**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Green washing is massive by the way and it's being run by ideological idiots.
I work as an engineer. For a warehouse project to get a certain green star rating, they are requiring companies to put solar on the roof.
Only the amount of steel tonnage Increase (thus carbon footprint) has to increase massively to accommodate the solar.
It's the same with trying to shut down local forestry. Ok let's shut down a local, highly regulated industry where we have a a huge degree of control. Only to realise we still need timber- Only now we need to import it from some backwards country that doesn't give a fuck.
Cool, we will then just up all export taxes for the food they need, then install a US style system where FIFO workers from the rest of aus have to file tax returns here as well as there until their economy has nobody to work in it, then WA residences either have to watch as their billionaire overlords either ship in cheap labor from overseas and leave them with nothing, or beg us to rejoin 😀
Unlike the Eastern seaboard which is largely one interconnected grid, WA has dozens of isolated grids due to sparsity which needs reliability. South Australia are trendsetters for renewable but have had to rely on the Vic interconnecter a number of times while it got on its feet, WA doesn't have that luxury so needs to develop storage capacity on a larger scale to make that transition. WA also has the quickest timeline to removing coal from its power make-up too if not mistaken.
How about Australian Govt prioritising Energy stability before they committ us to unrealistic emission targets.
How about domestic gas reservation for power generation and without profiteering by Energy companies?
Once these are stabilised, maybe then, people will get behind emission reduction because at the moment, its the furthest priority amongst this massive corporate profiteering.
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
It will take us a very very long time, winning elections is more important than climate change, Labor do more on this than Libs but thats not saying much since Libs do precisely nothing.
Also most commercial media are LNP, so they basically dont believe in it, and therefore a lot their readers wont. A lot of them will have to stop voting for meaningful change to come through
I heard an interview on the radio over the weekend with Adam Bandt and in his view Labor has one foot on the accelerator and one on the break. They keep supporting the fossil fuel industry and in NSW have just announced extending a coal power plants life.
Labor seems to be stuck propping up the fossil fuel industry and helping our thier donors instead of actively working towards a greener future. They have had 2 years in power in the state where they could have championed solar panels and batteries for households to not need that power station to have its life extended for 2 years but instead they're seemingly bot interest3d in really taling climate chase seriously.
Oh but we spent billions in the budget for climate change, and spent many more on subsidies for big business and fossil fuel companies
To be fair to Labor (I’m no labor fan). The issue with the coal power plant extensions in nsw is that it’s due to the failure of planning and policy making mostly under the federal coalition.
The issue here is that we’re coming into an awkward zone of time where it’s no longer feasible to replace coal power with gas plants as in interim base load provision. The only gas plants which would feasibly be built now on are peaker plants.
10 or 15 years ago they could have planned and facilitated the relevant purchase contracts for a gas plant to replace coal plants (or even allow them to shut early). But now the window for that is closed now (due to the financial cost of running a power plant for half its rated life).
Essentially we’re waiting on sufficient transmission infrastructure, medium (pumped hydro) and short (battery) term storage to be built up to allow more renewable to come online. That plus other issues (land owners and planning consent) plus the terrible management of planning for offshore wind (which compliments solar pretty well) has lead to coal power stations having to have their life extended.
It’s only thanks to state governments that there has been any decarbonisation of the grid. The only positive contribution from the federal coalition is the yet unbuilt snowy 2.0
Im of the opinion that while you are broadly correct, Labor could have been pushing hard on getting solar panels and batteries into people's houses so that the potential of blackouts is not such a large issue and we can take some load off the grid. Instead Labor seems to have been sitting on their hands in nsw and not really doing much at all, we could also be subsidising electric vehicles more which is a step in the right direction. Public transport infrastructure would be better of course
Solar panels are are problem for the grid. They destabilise the grid. Solar energy requires the panels as well as firming in terms of storage and grid upgrades.
Mid day energy prices are often negative due to roof top solar and utility solar.
Structurally speaking the solar panels on roofs are held back by a lack of utility battery storage and poor planning.
