Opponents of renewable power and action on climate change will no doubt be hailing the news that the ACT's move to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020 will cost consumers the princely sum of about $4.90 per household per week ("The price of ACT's green power", December 3, p1 & p3).
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
However, it must be borne in mind that as Australia's ageing coal-fired power stations reach the end of their useful lives, they will be replaced with more renewable energy. This is at least partly because power from renewable sources such as solar and wind will by 2020 be considerably cheaper than new coal-fired power.
In fact, as James Allan (Letters, December 3) has pointed out, power from new solar and wind energy sources is already appreciably cheaper than coal-derived power.
There will of course be those who claim that solar and wind power are not available 24 hours a day. That situation is also rapidly changing.
For example, the huge Tesla battery in South Australia, which cost $90 million, has been responsible for savings of $50 million in its first year of operation. It has also been praised by the Australian Energy Market Operator for its "speed, versatility and accuracy" when stepping in to avert energy-supply crises such as that caused recently by a failure in the Loy Yang A brown-coal power plant in Victoria.
The coal age is definitely coming to an end.
Douglas Mackenzie, Deakin
Energy data missing
By canny investments while subsidies were high, the ACT now boasts that by "the end of this year, nearly 78 per cent of Canberra's electricity will come from renewable sources" and that this only caused an increase of "roughly 2 per cent of the total average bill." ("The price of ACT's green power", December 3, p1 & p3).
This is encouraging for the total replacement of fossil-fuelled electricity. However the data is incomplete or global generation would be following Mr Rattenbury's idealistic model.
Planners need a more complete analysis.
As often stated, the claim that x per cent of the ACT's electricity comes from renewables is false. We might produce renewable electricity equal to x per cent of what we consume, but much of that is not available to us at the critical times of peak demand.
Much of what we consume comes from fossil fuel.
Current costings do not include grid extensions necessitated by new feed-ins on inadequate lines.
They do not include parity adjustments to account for subsidies.
They do not account for massive demand increases if transport moves online.
Much is made of the pollution of fossil fuels but no consideration is given to the whole-of-life toxicity cost of renewable technologies, including the minor detail of chemical run-off from the cleaning agents used on untold square kilometres of solar arrays.
The matter of stockpiled reserves has not been mentioned nor the vulnerability of distribution networks, both major strategic considerations.
Much new development is needed.
G. Wilson, Macgregor
Capacity an ill wind
In reference to renewable energy, Graham Anderson (Letters, November 30) stated that wind is productive only 50 per cent of the time.
More precisely, the Aneroid Energy website that publishes continuous data on wind energy production for all wind farms connected to the grid states that "on average wind farms in south-east Australia operate at a capacity factor of around 30-35 per cent".
More to the point, for the seven days from the morning of November 24 to December 1 last, the capacity factor for all wind farms was 21 per cent.
The productivity of wind farms in the different states followed similar patterns during that period when an extensive high-pressure weather system covered the region.
This highlights the energy storage problems that the large-scale deployment of wind energy will bring.
To take the case of Labor's 50 per cent renewables by 2030, and assuming that three quarters of that is attributed to a complement of wind turbines of size determined by the average capacity factor, a simple calculation shows that a back-up energy storage of 240 gigawatt hours would be required to deal with the situation that began on November 24.
Further energy storage would be required to deal with the more regular 25 per cent capacity factor of solar panels.
The only practical solution in sight is to retain all coal-fired generators for use as back up.
Thus, as the conservatives have maintained, the cost of a rapid reduction in emissions will be so significant that there will be much economic pain ahead.
J. Smith, Farrer
Power in diversity
The ongoing dispute about the validity of the ACT's 100 per cent renewable target has been missing some evidence-based statistics.
Some claim that because the renewable supply is highly variable, the ACT is mostly relying on fossil fuel back-up.
However, now that all the major wind and solar farms contracted to help the ACT meet its goal are at full capacity, we can delve into the data.
The ACT has contracts with wind and solar farms from South Australia, NSW, Victoria and the ACT to achieve its renewable target.
This diversity of supply has meant that at every instant during November there was significant generation from the contracted renewable generators.
Indeed, 88 per cent of the time they were generating more than 100 megawatts, a power level equivalent to the average needs of 120,000 ACT homes.
