Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison may regret ever uttering those three words. Fair Dinkum Power now has its own website and a renewable energy “pledge” that thousands of Australians have signed.
The movement had its start when Atlassian CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes became irate over Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s use of the term “fair dinkum power”, alluding to coal, which Mr. Cannon-Brookes said was “bullshit“. He then set about reclaiming the term for renewable energy.
Someone had already registered FairDinkumPower.com.au, which at that point was redirecting to the renewables-focused website RenewEconomy. That’s now been put to use for a site dedicated to Mr. Cannon-Brookes’ project.
Fair Dinkum Power says it is a brand for Australia’s energy future. Its manifesto states:
“We are a rallying cry for all who believe in the power of the wind, the sun, the waves and – most importantly – the power of the people of Australia.”
The site states than in order for energy to be fair dinkum, it “must be good for our wallets, good for our economy and good for our planet.” At this stage, it’s still all a bit of a mad-as-hell moment.
https://youtu.be/sdQCPlAZjbY
But the movement is attracting attention, with a petition/pledge on the site gathering more than 11,600 signatures in just over a week.
Mr. Cannon-Brookes is continuing to push the issue and late last week had an article published on various Fairfax Media sites stating his case for why Australia needs to be a renewable energy superpower.
“Australia has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to redefine its place in the world through the production of renewable energy,” he says.
Whether Fair Dinkum Power has legs and evolves into something more solid or is just another well-intentioned cause du jour remains to be seen; but the underlying support for a renewables powered future for Australia has been and will continue remain strong.
A Reachtel Poll conducted in late July indicated more than two-thirds of Australians believe the best way for the Federal government to ensure low cost reliable electricity supply is to invest in renewables and energy storage.
Meanwhile, the Morrison Government is plowing ahead with its proposed Underwriting New Generation Investments program that could extend the life of currently operating coal-fired clunkers such as Vales Point Power Station. The Government appears keen to push this through before the next Federal election, which must occur on or before 18 May 2019.
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
“Fair Dinkum Power Movement Gains Steam”
Does that mean that they are burning more coal, to make more steam?
This may be a bit off topic, but Can you tell me the difference in solar power generation from a mono panel with 19.3% efficiency (something like an LG Neon) and one with 16.8% efficiency (say a Jinko mono)? This is in a side-by-side comparison and assuming same panel wattage.
Is it simply the ratio of the efficiencies, which appears the logical answer but seems to be far to easy.
Appreciate your guidance here.
Hello John
A 19.3% efficient LG NEON 2 panel is 330 watts. While a 16.5% efficient Jinko mono panel will only be 270 watts. The solar panels are about the same size so you’ll need more of the Jinko ones compared to LG ones for a solar system to have the same capacity. For example a 6.6 kilowatt system would need 20 LG 330 watt panels and 24 Jinko 270 watt panels. (And even then the 24 Jinko panels would only come to 6.48 kilowatts.) Higher efficiency panels are good if you have a limited amount of space on your roof. However, you will pay more per watt with higher efficiency panels.
When will the so-called experts pushing so hard for solar and wind power generation with battery back-up for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow show how many hours of peak load these current battery storages can supply to our major cities ?
Well, if you find an expert who pushes hard for solar and wind power with just battery backup you can ask them, but I’ve never met one.
Last week “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 12.0” and “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Storage Analysis – Version 4.0” were published. They are major annual global energy industry benchmarks.
See: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
Lazard reports that wind and solar-PV technologies have increased/strengthened their economic/cost advantage over new fossil-fuelled electricity generator plants, and are now as cheap as, or cheaper than existing coal, gas and nuclear power plants – even fully-depreciated ones.
It has reached the point where, in some cases, it’s more cost-effective to build and operate new renewable energy projects than to maintain existing fossil-fuelled generator plants.
Even the International Energy Agency appears to be abandoning the thermal coal industry. See: https://reneweconomy.com.au/coal-dumped-as-iea-turns-to-wind-and-solar-to-solve-climate-challenge-66916/
It seems increasingly untenable for the Morrison Government to continue persevering with its proposed Underwriting New Generation Investments program that could extend the life of currently operating coal-fired clunkers and facilitating the building of more expensive new ones.
Federal Minister Angus Taylor wrote an op-ed in The Australian last week (Nov 7), which included:
“We are working towards a shortlist of electricity generation investment projects by early next year that deliver when customers need it (likely to include coal, gas and hydro), balancing the unprecedented investments in solar and wind.”
See: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/taylor/media-releases/opinion20181107.html
Why include new coal and gas investment projects when these technologies are now decisively less cost-effective, and for coal, substantially slower to build/deploy, when compared with wind and solar-PV projects? Who is advising Minister Angus Taylor?