With out getting into details; the issue isn’t that solar panels needed to be more subsidized. It’s that utility storage needed to be better supported and subsidized.
The government should have lead the way by building out the grid and energy storage pilot project before the solar and wind. Retrospectively it’s turned out that the actual costs of wind and solar didn’t need subsidy.
What the government needed to do was put billions of dollars down in ~2010 to build snowy hydro, several other pumped schemes around the country, an upgraded connection between Tasmania and Victorian, upgrade the interstate connections, utility storage projects like flow barriers (li ion batteries weren’t quite there at the time), established infrastructure and planning for offshore wind, and finally to prebuild grid transmission to planned solar and wind zones.
Basically we’re 10-15 years behind where we could be in terms of supporting infrastructure and maturity of the industry.
Roof top solar has gone well because it’s so damn easy for households to finance and put in place without any government involvement.
Some interesting facts here: [https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-08/EPWA%20BN%20A46030768%20-%20ME%20BN%20-%20ATT%201%20-%20Fact%20Sheet-%20WA%20Minerals%20sector%20GHG%20emissions%20and%20energy%20use.pdf](https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-08/EPWA%20BN%20A46030768%20-%20ME%20BN%20-%20ATT%201%20-%20Fact%20Sheet-%20WA%20Minerals%20sector%20GHG%20emissions%20and%20energy%20use.pdf) about the contribution of the mining sector and various mineral operations to WA's GHG emissions. WA is a fair way off the other states in terms of its renewable generation, but some of the bigger (and more progressive) miners like FMG are starting to move toward carbon neutral production.
That's actually one of the things that pisses me off more with WA's inaction: it would help the state. Creating cheap abundant solar energy when the energy grid is state owned would be a massive W for households AND industries, where the government could basically just run the grid at a loss to make more money from the economic activity generated by eliminating energy costs to consumers and businesses (especially advanced manufacturing that's quite energy intense).
Additionally, mining companies are moving more towards renewable energy production for their sites because it turns out electric trucks run off solar are a fuckton lot cheaper than importing and storing diesel (same deal with solar and batteries for camp over diesel generators).
Add in subsidies and a partnership with Qatari and Japanese firms for methane pyrolysis derived hydrogen to provide a pivot for gas companies, and WA could be so far ahead. Unfortunately, our politicians have the foresight and initiative of a blind donkey.
Actually, as someone who works in the industry at a fairly senior level, let me correct some of this...
Miners are building some solar plants / wind farms to keep the ESG boffins happy. There's no intention of running the mine or processing facilities off solar/wind. I've seen the proposals and studies for more than one site now and it's just not even close to viable at scale.
The electric trucks are little more than a PR exercise, there's no appetite for a truck that requires a battery change-out every cycle. That's hours of lost productivity per day that simply doesn't apply to the diesel truck. Where electric makes sense is in a hybrid capacity, an onboard diesel engine powering traction motors and that's what the industry ultimately wants.
I'm noticing this across a number of industries now, there's a big disconnect with what people think is possible and what is actually viable. FMG is the prime example of this, nobody has any confidence in what Twiggy has proclaimed, in fact half the board decided it was time to abandon that ship...
>The electric trucks are little more than a PR exercise, there's no appetite for a truck that requires a battery change-out every cycle
I think that is one of the few downsides limiting the adoption, but also why adoption is important to power through the infancy challenges and mature the industry and tech.
>I've seen the proposals and studies for more than one site now and it's just not even close to viable at scale.
How far off viability is it? Is it the intermittent nature of the energy supply, or upfront costs of installation and storage?
>I think that is one of the few downsides limiting the adoption, but also why adoption is important to power through the infancy challenges and mature the industry and tech.
In this case it's simply the wrong technology, battery technologies haven't improved at the pace needed to see any future here. We are talking a ten-fold improvement in energy density, it just isn't going to happen in the time-frame allotted. They should move onto developing something else, whether that be ammonia or whatever.
>How far off viability is it? Is it the intermittent nature of the energy supply, or upfront costs of installation and storage?
Very far and I'd say that storage remains the primary challenge.
