity.

 

Edited October 25, 2023 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,405]

6 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Things like shipping boats need fuel, you can't power them with a transmission line.

Not all energy is electricity.

 

Very true!

There are approximately 5,600 large cargo ships operating at sea worldwide on average. This includes container ships, bulk carriers, oil tankers, and other types of large merchant vessels. This number can fluctuate slightly depending on the time of year and other factors, but it has remained relatively stable over the past few years.  According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), this includes approximately 700 coal-fired cargo ships in operation in 2021 (a decrease of about 10% from 2019).

There are approximately 7,782 to 8,755 large passenger jets in the air on average worldwide on any given day. This estimate is based on data from FlightAware, a website that tracks flights in real time.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), there are an estimated 1.11 billion fossil fueled passenger automobiles in operation worldwide in 2022, but it is difficult to estimate how many of these are moving on the road on average. Some estimates suggest that around 10% of all fossil fueled passenger automobiles are on the road at any given time, while others suggest that the number is closer to 20%. This means that there could be anywhere from 111 million to 222 million fossil fueled passenger automobiles moving on the road on average worldwide (I suspect it's closer to 75 million).

There are approximately 2.68 million fossil fueled large semi-trucks in operation, moving on the road, on average, worldwide. This number is based on the estimated number of large semi-trucks in operation worldwide, the percentage of those trucks that are fossil fueled, and the percentage of those trucks that are on the road at any given time.

That's a whole lotta heat engines burning stuff worldwide at any one time!  And that's only a fraction (probably 50% +/-) of total "energy demand". 

Electricity, while being the most addictive "substance" I know of, is gonna have a VERY long time being capable of providing for just THIS fraction.  I suspect at least 75 years.

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

4 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Things like shipping boats need fuel, you can't power them with a transmission line.

Not all energy is electricity.

Your point is so clever I don't understand it ... oh  I get it, you're talking about Hydrogen as a fuel.. again anyone familiar with the technical issues will have a lot of trouble seeing how H2 could seriously be used as a fuel. Granted a small number of cars use H2 but that a problem for the owners of those cars. You may care to watch this video. I think this presenter is being way to kind to H2 but anyway, it'll give you some idea of the vast problems involved. In any case, as renewable energy can be generated anywhere H2 can be generated anywhere so there is no international market for the stuff..  

[TailingsPond + 476]

3 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Your point is so clever I don't understand it ... oh  I get it, you're talking about Hydrogen as a fuel.. again anyone familiar with the technical issues will have a lot of trouble seeing how H2 could seriously be used as a fuel. Granted a small number of cars use H2 but that a problem for the owners of those cars. You may care to watch this video. I think this presenter is being way to kind to H2 but anyway, it'll give you some idea of the vast problems involved. In any case, as renewable energy can be generated anywhere H2 can be generated anywhere so there is no international market for the stuff..  

NH3 has promise for shipping. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

You started a thread on why H2 is never going to happen based on outdated tech and outdated info. If you simply google the projects that are underway for this you will see hundreds of billions of dollars are already outlaid on these projects that you claim will never happen.

Keep burying your head in the sand if it helps make you feel safe, dont look and it wont happen!

Rob - nothing about that thread was outdated except in your own mind and you have completely failed to prove otherwise, again except in your own mind. I repeat, yet again, if you are going to indulge in fantasies at least make them self-consistent. Renewable energy can be generated anywhere so where is the role for H2 in trading energy from green projects? As for Australia, on present trends it won't have anything like enough RE for its own needs let alone an export market. In any case, it is simply too far away from anywhere for H2 to be of any use. As you have nothing new to say in this area, and just keep repeating the same deluded nonsense I'll leave it with you. Invest your money in H2 projects and see what happens.

 

4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

NH3 has promise for shipping.

Its certainly better in that you can actually use it with current technology but there are still problems as its very expensive to generate with renewable energy - the reason I mentioned transmission lines earlier is that they are vastly more efficient as a means of transmitting energy. Anyway, if anyone can make it won't so be it.. but don't hold your breath..    

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Rob - nothing about that thread was outdated except in your own mind and you have completely failed to prove otherwise, again except in your own mind. I repeat, yet again, if you are going to indulge in fantasies at least make them self-consistent. Renewable energy can be generated anywhere so where is the role for H2 in trading energy from green projects? As for Australia, on present trends it won't have anything like enough RE for its own needs let alone an export market. In any case, it is simply too far away from anywhere for H2 to be of any use. As you have nothing new to say in this area, and just keep repeating the same deluded nonsense I'll leave it with you. Invest your money in H2 projects and see what happens

Mark I'm afraid its you that is deluded as its not me investing in multi billion dollar projects but oil majors, governments globally, major utilities etc etc.

Your apparent unwillingness to accept what is going on right now in the market and in front of your own eyes makes you blind to reality and somewhat of a luddite. 

