Political Discussion

[Bicks]

Yer, really killing SA, we have the second cheapest power in the country when you look into it: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog...ond-cheapest-state-for-household-electricity/

and south australia's energy was the cheapest in the first four months of the financial year: http://www.afr.com/news/south-austr...oalfired-states--ross-garnaut-20171106-gzfqaf

and SA's unemployment now down to third lowest in the country hot on the heels of the holden closure: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...a/news-story/13464c45e43ddb279c64d0426d08262d

I know a bit of selective picking here, but at least I admit it, but yer, those power prices and economic troubles from renewables hey?

Selective picking...you got that right brother.

I suggest you go to the source AEMO rather than 2nd hand info...SA clearly had the dearest electricity price in Australia in 2017 and are currently leading the race in 2018 just ahead of Victoria who recently closed the Hazelwood coal fired power station....but hey don't let facts get in the way of the truth. Take note of the 30% jump in price since Hazelwood went offline in Victoria.

http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#average-price-table

 

[Bicks]

Well, looks like we survived that one. Possibly another tight patch coming up in the forthcoming week. Loy yang tripped out yesterday, which didn't help things.

Anyway, what's your plan for replacing fossil fuel energy bicks, how would you go about it?

I'm all for renewables when they can deliver RELIABLE service and COMPETITIVE pricing that does not put Australian companies and businesses at a distinct disadvantage to our competitors. Until then it's madness.
Of course you don't mention the RERT agreement that was set in motion the last 2 days where business/companies that are high electricity users were paid to shut down for several hours to ensure a stable supply to Hospitals, emergency services etc.

P.S. All that's keeping the lights on in SA currently more generally is that other fossil fuel GAS.

 

[DD#23]

that does not put Australian companies and businesses at a distinct disadvantage to our competitors.

maybe we should push wages down to Chinese levels as well then?

 

[Carmo]

Selective picking...you got that right brother.

I suggest you go to the source AEMO rather than 2nd hand info...SA clearly had the dearest electricity price in Australia in 2017 and are currently leading the race in 2018 just ahead of Victoria who recently closed the Hazelwood coal fired power station....but hey don't let facts get in the way of the truth. Take note of the 30% jump in price since Hazelwood went offline in Victoria.

http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#average-price-table

I know SA will pay high prices in Summer, which will bump our 2018 price up, I'm keen to see what aemo will end up with at the end of 2018.

Did you see that post I put up the other day, where we (Australia and / or Globe) are putting up renewables at only 1/10th the rate we need to to have fossil fuels covered when they run out? In light of that info, don't you think you just start building them and grin and bear the cost?

 

[Bicks]

I know SA will pay high prices in Summer, which will bump our 2018 price up, I'm keen to see what aemo will end up with at the end of 2018.

Did you see that post I put up the other day, where we (Australia and / or Globe) are putting up renewables at only 1/10th the rate we need to to have fossil fuels covered when they run out? In light of that info, don't you think you just start building them and grin and bear the cost?

Go tell that to someone barely surviving in a lower socio-economic circumstance, they're already not grinning trying to bear it.


My money would be on SA's price at the end of 2018 being worse than 2017, to do otherwise would be bucking the trend of the price trajectory for SA of the last few years.

 

[Bicks]

Excellent article by Grace Collier....."Big" Government is costing us dearly..

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y/news-story/4a92cbbcfba2f99e8f85d4a3268ec19c
Big government is costing its citizens far too dearly

Let’s start with a one-question quiz that will put you broadly into one of two camps. You may recall in March last year a compelling speech made in the Senate about how hard it is to live on welfare. Then senator Jacqui Lambie gave a frank and tearful description of life on the disability pension.
The senator is no slouch and has worked in various jobs since a young age. Lambie could not bear being on welfare but circumstances had required it, and it was very hard to make ends meet. The fridge broke and food was kept in the Esky under the house so the ice lasted longer. The children went hungry and missed out on other things they needed. The car was driven, unregistered, on several occasions because the registration bill hadn’t been paid. Lambie felt so distressed that at times she just sat in the corner and cried. Pick your gut reaction to the speech from these two options:
A. This must have been awful. No one should have to live like this. The government should take more tax out of the economy — surely there are people out there who can afford to give more. Then they should use this money to give people on welfare and low incomes more money so they can live more easily.
B. This must have been awful. No one should have to live like this. Car registration is a tax, probably unnecessary — because governments are so wasteful — and people shouldn’t have to pay it. Essential services are too expensive because of taxes and government meddling. There is too much tax in the cost of food and other goods, and red tape makes everything very expensive. The government should decrease its burden on us and take less tax out of the economy so the cost of living is much lower. Then people on welfare and low incomes will have more money left in their pockets and can live more easily.
Labels are unhelpful and personal political beliefs are complex. A person’s politics cannot be defined using a crass linear measure, with “left” at one end and “right” at the other. Nevertheless, for the sake of fitting in, if you chose A, you are known as a leftie. If you chose B, you are one of those dreaded right-wingers; and by the way, welcome to the club. The point is, we all want to arrive at broadly the same destination: eradication of poverty and higher standards of living for all. The problem is we all have different ideas about how to get there.