Expressed in a form consistent with the bank deposit analogy, the ACT has deposited 100 units of green electricity into the bank, equivalent to its annual needs.
At some times, the wind and solar generation was high, and as a result, 22 of those 100 units were excess to ACT needs, and instead contributed to greening the electricity of other users.
At other times, the wind and solar was insufficient to meet ACT demand, and 22 units had to be sourced from other generation. But the remaining 78 units were produced at a time consistent with ACT needs.
The data demonstrate that a diverse mixture of wind and solar can meet most of our electricity needs.
David Osmond, wind engineer, Dickson
Move Bishop to PM
Now at 80 years of age and a political follower for the adult years, I have picked the outcome of every Federal election since the 1960s.
So a message for PM Morrison: If you are a true Liberal and truly want to win the next election, it's just not going to happen.
Shorten, despite personal unpopularity, will win.
The only way to stop this is for you to stand down in favour of Julie Bishop.
She is the only politician able to bring the Liberals back from the brink with a healthy majority despite their perceived failings.
Don Davey, Launceston, Tas
What about drone use?
The CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Shane Carmody (Letters, November 30) rightly points out that his organisation holds no responsibilities in respect of 'privacy or aviation impacts on general amenity'.
CASA's sole remit relates to aviation safety.
Directing criticism at CASA over issues outside the organisation's remit amounts to barking up the wrong tree.
That said, when it comes to aviation safety, CASA may be found wanting in its stewardship over drone use.
Despite having rules where drones can and cannot be flown, there are no protocols in place that guarantee the safe separation of drones in the proximity of residential areas – none.
Avoidance of a collision between the drone of an increasing number of recreational users and a large commercial one is solely reliant on risk, which translates to 'chance'.
A large commercial drone coming down in one's backyard could have fatal consequences, let alone potential property damage.
No doubt, CASA will quote their '30 metre' rule in respect of recreational drone users avoiding property in rebuttal, and by way of mitigation.
Two questions: Who polices this on the ground and not in the office?
Secondly, if two drones collide at 100m, and the recreational user has obeyed the 30m rule, where is the guarantee that momentum won't bring a large commercial one down on a residential property?
While the risk of collision, admittedly, is small, I wonder how many Canberrans would feel comfortable with the proposition that CASA sanctions a regime whereby the avoidance of a collision rests with chance. Over to you Mr Carmody.
P. Reynolds, Gilmore
Battle dress
The Pentagon is planning to make its soldiers "stronger and more resilient" by giving them personal equipment even more technologically advanced than what they carry now ("Pentagon looks to exoskeletons to build 'super soldiers'", December 3, p26).
In Vietnam the US and its allies abandoned the field to an enemy that wore its pyjamas into battle. Currently, like us, they have conceded large swathes of territory in Afghanistan to a foe who apparently favours full-length dresses in combat.
I have a feeling there's a moral somewhere in all this but I'm unable to articulate it.
Bill Deane, Chapman
Australia's focus
Gareth Evans wants Australia to distance itself from the US, saying that our interests more closely align with China's.
This parallels similar calls from the late PM Malcolm Fraser in his book Dangerous Allies, and more recently from Greens leader Richard Di Natale.
Is it time for us to forget World War II Japanese bombing raids on Darwin, and acknowledge how different is the world of 2018?
Should we not recognise the strategic importance to the US of its intelligence facilities here (Pine Gap) and the certainty of its determination to protect them against any invader, ANZUS or not.
Should we not also recognise the geographic safety of our continent's location and the immense logistic difficulties any invading nation would have. Other neutral nations sharing land borders successfully refuse to rely on "great and powerful friends" – why must we when we have vast oceans as borders?
In any case, our determination to over-populate Australia via immigration and baby bonus policies will achieve the same probable outcome any invader would want – the transfer of millions of surplus human beings to our apparently empty land.
Vince Patulny, Kambah
Not adding up
If you heard Lish Fejer interview Mick Mason on Your ABC 666 (Sunday Brunch, December 2), I hope you picked the crucial mathematical problem.
Mick, a professional horse trainer, succeeded in preparing a wild horse, now known as Coolibah, for rehoming at the Australian Brumby Challenge 2016, for which he can be justifiably proud.
