And, the AEMO fails to consider the capital and operating costs of the additional gas pipelines and storage to supply this additional gas capacity. It is a half-baked plan.
Thanks Chris and Samantha for putting all these facts on the table. Now they need to go out to politicians and the general public. There is so much misinformation out there.
See the four energy futures charted by The Page Research Institute
Starting at the bottom with the 100% renewables grid, calling for $332 billion in investment. Retail electricity prices will rise by up to 70% and there is no guarantee that it is achievable.
Number three is the current policy pathway with Investment of $261 billion. Retail prices are expected to rise by 30 to 69% while destruction of forests and farmland continues.
Number two is the technology neutral pathway or “all of the above,” including nuclear energy, with capital investment of $163 billion.
Retail prices could rise 35% in the short term with the possibility of a 4% decrease in a decade or three. Again, forests continue to be trashed while toxins in solar panels become the asbestos of the future.
Option 1 is “No net zero” with cheap and reliable power from new coal burners. Capital investment is $103 billion with retail prices potentially decreasing by 25%. Pillage of forests and farmland stops.
We urgently have to fast track a reliable and cost-effective energy supply that is not captive to the scientific illiteracy and ideological obsessions of the Greens and their fellow travellers in the major parties.
Hi Rafe … genuine question… do you believe broadly in climate change. That is to say that there’s too much co2 in the air and we need to wean ourselves of energy sources that produce co2?
Thanks Chris, the level of CO2 in the air fell to a critically low level during the Little Ice Age when there was barely enough to sustain life on earth.
It has increased since then mostly due to the warming which tends to lead rather than lag the level of CO2.
Both the warming and the increase CO2 have been beneficial.
In the case of warming we are still well short of temperatures of the Roman and medieval warm periods which were the best times on earth in recorded history for humans and other living things.
As for the level of CO2, the planet has been visibly greening and crop yields keep going up partly due to the CO2 and also to advances in agricultural technology.
The plants would be pleased to have three or four times as much.
I studied Agricultural Science to postgraduate level and published in the academic literature before I went to the philosophy of science and social sciences.
Lately I returned to science to write a book on climate and energy issues.
Hi Chris, I found you a tedious reporter but I love your Substack. I appreciate you haven’t changed as a person in this short time.
I also appreciate you probably have better ways to spend your time than to engage in conversation with random commenters, but can you tell me what you are trying to achieve with your Substack? What themes are you trying to explore, and how is this different to your brief as a reporter/ tv analyst?
And, the AEMO fails to consider the capital and operating costs of the additional gas pipelines and storage to supply this additional gas capacity. It is a half-baked plan.
Thanks Chris and Samantha for putting all these facts on the table. Now they need to go out to politicians and the general public. There is so much misinformation out there.
Coal remains the unmentionable four-letter word in politically correct discussion of energy policy.
Wake up Australia, there is one way to rapidly lower prices to save whatever industrial furniture is still here.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/start-planning-to-exit-net-zero
See the four energy futures charted by The Page Research Institute
Starting at the bottom with the 100% renewables grid, calling for $332 billion in investment. Retail electricity prices will rise by up to 70% and there is no guarantee that it is achievable.
Number three is the current policy pathway with Investment of $261 billion. Retail prices are expected to rise by 30 to 69% while destruction of forests and farmland continues.
Number two is the technology neutral pathway or “all of the above,” including nuclear energy, with capital investment of $163 billion.
Retail prices could rise 35% in the short term with the possibility of a 4% decrease in a decade or three. Again, forests continue to be trashed while toxins in solar panels become the asbestos of the future.
Option 1 is “No net zero” with cheap and reliable power from new coal burners. Capital investment is $103 billion with retail prices potentially decreasing by 25%. Pillage of forests and farmland stops.
We urgently have to fast track a reliable and cost-effective energy supply that is not captive to the scientific illiteracy and ideological obsessions of the Greens and their fellow travellers in the major parties.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/slowing-the-rise-of-power-prices
Hi Rafe … genuine question… do you believe broadly in climate change. That is to say that there’s too much co2 in the air and we need to wean ourselves of energy sources that produce co2?
Thanks Chris, the level of CO2 in the air fell to a critically low level during the Little Ice Age when there was barely enough to sustain life on earth.
It has increased since then mostly due to the warming which tends to lead rather than lag the level of CO2.
Both the warming and the increase CO2 have been beneficial.
In the case of warming we are still well short of temperatures of the Roman and medieval warm periods which were the best times on earth in recorded history for humans and other living things.
As for the level of CO2, the planet has been visibly greening and crop yields keep going up partly due to the CO2 and also to advances in agricultural technology.
The plants would be pleased to have three or four times as much.
I studied Agricultural Science to postgraduate level and published in the academic literature before I went to the philosophy of science and social sciences.
Lately I returned to science to write a book on climate and energy issues.
https://www.amazon.com.au/s?k=Rafe+Champion&i=stripbooks&crid=GZ66NWUYZ193&sprefix=rafe+champion%2Cstripbooks%2C262&ref=nb_sb_noss
Dont miss the book that my wife wrote on the Chinese Cultural Revolution!
Hi Chris, I found you a tedious reporter but I love your Substack. I appreciate you haven’t changed as a person in this short time.
I also appreciate you probably have better ways to spend your time than to engage in conversation with random commenters, but can you tell me what you are trying to achieve with your Substack? What themes are you trying to explore, and how is this different to your brief as a reporter/ tv analyst?