 

[1970crow]

Well, looks like we survived that one. Possibly another tight patch coming up in the forthcoming week. Loy yang tripped out yesterday, which didn't help things.

Anyway, what's your plan for replacing fossil fuel energy bicks, how would you go about it?

Slowly. Renewables is the future, but you don't need to handicap your international competitiveness getting there. Humans will consume every last drop of fossil fuels on the planet. Contrary to greeny beliefs, there isn't actually a prize for being the first to go without.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Slowly. Renewables is the future, but you don't need to handicap your international competitiveness getting there. Humans will consume every last drop of fossil fuels on the planet. Contrary to greeny beliefs, there isn't actually a prize for being the first to go without.

Not necessarily slowly, but in a planned manner to change over to renewables, so there is no adverse situation with both price & supply.

There has been a severe lack of planning from all levels of Government in having an overarching national energy policy. It's been piecemeal at best, which has led to the consumer suffering.

 

[DD#23]

Slowly. Renewables is the future, but you don't need to handicap your international competitiveness getting there. Humans will consume every last drop of fossil fuels on the planet. Contrary to greeny beliefs, there isn't actually a prize for being the first to go without.

something something free trade...

 

[Carmo]

Excellent article by Grace Collier....."Big" Government is costing us dearly..

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y/news-story/4a92cbbcfba2f99e8f85d4a3268ec19c
Big government is costing its citizens far too dearly

Big private sector isn't exactly raining down manna from heaven on us either.

Big incorrect economics is the real prob if you ask me. Sovereign fiat economics will allow you to have cut taxes (but not zero taxes and you can't have entities -like big business not pay tax at all) and amazingly increase spending and tailor the economy to a direction of your choosing, within some limits, allowing you to have competitive industries, full employment and help, but not fully solve the inequality/welfare issues that lead to the people at the bottom to be doing it so tough.

 

[Carmo]

Slowly. Renewables is the future, but you don't need to handicap your international competitiveness getting there. Humans will consume every last drop of fossil fuels on the planet. Contrary to greeny beliefs, there isn't actually a prize for being the first to go without.

Umm, did you see the post the other day where I put up the calculations to show that we (Australia and global) are building renewables at one tenth (conservatively) the speed we need to be to have fossil fuels covered by the time they run out. If, we only have 10% of our fossil fuel energy replaced when they run out, what happens? Explain that to me so I can tell if you understand about energy.

There isn't a prize? So full steam ahead with climate change hey? No need to be a leader and set an example hey, especially whilst we're a rich country and all, definitely we should wait for all the poor countries to do it and then move, that's what a quality country does.

 

[1970crow]

something something free trade...

Screwing yourself at the energy point is an unnecessary handicap. There are is only one absolute. I'll put it in capitals for you;

HUMANS WILL CONSUME EVERY FINITE RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

mate, this is us. We'll scorch this planet because we exist to consume. Even worse than that, we actively encourage over-population and over-consumption in places that cannot sustain their populations. We are a legitimate infestation on this planet, we are furquing it over. Lefties, whilst loving everything green, are also the champions of perpetual hunam population explosion. IDIOCY. Has anyone actually reconciled those 2 tenets of theirs.

 

[1970crow]

Umm, did you see the post the other day where I put up the calculations to show that we (Australia and global) are building renewables at one tenth (conservatively) the speed we need to be to have fossil fuels covered by the time they run out. If, we only have 10% of our fossil fuel energy replaced when they run out, what happens? Explain that to me so I can tell if you understand about energy.

There isn't a prize? So full steam ahead with climate change hey? No need to be a leader and set an example hey, especially whilst we're a rich country and all, definitely we should wait for all the poor countries to do it and then move, that's what a quality country does.

Exactly, well said. There's absolutely no reason to be a leader. We're a minnow based upon square meterage. It's great to have you on board. The key is that all fossil fuels will be consumed. The only questions are by whom and at what cost.

