I've felt this way for years, but it's pretty appalling that energy production and sale, and government policy that affects it, is at just the right level of complexity that it becomes incredibly easy for self serving (and sometimes ridiculous) ideas about it to spread because of the mere veneer of plausibility. For example:
%20_%20Twitter.png)
And look, I don't understand it at all well either - I just get by on reading a range of material and getting a sense of who is talking more sense about it.
What we need is someone who is seen as a good communicator who can explain the complexities and what is possible and reasonable. This is part of my "it's time for specifics" arguments too - as far as the plan ahead for replacing coal and gas with alternatives. Rather than just waiting for the way it pans out now - with intermittent, ad hoc-ish, announcements like this:
Rio Tinto has called for proposals to develop large-scale wind and solar power in Central and Southern Queensland to power its aluminium assets, help meet its climate change ambitions and further encourage renewable development and industry in the region.
The approach, which is through a formal market Request for Proposals (RFP), is intended to support the development of multiple new wind and solar power projects that can, in parallel with firming solutions, start supplying power to Rio Tinto’s Gladstone assets through the Queensland grid by 2030.
Or this:
While on the topic of future energy, John Quiggin's article on nuclear in Australia seemed clear and comprehensible. But his political allegiances (now, basically "Green") mean he's not going to be seen as a trusted national communicator more broadly on the future of electricity generation and markets, either. I'm not sure whether he agrees with my concern about the lack of specifics, too. I should go over to his blog and ask him, I guess!
4 comments:
Steve,
It does not matter who Quiggin sup[ports or disagrees with. either his article is accurate or it is not.
for the record it is accurate.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with its accuracy.
It's just that I am wishing for some relatively apolitical figure who most people would trust in explaining the complexities of the current system, and options as to how it can change...
Sort of a David Attenborough of energy...
For a detailed comparison think about the cost of nuclear power being diverted into research for storage and renewables, and the costs of creating those facilities. The claim that nuclear is cheap is obviously wrong. It was once touted that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter". How did that work out? My concern is that we are now so far behind that in desperation countries will go nuclear which potentially crash the renewables and storage markets. Less developed countries will then be compelled to develop nuclear plants and I don't like the idea of so many nuclear power plants dotted across the globe in politically unstable countries.
If the alinta CEO thinks that then why did he get rid of HIS coal fired power station in SA?
Post a Comment