freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:02pm:


You didn't look at the link did you? It was dated 2007.

The link from Crikey 2010. All before the carbon tax.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:02pm:


For how many hours at what cost?

You don't cover what is not included in Lazard. Why is that?

"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this
current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA;
development costs of the electrolyzer and associated renewable energy generation facility; conversion, storage and transportation costs of
the hydrogen once produced; additional costs to produce alternate products (e.g., ammonia); costs to upgrade existing infrastructure to
facilitate the transportation of hydrogen (e.g., natural gas pipelines); electrical grid upgrades; costs associated with modifying end-use
infrastructure/equipment to use hydrogen as a fuel source; potential value associated with carbon-free fuel production (e.g., carbon credits,
incentives, etc.). This analysis also does not address potential environmental and social externalities, including, for example, water
consumption and the societal consequences of displacing the various conventional fuels with hydrogen that are difficult to measure
As a result of the developing nature of hydrogen production and its applications, it is important to have in mind the somewhat limited nature
of the LCOH (and related limited historical market experience and current market depth). In that regard, we are aware that, as a result of our
data collection methodology, some will have a view that electrolyzer cost and efficiency, plus electricity costs, suggest a different LCOH than
what is presented herein. The sensitivities presented in our study are intended to address, in part, such views"

Also -

"espite convergence in the LCOE of certain renewable energy and conventional generation technologies, direct comparisons must take into
account issues such as location (e.g., centralized vs. distributed) and dispatch characteristics (e.g., baseload and/or dispatchable
intermediate capacity vs. peaking or intermittent technologies"


https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:45pm:


So the renewables subsidies started with Labor. Thank you.

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:45pm:



So Lazard means nothing to you despite their provisos in the report.

From Lazard -

"Lazard’s Long Duration Energy Storage Analysis—Executive Summary"

...

"At increasingly high wind and solar penetrations, there will be a need for resources that can provide capacity over longer durations in order to
meet overall capacity and reliability requirements
• LDES technologies could potentially serve this function and enable higher levels of decarbonized power generation as a substitute for traditional "peaking" resources
• Market structures and pricing signals may be established/adopted to reflect identified value of longer duration storage resources
• LDES technologies will compete with, among other things, green hydrogen (generation and storage), natural gas generators with carbon capture systems and advanced nuclear reactors to provide capacity to a decarbonized power grid (assuming viability/acceptability of the relevant LDES technologies)
Overview of Analysis
• The illustrative analysis presented herein includes non-lithium technologies and compares the levelized costs of several flow battery cases along with a compressed air energy system (“CAES”) case
• All systems are 100 MW, 8 hour systems with one cycle per day at maximum charge and depth of discharge (maximum stored energy output given round trip efficiency)
• Subsidized costs include the impact of the IRA. The IRA is comprehensive legislation that is still being implemented and remains subject to interpretation—important elements of the IRA are not included in our analysis and could impact outcome

ibid

Quote:


And this is what the Liberal rusted-ons fall back on. The Liberals say they are committed to reducing GHG emissions. Every serious party does. But they mismanage the transition, mismanage the economy, and are now trying to make it even worse. And what do their followers say? That's OK because the Liberal party has been lying to us about the need to reduce GHG emissions in the first place. The liberal party is one huge mirror house of lies and incompetence, but that's OK because the lies cancel out the incompetence.

Have you considered applying for a job in their media room?

Quote:


Why would you have anything else with a solar powered system?

Quote:


That is what you took from every serious party agreeing we need to reduce GHG emissions? Have you completely given up arguing that the Liberals are god economic managers because you think it makes them look better to say they are lying to us about the science?

Quote:


Even then it will still be cheaper than nuclear. In addition to actually existing.

Quote:


Consensus is integral to science. That's the only way we know what the current scientific paradigm says.

Politics on the other hand is not consensus. Name one issue, other than the need to reduce GHG emissions, that the serious parties all agree on?

Quote:


So you are claiming that the coalition is lying to us about the need to reduce GHG emission? Why even bother arguing the details of how to do it then?

Quote:


If it is not generating enough, you need more of them. And yes, if it is still cheaper than nuclear at 30% capacity, it is still cheaper than nuclear.

Quote:


Because, as the Liberal party keeps demonstrating to us, we cannot trust politicians to act in an economically rational manner. The Liberal party removed the cheapest and most economically efficient mechanism to reduce GHG emissions, and is now telling us we should go with the most expensive option available.

In any case, why does it matter? It's one and the same question. If we build nuclear power plants, we need to remove the ban first. If we are not going to build them, it's a purely academic question.