Simple question, would you prefer a kg of coal to be burnt elsewhere at $100 or here at $50. I understand your fundamental concern with the burning of that kilo of coal. But, given that it's a certainty to be burned, would you prefer that we furq ourselves?

 

[Bicks]

Here you go Carmo A dose of reality for you. So Fossil fuels Gas/Diesel contributing 1,154 MW, Wind/other 26Mw @ 12.20 PM today, SA and Victoria once again bludgeing on other states with coal generation to keep the lights on.
SA demand 1,907 Mw
SA generaration 1,154 Mw
Wind/Other 26Mw

 

[Markthirtytwo2]

Here you go Carmo A dose of reality for you. So Fossil fuels Gas/Diesel contributing 1,154 MW, Wind/other 26Mw @ 12.20 PM today, SA and Victoria once again bludgeing on other states with coal generation to keep the lights on.
SA demand 1,907 Mw
SA generaration 1,154 Mw
Wind/Other 26Mw

So what? Seems a lot of piffle.

In Europe they would have a hundred times the renewables, especially wind turbines, and even with nuclear power which most countries have, power consumption is still at an all time high and price.

Why, because people need it during their storms and winter/fall period as do people here due to the heat.

I'm starting to get the impression you are only posting graphs and stats that suit your political arguments.

Not that I really care and have any research to back up this comment, but I heard on radio last week that SA are exporting more power than importing.
What ever rocks your boat.

 

[DD#23]

Screwing yourself at the energy point is an unnecessary handicap. There are is only one absolute. I'll put it in capitals for you;

HUMANS WILL CONSUME EVERY FINITE RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

mate, this is us. We'll scorch this planet because we exist to consume. Even worse than that, we actively encourage over-population and over-consumption in places that cannot sustain their populations. We are a legitimate infestation on this planet, we are furquing it over. Lefties, whilst loving everything green, are also the champions of perpetual hunam population explosion. IDIOCY. Has anyone actually reconciled those 2 tenets of theirs.

not my point, I agree with just about all of that, especially in regards to over population.

what I'm saying is that all the so-called free trade agreements are handicaps as well, arguably far greater ones. With old fashioned protectionism - the concept that built all of the dominant economies on the planet - the high energy prices would be far less of a problem. Even now they're more the straw that broke the camels back than the sole reason businesses are struggling to compete overseas. Manufacturing for example heard its death knell long before windmills and solar panels came along. The whole country is systematically selling itself off to China.

 

[Carmo]

Here you go Carmo A dose of reality for you. So Fossil fuels Gas/Diesel contributing 1,154 MW, Wind/other 26Mw @ 12.20 PM today, SA and Victoria once again bludgeing on other states with coal generation to keep the lights on.
SA demand 1,907 Mw
SA generaration 1,154 Mw
Wind/Other 26Mw

Why build interconnectors if your not going to use them? I thought this was the max efficiency way, instead of everyone have surplus capacity, have an overall smaller system, but shift the surpluses to places that need them. SA does export energy the other way, esp in the colder months. Also, given the pumped storage and rise of batteries at private residences over the next few years in SA, where does that leave us? In better and better condition. Meanwhile what's going to happen to the other states? Eventually they'll have to bite the bullet wont they?

 

[Bicks]

So what? Seems a lot of piffle.

In Europe they would have a hundred times the renewables, especially wind turbines, and even with nuclear power which most countries have, power consumption is still at an all time high and price.

Why, because people need it during their storms and winter/fall period as do people here due to the heat.

I'm starting to get the impression you are only posting graphs and stats that suit your political arguments.

Not that I really care and have any research to back up this comment, but I heard on radio last week that SA are exporting more power than importing.
What ever rocks your boat.

You heard?? Really
I'm not hearing 2nd hand I'm going to the absolute source the AEMO's website which is updated regularly 24/7.
http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#price-demand

 

[Bicks]

Why build interconnectors if your not going to use them? I thought this was the max efficiency way, instead of everyone have surplus capacity, have an overall smaller system, but shift the surpluses to places that need them. SA does export energy the other way, esp in the colder months. Also, given the pumped storage and rise of batteries at private residences over the next few years in SA, where does that leave us? In better and better condition. Meanwhile what's going to happen to the other states? Eventually they'll have to bite the bullet wont they?

But but but dem dastardly fossil fuels......

 

[Carmo]

Screwing yourself at the energy point is an unnecessary handicap. There are is only one absolute. I'll put it in capitals for you;

HUMANS WILL CONSUME EVERY FINITE RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

mate, this is us. We'll scorch this planet because we exist to consume. Even worse than that, we actively encourage over-population and over-consumption in places that cannot sustain their populations. We are a legitimate infestation on this planet, we are furquing it over. Lefties, whilst loving everything green, are also the champions of perpetual hunam population explosion. IDIOCY. Has anyone actually reconciled those 2 tenets of theirs.

