The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad

That's interesting. For comparison, whats the efficiency of coal plants and gas turbines?
I'll tell you about coal fired plant efficiencies:
Gina Rinehart reckons that renewable energy could use one third of Australia's prime agricultural land to replace energy production from coal fired power stations. (DEC 2023).

Rinehart bases this on a report from the IPA and claims that one-third of Australia’s agricultural land would “have to be sacrificed” to renewable energy developments to meet Australia’s energy needs with a 50:50 mix of wind and solar by 2050.

The energy demands as calculated by the IPA are not based on actual demands, but on potential demands which overestimates the actual projected figures by the Australian Energy Market Operator by 30 times! and from here, the fun starts. the IPA reckons that demand will grow to 15,459 terawatt hours by 2050 whereas Aemo reckon that it will grow to 420TWh and the Net Zero Australia report reckons it will grow to 450TWh

Using this fabricated assumption, the IPA and Rinehart reckon that renewable energy will have to “proportionally replace all the energy attributable to Australia’s hydrocarbon fuel production as of today, including for export purposes”. (IPA research released 11 December 2023. Kevin You). The thing that the IPA don't disclose in their report is that with fossil fuels, most of the energy is lost in heat! 60% is lost as heat in coal-fired power stations.

What this means is that the simple x amount of renewables required is equal to the x amount of coal required is a gross distortion of the truth.

Not only is the IPA projected 15,459 terawatt hours by 2050 thirty times more than what the reality is likely to be, they do not take into account that 60% of the energy of burning coal is lost as heat during energy production. This convenient non disclosure and grossly inflated projected energy demand by 2050 means that the IPA's assertion that between 57 million hectares and 180 million hectares of land will be needed by 2050 for renewables, something diligently regurgitated by Rinehart and making headlines in the IPA media (just about all media), is absurd. The NSW 2022 report by the agricultural commissioner found that between 80,000 and more likely 55,000 and hectares in total will be require in NSW.

According to the Clean Energy Council, replacing all Australia’s coal-fired power stations with solar farms would take less than 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land; a far cry from the 33% that the IPA and Rinehart reckon it will require.

By the way, if we did a crude calculation based on the the NSW agricultural commissioner's highest estimate of land required in the 2022 report of land required to meet the energy renewable target by 2050 in NSW, and multiplied it by six for SA, NSW, Vic, Qld, WA and NT (sorry Tassie), then the figure is 480,000 hectares - a far cry from the 57 million to 180 million hectares that the IPA and Rinehart reckon.
 
Looks like China’s has peaked its coal imports in 2023… and it might actually decrease in 2024 …
Even though they are increasing the amount of coal power stations. they are actually reducing coal usage due to a massive increase in renewables…
They are probably just stock piling coal… so imports might stay high for a few more years and then stop completely.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'll tell you about coal fired plant efficiencies:
Gina Rinehart reckons that renewable energy could use one third of Australia's prime agricultural land to replace energy production from coal fired power stations. (DEC 2023).

Rinehart bases this on a report from the IPA and claims that one-third of Australia’s agricultural land would “have to be sacrificed” to renewable energy developments to meet Australia’s energy needs with a 50:50 mix of wind and solar by 2050.

The energy demands as calculated by the IPA are not based on actual demands, but on potential demands which overestimates the actual projected figures by the Australian Energy Market Operator by 30 times! and from here, the fun starts. the IPA reckons that demand will grow to 15,459 terawatt hours by 2050 whereas Aemo reckon that it will grow to 420TWh and the Net Zero Australia report reckons it will grow to 450TWh

Using this fabricated assumption, the IPA and Rinehart reckon that renewable energy will have to “proportionally replace all the energy attributable to Australia’s hydrocarbon fuel production as of today, including for export purposes”. (IPA research released 11 December 2023. Kevin You). The thing that the IPA don't disclose in their report is that with fossil fuels, most of the energy is lost in heat! 60% is lost as heat in coal-fired power stations.

What this means is that the simple x amount of renewables required is equal to the x amount of coal required is a gross distortion of the truth.

Not only is the IPA projected 15,459 terawatt hours by 2050 thirty times more than what the reality is likely to be, they do not take into account that 60% of the energy of burning coal is lost as heat during energy production. This convenient non disclosure and grossly inflated projected energy demand by 2050 means that the IPA's assertion that between 57 million hectares and 180 million hectares of land will be needed by 2050 for renewables, something diligently regurgitated by Rinehart and making headlines in the IPA media (just about all media), is absurd. The NSW 2022 report by the agricultural commissioner found that between 80,000 and more likely 55,000 and hectares in total will be require in NSW.

