Australia plans for 100% renewable energy

[mamooth]

The plan:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sit...mo/renewables-study-report-draft-20130424.pdf

It's not written by environmentalists or politicians, but by the AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operators). Those are the people who run the power grid, and the people who would have to build the green grid. Some mild tech improvements are assumed by the study, but nothing miraculous.

In summary, they said they could do it by 2030, but to pay for it, electricity prices would have to be around double the current levels. A mix of solar, wind, wave, hydro, biogas, biomass and geothermal, with some pumped hydro and molten salt battery storage.

It could also be made cheaper by going, say, 90% renewable, as conventional natural gas generating plants are cheap in comparison to renewables. Nuclear would probably not be used, as on a cost basis it's not competitive.

The point? That it's not just a fantasy, nor will it destroy anyone's economy.

 

[bripat9643]

The plan:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sit...mo/renewables-study-report-draft-20130424.pdf

It's not written by environmentalists or politicians, but by the AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operators). Those are the people who run the power grid, and the people who would have to build the green grid. Some mild tech improvements are assumed by the study, but nothing miraculous.

In summary, they said they could do it by 2030, but to pay for it, electricity prices would have to be around double the current levels. A mix of solar, wind, wave, hydro, biogas, biomass and geothermal, with some pumped hydro and molten salt battery storage.

It could also be made cheaper by going, say, 90% renewable, as conventional natural gas generating plants are cheap in comparison to renewables. Nuclear would probably not be used, as on a cost basis it's not competitive.

The point? That it's not just a fantasy, nor will it destroy anyone's economy.

Until it's actually built, it's pie-in-the-sky." Given that the site claiming it's economically feasible is a loon climate change site, I seriously doubt it.

 

[boedicca]

The plan:

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sit...mo/renewables-study-report-draft-20130424.pdf

It's not written by environmentalists or politicians, but by the AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operators). Those are the people who run the power grid, and the people who would have to build the green grid. Some mild tech improvements are assumed by the study, but nothing miraculous.

In summary, they said they could do it by 2030, but to pay for it, electricity prices would have to be around double the current levels. A mix of solar, wind, wave, hydro, biogas, biomass and geothermal, with some pumped hydro and molten salt battery storage.

It could also be made cheaper by going, say, 90% renewable, as conventional natural gas generating plants are cheap in comparison to renewables. Nuclear would probably not be used, as on a cost basis it's not competitive.

The point? That it's not just a fantasy, nor will it destroy anyone's economy.

If you think making energy twice as expensive is good for any economy, then you are an idiot.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are going to pay those prices, even without going to renewables. Look at the percentage per year that your electric bill has been rising.

 

[whitehall]

Say what? Double the price of electric energy so the country can depend (only) on renewable energy? Something if fishy down under.

 

[bripat9643]

You are going to pay those prices, even without going to renewables. Look at the percentage per year that your electric bill has been rising.

It's rising because loons like you keep getting Obama to regulate cheap coal out of existence and force utilities to adopt expensive "renewable" forms of energy.