There is irony in this article from Nick Foley titled "Separating Fact from Fiction"
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/feder...5fg66.html
Nearly all the claims are either bogus or manipulated 1/2 truths, I think it contains very little truth but some of the deception is harder to debunk than other parts, the author largely relies on the ignorance of the public to argue his case.
Let's pick the one that 42% of home energy demands are already serviced by green energy, because anybody can google the facts and pull this claim apart. Firstly, 42% sounds grand, but homes are only 10% of the countries energy demand, the rest is commercial, industrial, agriculture and transport. So in reality that 42% is less than 5% of the countries total energy demand, and I'm assuming the 42% is true which I doubt. Are roughly half the houses in your street off-grid?
To get all of Australia's 11 Million homes to be self-sufficient the quickest possible way probably means SolarPV and Batteries, which seems to be the articles preferred option, only a small fraction of home already have SolarPV, and an even smaller fraction of that has Battery. I fact the percentage is so small we can assume it's zero for a ball park calculation. So 11 Million homes, with Solar PV and Battery go "Off-Grid" to achieve 10% reduction in the countries energy demand. Market cost based on $6500 for Solar and $16000 for a suitable 24/7 battery, approx $250 BIllion, 11,000,000 x (6500 + 22000) = $247.5B, that's apparently cheaper than nuclear base load? :o
That figure doesn't include recharging the family car, that market isn't developed enough yet for it to be included in the survey, but if you do want to charge an EV and remain 24/7 off-grid then increase the cost of the SolarPV and Battery to cope with one EV per household, the total cost rises by about 50%! ~$320B :o And no, you can't borrow some electrons from the friendly neighbours, they are in the same pickle!
In any case, much of your daytime energy, in fact 90% of it, will be powering hospitals, factories, cinemas, transport, farmers, fishermen and the like, etc., etc.!
Of course you can live with the smaller SolarPV and Battery, and just accept the power goes off at some point in the evening and comes back an hour or two after sunrise, of course doing that shortens the life of your battery, see the next bit.
Next, batteries last about 10 years on average, that means 2/3 of the $250B is an ongoing expense once a decade! $160B. Even old fashioned nuclear plants last 30 years, and modern ones are expected to endure at least twice that.
The next bizarre claim, they are going to do this green stuff by 2030, faster than nuclear, even if they had the available SolarPV and Battery hardware which they don't, they can't possible pay for it, and they can't role out a ten fold increase in SolarPV and Battery by 2030, it's fiction to claim they can!
If media want people to buy in, they should start printing the truth.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/feder...5fg66.html
Nearly all the claims are either bogus or manipulated 1/2 truths, I think it contains very little truth but some of the deception is harder to debunk than other parts, the author largely relies on the ignorance of the public to argue his case.
Let's pick the one that 42% of home energy demands are already serviced by green energy, because anybody can google the facts and pull this claim apart. Firstly, 42% sounds grand, but homes are only 10% of the countries energy demand, the rest is commercial, industrial, agriculture and transport. So in reality that 42% is less than 5% of the countries total energy demand, and I'm assuming the 42% is true which I doubt. Are roughly half the houses in your street off-grid?
To get all of Australia's 11 Million homes to be self-sufficient the quickest possible way probably means SolarPV and Batteries, which seems to be the articles preferred option, only a small fraction of home already have SolarPV, and an even smaller fraction of that has Battery. I fact the percentage is so small we can assume it's zero for a ball park calculation. So 11 Million homes, with Solar PV and Battery go "Off-Grid" to achieve 10% reduction in the countries energy demand. Market cost based on $6500 for Solar and $16000 for a suitable 24/7 battery, approx $250 BIllion, 11,000,000 x (6500 + 22000) = $247.5B, that's apparently cheaper than nuclear base load? :o
That figure doesn't include recharging the family car, that market isn't developed enough yet for it to be included in the survey, but if you do want to charge an EV and remain 24/7 off-grid then increase the cost of the SolarPV and Battery to cope with one EV per household, the total cost rises by about 50%! ~$320B :o And no, you can't borrow some electrons from the friendly neighbours, they are in the same pickle!
In any case, much of your daytime energy, in fact 90% of it, will be powering hospitals, factories, cinemas, transport, farmers, fishermen and the like, etc., etc.!
Of course you can live with the smaller SolarPV and Battery, and just accept the power goes off at some point in the evening and comes back an hour or two after sunrise, of course doing that shortens the life of your battery, see the next bit.
Next, batteries last about 10 years on average, that means 2/3 of the $250B is an ongoing expense once a decade! $160B. Even old fashioned nuclear plants last 30 years, and modern ones are expected to endure at least twice that.
The next bizarre claim, they are going to do this green stuff by 2030, faster than nuclear, even if they had the available SolarPV and Battery hardware which they don't, they can't possible pay for it, and they can't role out a ten fold increase in SolarPV and Battery by 2030, it's fiction to claim they can!
If media want people to buy in, they should start printing the truth.
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"