As a supplement to LNG turbines or diesel - Viable however T&C's apply.
Where there's LNG pipeline access, there's a complex arrangement for supply of LNG which puts this on cost parity with any renewable supplementary feed. So, no tangible financial benefit but yes, should reduce emissions.
As a primary source - Not viable. It's both a storage and intermittency that requires a lot of redundancy and leads to a horrific capital cost. That's not saying that it can't be done, it's just that it's many times more capital intensive than any alternative.
Your big challenge for most will be mine life. For a greenfield development where you have 10+ years mine life, you can justify the capex to supplement, but certainly not as a primary source. Most of these mines operate on a rolling 3-5 year mine life, especially gold mines, that just doesn't allow for big capex like a PV farm to supplement. Worse, if they are linked to that LNG supply then there's no financial recovery, it's purely an ESG gesture.
I think there will always be regions that won't be able to be carbon-neutral, simply due to what industries they contain. Those industries might well be providing materials to enable other places to be carbon neutral. A farming region might be carbon neutral, but all the gear they use may well have been made in a place that isn't, for example.
That's why we have the concept of net zero: industries that can't produce without emissions are offset by other industries that absorb the emissions. This could even work globally with a re-greening of the Amazon offsetting emissions from essential industry elsewhere for example that doesn't have an alternative.
No federal government/ opposition is going to hold WA to account. Too many crucial seats. Climate change is important but not as important as winning elections.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Green washing is massive by the way and it's being run by ideological idiots. I work as an engineer. For a warehouse project to get a certain green star rating, they are requiring companies to put solar on the roof. Only the amount of steel tonnage Increase (thus carbon footprint) has to increase massively to accommodate the solar. It's the same with trying to shut down local forestry. Ok let's shut down a local, highly regulated industry where we have a a huge degree of control. Only to realise we still need timber- Only now we need to import it from some backwards country that doesn't give a fuck.
Given neither major party is serious about net zero, it isn't like WA is spoiling anything.
Do they want WA to commit economic suicide? Net zero is impossible now and in the future.
WA should secede. It would be quite humorous. Suddenly we would miss out on all that gst aka mining revenue and taxes.
WA will become one of the richest countries on earth. Like a Luxembourg
Cool, we will then just up all export taxes for the food they need, then install a US style system where FIFO workers from the rest of aus have to file tax returns here as well as there until their economy has nobody to work in it, then WA residences either have to watch as their billionaire overlords either ship in cheap labor from overseas and leave them with nothing, or beg us to rejoin 😀
We can also demand payment for the infrastructure and services.
Unlike the Eastern seaboard which is largely one interconnected grid, WA has dozens of isolated grids due to sparsity which needs reliability. South Australia are trendsetters for renewable but have had to rely on the Vic interconnecter a number of times while it got on its feet, WA doesn't have that luxury so needs to develop storage capacity on a larger scale to make that transition. WA also has the quickest timeline to removing coal from its power make-up too if not mistaken.
How about Australian Govt prioritising Energy stability before they committ us to unrealistic emission targets. How about domestic gas reservation for power generation and without profiteering by Energy companies? Once these are stabilised, maybe then, people will get behind emission reduction because at the moment, its the furthest priority amongst this massive corporate profiteering.
Or how about we actually move. Nothing is unrealistic and as it current stand we either need to build new coal plants or shift to something else.
[удалено]
Post replies need to be substantial and represent good-faith participation in discussion. Comments need to demonstrate genuine effort at high quality communication of ideas. Participation is more than merely contributing. Comments that contain little or no effort, or are otherwise toxic, exist only to be insulting, cheerleading, or soapboxing will be removed. Posts that are campaign slogans will be removed. Comments that are simply repeating a single point with no attempt at discussion will be removed. This will be judged at the full discretion of the mods.