Lish wanted to know how long it takes to do this, and what price homed-quality horses were sold for.
That's two mathematical problems.
Mick said it takes 150 days (that is five months), the same as he would spend on a tame horse – at one hour per day so the horse is not overloaded with new learning.
Lish went on to mention the horses in the alpine country.
Mick was sceptical about the estimates, but seemed to settle on about 3000 (while the official estimates are at least double that number).
Problem one: if it takes five months to rehome one wild horse (Lish pointed out that's what they are called in The Man from Snowy River poem), how long would it take to rehome 3000 wild horses? Answer: 15,000 months or 1250 years.
Problem two: Mick said the best quality horse at the Challenge sold for $4000, while the prices varied greatly for other horses.
Fees for starting and training (online, not quoted by Mick) seem to run at about $60 per day. If one horse costs $60 x 150 Days = $9000 to train for rehoming, and it can be sold – at best – for $4000, who will pay the shortfall of $5000 each to rehome 3000 wild horses over 1250 years?
Frank McKone, Holt
A matter of decency
I agree the Urgent Medical Treatment Bill should be passed, because it is a matter of decency that refugees on Manus and Nauru receive care from the Australian government.
The UN High Commission for Refugees recently announced that the number of people forcibly displaced from their homes increased by 2.9 million in 2017, bringing the total to 68.5 million people.
More than half are children.
Among them are 25.4 million refugees, 40 million internally displaced people and 3.1. million asylum-seekers.
In Lebanon, one in six of its residents is a refugee. In Jordan, refugees are 7 per cent of the total population and the government spends one-quarter of its revenues hosting them. Jordan is a good example of onshore processing of refugees that should be emulated by Australia. Treating them as people with medical conditions treatable in Australia would be a good start.
Peter Graves, Curtin
TO THE POINT
SELECT LITTLE GROUP
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the NSW Liberal Party supporters Christmas party this year. Oh imagine what the two of them would be squabbling about.
Linus Cole, Palmerston
KELLY A NAIL IN COFFIN
Please preselect Craig Kelly. It would be another nail in the coffin of the climate-denying, inept and misogynistic Morrison-led rabble.
Mike Quirk, Garran
TAKING THE LEAD
Liberal Party dogma: Don't think about what the Liberals did to you; think about what you can do for the Liberals.
S.W. Davey, Torrens
ROLE PLAY
Was Malcolm Turnbull a cast member in that TV series, Revenge?
T. Puckett, Ashgrove, Qld
NOT A GOOD LOOK
If Trump praises Morrison then it should be an absolute signal that Morrison has to go.
E. R. Moffat, Weston
ODD ALLUSION
Say what you want to about Adani, its sense of timing is impeccable. And where did Minister Canavan get the idea that a company owned by an Indian billionaire is a "little Aussie battler"?
John Ryan, Griffith
MAKING A DIFFERENCE
Some Liberal MPs may not be familiar with the fact that environmental education has always included acting for the environment, well beyond picking up litter. Climate change certainly qualifies.
Murray May, Cook
A TREASURE, OFFICIALLY
It's hard to comprehend why UNESCO declared Jamaican reggae music to be an official cultural treasure.
Surely all types of music are a cultural treasure?
Rod Matthews, Fairfield, Vic
DOG OWNERS THE ISSUE
Usually the biggest problem with a problem dog is its owner.
It is rather a lot like problem children really.
H. Hutchins, Chirnside Park, Vic
CANAVAN EDUCATIONAL
The only lesson striking school students learned from Senator Matt Canavan's comments on their rallies demanding effective political action on global warming is that politicians say stupid things.
P. Saunders, Chapman
MERKEL MIRTH
As our beaming, esteemed PM returns home from the G20 to accolades from his fellow conservatives, is that mocking laughter I hear from Angela Merkel, as she shuffles through her notes on the revolving door of Aussie prime ministers?
Phyllis Vespucci, Reservoir, Vic
Email: letters.editor@canberratimes.com.au. Send from the message field, not as an attached file. Fax: 6280 2282. Mail: Letters to the Editor, The Canberra Times, PO Box 7155, Canberra Mail Centre, ACT 2610.
Keep your letter to 250 words or less. References to Canberra Times reports should include date and page number. Letters may be edited. Provide phone number and full home address (suburb only published).