Your only argument is economics and the cost of these projects, you fail to register that it also costs billions for FF projects such as the enormous LNG projects in your own back yard over the last couple of decades.

Leave it with you!

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Mark I'm afraid its you that is deluded as its not me investing in multi billion dollar projects but oil majors, governments globally, major utilities etc etc.

Your apparent unwillingness to accept what is going on right now in the market and in front of your own eyes makes you blind to reality and somewhat of a luddite. 

I looked at your stuff by accident as I had to grab some of my material for an article I'm doing in the Australian edition of the Spectator and I know what you can do, become an academic. Be like one of those ultra-left political science academics who still have not acknowledged the fall of the Berlin wall 30+ years later .. in 30 years when everyone else has forgotten the fad of H2 you'll still be telling students that the bright future of H2 is just around the corner....   

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

I looked at your stuff by accident as I had to grab some of my material for an article I'm doing in the Australian edition of the Spectator and I know what you can do, become an academic. Be like one of those ultra-left political science academics who still have not acknowledged the fall of the Berlin wall 30+ years later .. in 30 years when everyone else has forgotten the fad of H2 you'll still be telling students that the bright future of H2 is just around the corner....   

Oh dear God you are sooooooo way behind the times its scary!

Do you really think global oil majors and utilities let alone governments would be spending hundreds of billions on a fad??? If so then there is no hope for you. In 30 years they might have finally cracked fusion, but I doubt it, but if they do then yeah that might replace the H2 projects its called evolutionary science/tech. Just like the horse and cart was replaced by the car.

However a lot of those sub tier oil & gas manufacturers are diversifying into renewables as that's where the investment and new projects are, if you dont go with them you get left behind and go bust.

As for myself I work in the manufacturing sector as a sales director, main market is, wait for it........... oil & gas!!!! But also a fair bit in powergen, civil nuclear and nuclear defence. Turnover $40M, EBITDA $10M

What is your background?

[LaneLong 0]

Loading money onto your MyThredbo card is easy. You can do it through the Thredbo Resort website or their app. After logging into your account, go to the payment or MyThredbo card section. There, you'll find an option to "Load Money." Just choose the amount you want to add and follow the simple steps to complete the transaction securely. Your card will then be ready for your adventures in Thredbo. If you're interested in some extra fun and maybe even winning some cash, you should check out Bingo for money. It's a great way to enjoy your free time and potentially boost your bankroll!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

On 10/27/2023 at 1:23 AM, Rob Plant said:

Oh dear God you are sooooooo way behind the times its scary!

Do you really think global oil majors and utilities let alone governments would be spending hundreds of billions on a fad??? If so then there is no hope for you. In 30 years they might have finally cracked fusion, but I doubt it, but if they do then yeah that might replace the H2 projects its called evolutionary science/tech. Just like the horse and cart was replaced by the car.

However a lot of those sub tier oil & gas manufacturers are diversifying into renewables as that's where the investment and new projects are, if you dont go with them you get left behind and go bust.

As for myself I work in the manufacturing sector as a sales director, main market is, wait for it........... oil & gas!!!! But also a fair bit in powergen, civil nuclear and nuclear defence. Turnover $40M, EBITDA $10M

What is your background?

Lol... a salesman...  Should have known. 

Uh, Near zero private investment is going into wind, some into solar because they can do math.  Only government pork barrel corruption is doing so. 

[notsonice + 1,080]

56 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lol... a salesman...  Should have known. 

Uh, Near zero private investment is going into wind, some into solar because they can do math.  Only government pork barrel corruption is doing so. 

Near zero private investment is going into wind, some into solar because they can do math???? and your source????

as usual you babble your tired old BS

Let me guess your job in life.......Writer of pulp fiction??????

near zero???? actual private investment in 2022 is over 30 billion

 

PS pork barrel corruption .....when you fill up at the pump

remember

U.S. ethanol production rose two percent to 15.36 billion gallons (bg) in 2022...with 50 cent tax subsidy per gallon

ICE drivers should not be subsidized should they???????

Enjoy the transition.........growing corn to create crappy fuel and to get a giant subsidy is just plan corrupt. How many barrels of oil goes into every Barrel of ethanol produced??????? Just more stupid uses of oil

 

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by notsonice

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

12 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lol... a salesman...  Should have known. 

Uh, Near zero private investment is going into wind, some into solar because they can do math.  Only government pork barrel corruption is doing so. 

"Uh, Near zero private investment is going into wind,"

Onshore wind investment has declined for four straight quarters. The sector received $64.5 billion of investment in 1H 2023

I agree wind has hit several issues recently and investment in this is declining but still significant as $64.5b in H1 is no small number. However solar is absolutely booming as Notsonice has kindly provided the data above. 

I am waiting fore the data to back up your comments, which is from what I can see just your personal view which is meaningless!