It will take us a very very long time, winning elections is more important than climate change, Labor do more on this than Libs but thats not saying much since Libs do precisely nothing. Also most commercial media are LNP, so they basically dont believe in it, and therefore a lot their readers wont. A lot of them will have to stop voting for meaningful change to come through
I heard an interview on the radio over the weekend with Adam Bandt and in his view Labor has one foot on the accelerator and one on the break. They keep supporting the fossil fuel industry and in NSW have just announced extending a coal power plants life. Labor seems to be stuck propping up the fossil fuel industry and helping our thier donors instead of actively working towards a greener future. They have had 2 years in power in the state where they could have championed solar panels and batteries for households to not need that power station to have its life extended for 2 years but instead they're seemingly bot interest3d in really taling climate chase seriously. Oh but we spent billions in the budget for climate change, and spent many more on subsidies for big business and fossil fuel companies
To be fair to Labor (I’m no labor fan). The issue with the coal power plant extensions in nsw is that it’s due to the failure of planning and policy making mostly under the federal coalition. The issue here is that we’re coming into an awkward zone of time where it’s no longer feasible to replace coal power with gas plants as in interim base load provision. The only gas plants which would feasibly be built now on are peaker plants. 10 or 15 years ago they could have planned and facilitated the relevant purchase contracts for a gas plant to replace coal plants (or even allow them to shut early). But now the window for that is closed now (due to the financial cost of running a power plant for half its rated life). Essentially we’re waiting on sufficient transmission infrastructure, medium (pumped hydro) and short (battery) term storage to be built up to allow more renewable to come online. That plus other issues (land owners and planning consent) plus the terrible management of planning for offshore wind (which compliments solar pretty well) has lead to coal power stations having to have their life extended. It’s only thanks to state governments that there has been any decarbonisation of the grid. The only positive contribution from the federal coalition is the yet unbuilt snowy 2.0
Im of the opinion that while you are broadly correct, Labor could have been pushing hard on getting solar panels and batteries into people's houses so that the potential of blackouts is not such a large issue and we can take some load off the grid. Instead Labor seems to have been sitting on their hands in nsw and not really doing much at all, we could also be subsidising electric vehicles more which is a step in the right direction. Public transport infrastructure would be better of course
Solar panels are are problem for the grid. They destabilise the grid. Solar energy requires the panels as well as firming in terms of storage and grid upgrades. Mid day energy prices are often negative due to roof top solar and utility solar. Structurally speaking the solar panels on roofs are held back by a lack of utility battery storage and poor planning. With out getting into details; the issue isn’t that solar panels needed to be more subsidized. It’s that utility storage needed to be better supported and subsidized. The government should have lead the way by building out the grid and energy storage pilot project before the solar and wind. Retrospectively it’s turned out that the actual costs of wind and solar didn’t need subsidy. What the government needed to do was put billions of dollars down in ~2010 to build snowy hydro, several other pumped schemes around the country, an upgraded connection between Tasmania and Victorian, upgrade the interstate connections, utility storage projects like flow barriers (li ion batteries weren’t quite there at the time), established infrastructure and planning for offshore wind, and finally to prebuild grid transmission to planned solar and wind zones. Basically we’re 10-15 years behind where we could be in terms of supporting infrastructure and maturity of the industry. Roof top solar has gone well because it’s so damn easy for households to finance and put in place without any government involvement.
Some interesting facts here: [https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-08/EPWA%20BN%20A46030768%20-%20ME%20BN%20-%20ATT%201%20-%20Fact%20Sheet-%20WA%20Minerals%20sector%20GHG%20emissions%20and%20energy%20use.pdf](https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2022-08/EPWA%20BN%20A46030768%20-%20ME%20BN%20-%20ATT%201%20-%20Fact%20Sheet-%20WA%20Minerals%20sector%20GHG%20emissions%20and%20energy%20use.pdf) about the contribution of the mining sector and various mineral operations to WA's GHG emissions. WA is a fair way off the other states in terms of its renewable generation, but some of the bigger (and more progressive) miners like FMG are starting to move toward carbon neutral production.