According to the Clean Energy Council, replacing all Australia’s coal-fired power stations with solar farms would take less than 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land; a far cry from the 33% that the IPA and Rinehart reckon it will require.

By the way, if we did a crude calculation based on the the NSW agricultural commissioner's highest estimate of land required in the 2022 report of land required to meet the energy renewable target by 2050 in NSW, and multiplied it by six for SA, NSW, Vic, Qld, WA and NT (sorry Tassie), then the figure is 480,000 hectares - a far cry from the 57 million to 180 million hectares that the IPA and Rinehart reckon.

Um...pretty sure they would take the efficiency of Coal Power into account.
They rate power stations on output , not heat energy.

So when Loy Yang is a 3280MW power station, it produces 3280MW. If they run it 24 hours , they could produce 78GwH.

Australia's biggest solar farm occupies 1500Ha and produces 400MW.
In Victoria a 10kw solar installation produces up to 25kwh a day winter average.
So that 1500Ha site would produce 1 GwH per day. (25*40000 )

To produce the 78Gwh, it would need to be 78 times bigger.
That means a Loy Yang Equivalent solar farm would be around 117 000 Ha.

Somehow Australia is getting by without 187 Loy Yang sized power stations.
So Yep...Gina be full of it.

To me the cost of large scale storage is still the biggest issue. That much battery storage would cost around $27 000 000 000
 
No idea of the facts but how much of australia is prime agricultural land?

yeah you could put it on prime agricultural land, but wouldn't it be better to put it in Wasteland. Even Victoria has deserts.

In fact i'd say most of the larger ones are in arid areas where they could purchase the land cheap.
It would be pretty stupid to say..."I want to pay extra for prime land, so i can put panels on it ".

Having said that , there are some operators who want to put their farms in stupid places for other reasons.
Yallourn would be a shocking place for a Solar farm, but someone wanted to build one there to utilise existing transmission infrastructure. Probably one of the foggiest places in Victoria.

40% of Australia is uninhabitable.

 
No idea of the facts but how much of australia is prime agricultural land?

Less and less each year, due to fossil fuel usage.

I wonder how many coal mines have been dug on fertile land? Coal seam gas is often extracted on farming land as well.

Weirdly, IPA never mentions these things.
 
Um...pretty sure they would take the efficiency of Coal Power into account.
They rate power stations on output , not heat energy.

So when Loy Yang is a 3280MW power station, it produces 3280MW. If they run it 24 hours , they could produce 78GwH.

Australia's biggest solar farm occupies 1500Ha and produces 400MW.
In Victoria a 10kw solar installation produces up to 25kwh a day winter average.
So that 1500Ha site would produce 1 GwH per day. (25*40000 )

To produce the 78Gwh, it would need to be 78 times bigger.
That means a Loy Yang Equivalent solar farm would be around 117 000 Ha.

Somehow Australia is getting by without 187 Loy Yang sized power stations.
So Yep...Gina be full of it.

To me the cost of large scale storage is still the biggest issue. That much battery storage would cost around $27 000 000 000
No, the IPA report does not take into account the 60% loss as heat in coal fired energy production and the IPA also lied when it said that 15,459 terawatt hours will be required by 2050.

Rinehart and the IPA are bullshitting to try and undermine the benefits of renewables.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No, the IPA report does not take into account the 60% loss as heat in coal fired energy production and the IPA also lied when it said that 15,459 terawatt hours will be required by 2050.

Rinehart and the IPA are bullshitting to try and undermine the benefits of renewables.

If you are building a power station, they know how much coal will produce how much electricity..the actual efficiency is certainly allowed for.

If you bought a petrol car , you would know how many l/100km of fuel it used.
Its the same. If the car burns 10L/100Km you don't say this car will get 5L/100km but then you need to allow for inefficiency.

They know how many tonnes of coal they need to burn to get X amount of Mw. They shovel it in with conveyor belts designed to supply the correct amount. They don't guess.

And the IPA probably full of s**t , its harder to know who to believe in the media, and i don't really "trust" anyone. Which is why i did the math myself to see how much land was needed. It was pretty simple stuff, and its way less than IPA has said.
Institute of Public affairs ? , yeah lets read that instead of something that someone who knows what they are talking about writes.

Daniel Wild, the IPA's research head, is qualified in economics, and International studies. That means its political bullshit.
 
Less and less each year, due to fossil fuel usage.

I wonder how many coal mines have been dug on fertile land? Coal seam gas is often extracted on farming land as well.

Weirdly, IPA never mentions these things.
According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Snapshot of Australian Agriculture 2024, 286.69 million hectares is
grazing native vegetation, 45.18 million hectares is grazing modified pasture, 28.34 million hectares are Cropping including crop/pasture rotation with .5 million hectares given over to horticulture.

