The economics and politics of energy transition deserve careful examination. The data on infrastructure cost overruns reveals transmission line projects typically experience relatively modest overruns of around 8%, comparing favorably against other major infrastructure investments. This stands in stark contrast to more dramatic overruns seen in other sectors - from 13% for wind projects to a staggering 238% for nuclear facilities, as detailed in https://cleantechnica.com/2024/08/14/how-big-things-get-done-talking-with-megaproject-expert-professor-bent-flyvbjerg/.
Regarding transmission infrastructure financing, I propose a toll road model. The current system of collectivized transmission costs obscures price signals from market participants. A shift to locational pricing could optimize asset placement, leveraging the flexibility offered by solar installations and battery storage systems.
The populist backlash against Australia's electricity system appears particularly misplaced given the data. According to the Energy Council (https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/international-electricity-prices-how-does-australia-compare/), Australia maintains relatively low electricity prices among OECD nations when adjusted for purchasing power parity. The market-based system actually enables more transparent conversations about energy transition compared to the opacity of older vertically integrated structures.
While the long-term economic advantage of solar and battery systems seems clear, I have skepticism about government acceleration of this transition. The natural market transition projected for post-2035 suggests that aggressive government intervention could saddle us with prematurely obsolete infrastructure.
The political dynamics around energy transition reflect a fundamental contradiction in public attitudes. Voters simultaneously demand climate action while refusing to accept associated costs, despite fossil fuels' foundational role in industrial civilization. This explains the peculiar spectacle of right-wing governments rejecting market-based carbon taxes in favor of interventionist "strategic investments."
I also propose to selectively tax foreign coal and gas consumption. This could potentially achieve meaningful climate impact while generating revenue for either renewable subsidies or discretionary spending for the Australian government.
To reduce dependence on foreign oil, I also propose EV subsidies and CNG vehicle legalization.
The broader context of neoliberal policy success deserves emphasis. The post-2008 retreat from neoliberal principles has coincided with declining productivity growth, mounting public debt, and increased global tensions. The United States and Australia have outperformed peers precisely by maintaining regulatory restraint, with Australia particularly benefiting from continued trade liberalization amid global protectionist trends.
The social justice outcomes of the neoliberal era are equally striking - the period saw unprecedented reductions in global poverty and inequality, trends that notably began to slow during the 2010s' anti-neoliberal shift.
Thanks for a valiant effort, Dr Murray! I like to think I'm open minded on this issue, but I found it very hard to follow Dr Diesendorf's arguments behind a lot of indignant hand-waving and appeals to authority (and some pretty spiteful remarks about Ben Beattie towards the end). Contrasted with the very clear and careful communication styles of both Ben and Aidan Morrison, it's hard to be persuaded of the renewables case. I hope you find more compelling communicators on the renewables side to keep the conversation going.
Mark in gentlemanly fashion discussed all the issues clearly and carefully negated Ben’s and Aidan’s positions on climate change, renewables and nuclear energy.
If you believe that decarbonisation must be halted to make room for socialist nuclear, how can you describe the Diesendorf attribution of that view to Beattie as “spiteful”?
Inequality in wealth and income has been growing over the last 50 years. In the USA, the UK, Europe and China inequality has grown dramatically and is getting worse. Only the Scandinavian countries, Belgium , the Netherlands, Switzerland , Luxembourg, (bar Sweden where inequality has been growing recently) have done well.
The economics and politics of energy transition deserve careful examination. The data on infrastructure cost overruns reveals transmission line projects typically experience relatively modest overruns of around 8%, comparing favorably against other major infrastructure investments. This stands in stark contrast to more dramatic overruns seen in other sectors - from 13% for wind projects to a staggering 238% for nuclear facilities, as detailed in https://cleantechnica.com/2024/08/14/how-big-things-get-done-talking-with-megaproject-expert-professor-bent-flyvbjerg/.
Regarding transmission infrastructure financing, I propose a toll road model. The current system of collectivized transmission costs obscures price signals from market participants. A shift to locational pricing could optimize asset placement, leveraging the flexibility offered by solar installations and battery storage systems.
The populist backlash against Australia's electricity system appears particularly misplaced given the data. According to the Energy Council (https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/international-electricity-prices-how-does-australia-compare/), Australia maintains relatively low electricity prices among OECD nations when adjusted for purchasing power parity. The market-based system actually enables more transparent conversations about energy transition compared to the opacity of older vertically integrated structures.
While the long-term economic advantage of solar and battery systems seems clear, I have skepticism about government acceleration of this transition. The natural market transition projected for post-2035 suggests that aggressive government intervention could saddle us with prematurely obsolete infrastructure.
The political dynamics around energy transition reflect a fundamental contradiction in public attitudes. Voters simultaneously demand climate action while refusing to accept associated costs, despite fossil fuels' foundational role in industrial civilization. This explains the peculiar spectacle of right-wing governments rejecting market-based carbon taxes in favor of interventionist "strategic investments."
I also propose to selectively tax foreign coal and gas consumption. This could potentially achieve meaningful climate impact while generating revenue for either renewable subsidies or discretionary spending for the Australian government.
To reduce dependence on foreign oil, I also propose EV subsidies and CNG vehicle legalization.
The broader context of neoliberal policy success deserves emphasis. The post-2008 retreat from neoliberal principles has coincided with declining productivity growth, mounting public debt, and increased global tensions. The United States and Australia have outperformed peers precisely by maintaining regulatory restraint, with Australia particularly benefiting from continued trade liberalization amid global protectionist trends.
The social justice outcomes of the neoliberal era are equally striking - the period saw unprecedented reductions in global poverty and inequality, trends that notably began to slow during the 2010s' anti-neoliberal shift.
I think ordinary consumers are sick and tired of carrying the costs whilst the so called market providers accumulate excess profits.
Did you read anything I said? What makes you think I'm remotely anti capitalist?
Thanks for a valiant effort, Dr Murray! I like to think I'm open minded on this issue, but I found it very hard to follow Dr Diesendorf's arguments behind a lot of indignant hand-waving and appeals to authority (and some pretty spiteful remarks about Ben Beattie towards the end). Contrasted with the very clear and careful communication styles of both Ben and Aidan Morrison, it's hard to be persuaded of the renewables case. I hope you find more compelling communicators on the renewables side to keep the conversation going.
Mark in gentlemanly fashion discussed all the issues clearly and carefully negated Ben’s and Aidan’s positions on climate change, renewables and nuclear energy.
If you believe that decarbonisation must be halted to make room for socialist nuclear, how can you describe the Diesendorf attribution of that view to Beattie as “spiteful”?
Inequality in wealth and income has been growing over the last 50 years. In the USA, the UK, Europe and China inequality has grown dramatically and is getting worse. Only the Scandinavian countries, Belgium , the Netherlands, Switzerland , Luxembourg, (bar Sweden where inequality has been growing recently) have done well.