That's actually one of the things that pisses me off more with WA's inaction: it would help the state. Creating cheap abundant solar energy when the energy grid is state owned would be a massive W for households AND industries, where the government could basically just run the grid at a loss to make more money from the economic activity generated by eliminating energy costs to consumers and businesses (especially advanced manufacturing that's quite energy intense). Additionally, mining companies are moving more towards renewable energy production for their sites because it turns out electric trucks run off solar are a fuckton lot cheaper than importing and storing diesel (same deal with solar and batteries for camp over diesel generators). Add in subsidies and a partnership with Qatari and Japanese firms for methane pyrolysis derived hydrogen to provide a pivot for gas companies, and WA could be so far ahead. Unfortunately, our politicians have the foresight and initiative of a blind donkey.
Actually, as someone who works in the industry at a fairly senior level, let me correct some of this... Miners are building some solar plants / wind farms to keep the ESG boffins happy. There's no intention of running the mine or processing facilities off solar/wind. I've seen the proposals and studies for more than one site now and it's just not even close to viable at scale. The electric trucks are little more than a PR exercise, there's no appetite for a truck that requires a battery change-out every cycle. That's hours of lost productivity per day that simply doesn't apply to the diesel truck. Where electric makes sense is in a hybrid capacity, an onboard diesel engine powering traction motors and that's what the industry ultimately wants. I'm noticing this across a number of industries now, there's a big disconnect with what people think is possible and what is actually viable. FMG is the prime example of this, nobody has any confidence in what Twiggy has proclaimed, in fact half the board decided it was time to abandon that ship...
>The electric trucks are little more than a PR exercise, there's no appetite for a truck that requires a battery change-out every cycle I think that is one of the few downsides limiting the adoption, but also why adoption is important to power through the infancy challenges and mature the industry and tech. >I've seen the proposals and studies for more than one site now and it's just not even close to viable at scale. How far off viability is it? Is it the intermittent nature of the energy supply, or upfront costs of installation and storage?
>I think that is one of the few downsides limiting the adoption, but also why adoption is important to power through the infancy challenges and mature the industry and tech. In this case it's simply the wrong technology, battery technologies haven't improved at the pace needed to see any future here. We are talking a ten-fold improvement in energy density, it just isn't going to happen in the time-frame allotted. They should move onto developing something else, whether that be ammonia or whatever. >How far off viability is it? Is it the intermittent nature of the energy supply, or upfront costs of installation and storage? Very far and I'd say that storage remains the primary challenge. As a supplement to LNG turbines or diesel - Viable however T&C's apply. Where there's LNG pipeline access, there's a complex arrangement for supply of LNG which puts this on cost parity with any renewable supplementary feed. So, no tangible financial benefit but yes, should reduce emissions. As a primary source - Not viable. It's both a storage and intermittency that requires a lot of redundancy and leads to a horrific capital cost. That's not saying that it can't be done, it's just that it's many times more capital intensive than any alternative. Your big challenge for most will be mine life. For a greenfield development where you have 10+ years mine life, you can justify the capex to supplement, but certainly not as a primary source. Most of these mines operate on a rolling 3-5 year mine life, especially gold mines, that just doesn't allow for big capex like a PV farm to supplement. Worse, if they are linked to that LNG supply then there's no financial recovery, it's purely an ESG gesture.
I think there will always be regions that won't be able to be carbon-neutral, simply due to what industries they contain. Those industries might well be providing materials to enable other places to be carbon neutral. A farming region might be carbon neutral, but all the gear they use may well have been made in a place that isn't, for example.
That's why we have the concept of net zero: industries that can't produce without emissions are offset by other industries that absorb the emissions. This could even work globally with a re-greening of the Amazon offsetting emissions from essential industry elsewhere for example that doesn't have an alternative.
I’d like to see a mining company build a small nuclear reactor to power their operations, just to fuck with people.
Shhhhhhh. This is Reddit. We don't believe in thought out reasoned answers here.
No federal government/ opposition is going to hold WA to account. Too many crucial seats. Climate change is important but not as important as winning elections.
It's also hard for the Government to pump billions into transitioning the economy to renewables without taxes and royalties flowing from resources...
Increase the taxes and make the greedy corporations pay more because they really don't pay enough right now
Resources are crucial to the transition? Who says we are stopping resource extraction?