These figures say that 360.71 million hectares of Australia are agricultural production zones. The Clean Energy Council says that 0.027% of agricultural land would be required to replace coal fired power station with renewables. That works out to about .0974 million hectares of all agricultural land.

Rinehart fails to tell us what "prime" agricultural land is and considering her enormous cattle empire, would native vegetation grazing be "prime" land? How about grazing modifies pasture, all 45.18 million hectares of it?
 
If you are building a power station, they know how much coal will produce how much electricity..the actual efficiency is certainly allowed for.

If you bought a petrol car , you would know how many l/100km of fuel it used.
Its the same. If the car burns 10L/100Km you don't say this car will get 5L/100km but then you need to allow for inefficiency.

They know how many tonnes of coal they need to burn to get X amount of Mw. They shovel it in with conveyor belts designed to supply the correct amount. They don't guess.

And the IPA probably full of s**t , its harder to know who to believe in the media, and i don't really "trust" anyone. Which is why i did the math myself to see how much land was needed. It was pretty simple stuff, and its way less than IPA has said.
Institute of Public affairs ? , yeah lets read that instead of something that someone who knows what they are talking about writes.

Daniel Wild, the IPA's research head, is qualified in economics, and International studies. That means its political bullshit.
Listen, the IPA's report is based on the total amount of coal that is used to generate power. It does not take into account that 60% of this coal is wasted as heat. The IPA is saying that you need the equivalent amount renewables to replace the TOTAL amount of coal used today WITHOUT subtracting the 60% of the coal that is wasted. From there, any calculations are completely wrong.
 
Sheep can graze under solar Arrays…

I’m a poet and I know it.

The shade that the solar Arrays create promotes grass growth in some areas.

So can we subtract sheep grazing from the figures please….


 
So half the pollution from vehicles comes from ‘light duty’ vehicles, so half comes from heavy duty or commercial. And (my take) some of these vehicles spend over 8 hours a day polluting residential areas.

Where’s the angst about these? My guess is if a commercial vehicle isn’t in use, it’s scrapped.

But your average ice car? Might only spend 30 mins a day in use. The other 23h sitting in a driveway, where it is no more polluting than an EV.

For sure have ev private car available to buy, but stop raming them down people’s throats and subsidising them, let the replacement come naturally.

And where’s the subsidies for ultra light electric transport? E scooters e-bikes ecargo bikes?

Priorities all wrong

 
Sheep can graze under solar Arrays…

I’m a poet and I know it.

The shade that the solar Arrays create promotes grass growth in some areas.

So can we subtract sheep grazing from the figures please….



And as summers get harsher…..
 
Listen, the IPA's report is based on the total amount of coal that is used to generate power. It does not take into account that 60% of this coal is wasted as heat. The IPA is saying that you need the equivalent amount renewables to replace the TOTAL amount of coal used today WITHOUT subtracting the 60% of the coal that is wasted. From there, any calculations are completely wrong.

They go by Kw/tonne of coal. Which is available data.
They don't go by the inherent energy of the coal.
 
So half the pollution from vehicles comes from ‘light duty’ vehicles, so half comes from heavy duty or commercial. And (my take) some of these vehicles spend over 8 hours a day polluting residential areas.

Where’s the angst about these? My guess is if a commercial vehicle isn’t in use, it’s scrapped.

But your average ice car? Might only spend 30 mins a day in use. The other 23h sitting in a driveway, where it is no more polluting than an EV.

For sure have ev private car available to buy, but stop raming them down people’s throats and subsidising them, let the replacement come naturally.

And where’s the subsidies for ultra light electric transport? E scooters e-bikes ecargo bikes?

Priorities all wrong


If someone is happy to pay for a petrol car in 2035 in Canada or anywhere… rather than a cheaper and more reliable EV then we need to increased education spending now!!!
 
So half the pollution from vehicles comes from ‘light duty’ vehicles, so half comes from heavy duty or commercial. And (my take) some of these vehicles spend over 8 hours a day polluting residential areas.

Where’s the angst about these? My guess is if a commercial vehicle isn’t in use, it’s scrapped.

But your average ice car? Might only spend 30 mins a day in use. The other 23h sitting in a driveway, where it is no more polluting than an EV.

For sure have ev private car available to buy, but stop raming them down people’s throats and subsidising them, let the replacement come naturally.

And where’s the subsidies for ultra light electric transport? E scooters e-bikes ecargo bikes?

Priorities all wrong


Wow I can see it working for big city commuters, but lots of places in Canada will have issues with infrastructure and temperature for electric cars.

Light duty in Canada is pretty much anything below 4 tonnes.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top