Exactly, well said. There's absolutely no reason to be a leader. We're a minnow based upon square meterage. It's great to have you on board. The key is that all fossil fuels will be consumed. The only questions are by whom and at what cost.

Simple question, would you prefer a kg of coal to be burnt elsewhere at $100 or here at $50. I understand your fundamental concern with the burning of that kilo of coal. But, given that it's a certainty to be burned, would you prefer that we furq ourselves?

That finite consumption one is interesting.

Before I come to that, let me just say that I may appear a green, and I guess I largely have a lot of philosophies aligned with them, but their position on population is absurd. I met with someone who spoke with DiNatale first hand a couple of weeks ago and he (Di Natale) said that they know population is an issue, but they just cant touch it, which is piss weak, they should rename themselves the only-when-its-convenient greens.

The consumption thing is not wanted, its not wanted by me, or 1970crow, or bicks, or dd23 or anyone in here. The only ones that want it are the Triguboffs, Murdoch's and Gerry Harvey's of the world. Why do we let this happen to us? Its far from a foregone conclusion, like its default human behavior, look up any anthropological record, they would regulate their populations all the time, by tribal rules and often infanticide. There is nothing technically difficult about stopping population growth, just supply contraception, a bit of health education and a bit of life education and its done, but there are people with a lot of power in this world vehemently against this, half for economic reasons, half for religious reasons and both those are seriously misguided.

Anyway, regarding being furqed, well then if you assume that as a default, I guess I can see where you are coming from. You might as well not quote any dollar figures in that case. But otherwise, if dollar figures count, then like DD23 said, we can just subsidise it, except all the govts around the world are captured by this nonsense balance the budget bullshit, which just doesn't apply to sovereign economies. I think its a shame to just expect our demise, there is still plenty of time to fix it, but yer, if we're 90% short of energy when fossil fuels finish, a rough approximation is that 90% of the population will die as a result, between about 2040 and 2060. Hope you don't have any kids or grandkids.

 

[Carmo]

But but but dem dastardly fossil fuels......

Not all of us are cooked bicks, some of us realise you are going to have to use ff's for a fair while yet, especially on the transport side of things, I'm comfortable with using them up to the point of not producing excessive climate change, but I also know that you can't build energy generation overnight, that someone has to start buying these things so that economies of scale can help them out, that there is a HUGE amount of generation still to be built and that we don't want to miss. As I said to 1970, as a rough approximation, what ever % we are short when fossil fuels finish, will be the amount of the population that will die as a result.

 

[Bicks]

That finite consumption one is interesting.

Before I come to that, let me just say that I may appear a green, and I guess I largely have a lot of philosophies aligned with them, but their position on population is absurd. I met with someone who spoke with DiNatale first hand a couple of weeks ago and he (Di Natale) said that they know population is an issue, but they just cant touch it, which is piss weak, they should rename themselves the only-when-its-convenient greens.

The consumption thing is not wanted, its not wanted by me, or 1970crow, or bicks, or dd23 or anyone in here. The only ones that want it are the Triguboffs, Murdoch's and Gerry Harvey's of the world. Why do we let this happen to us? Its far from a foregone conclusion, like its default human behavior, look up any anthropological record, they would regulate their populations all the time, by tribal rules and often infanticide. There is nothing technically difficult about stopping population growth, just supply contraception, a bit of health education and a bit of life education and its done, but there are people with a lot of power in this world vehemently against this, half for economic reasons, half for religious reasons and both those are seriously misguided.

Anyway, regarding being furqed, well then if you assume that as a default, I guess I can see where you are coming from. You might as well not quote any dollar figures in that case. But otherwise, if dollar figures count, then like DD23 said, we can just subsidise it, except all the govts around the world are captured by this nonsense balance the budget bullshit, which just doesn't apply to sovereign economies. I think its a shame to just expect our demise, there is still plenty of time to fix it, but yer, if we're 90% short of energy when fossil fuels finish, a rough approximation is that 90% of the population will die as a result, between about 2040 and 2060. Hope you don't have any kids or grandkids.

Of course the Greens won't touch population growth, if they had their way we'd accept every asylum seeker on the planet. That's an exaggeration of course but the Greens never factor in the likely outcomes of their actions to the general population and more generally country folk.

 

[1970crow]

That finite consumption one is interesting.

Before I come to that, let me just say that I may appear a green, and I guess I largely have a lot of philosophies aligned with them, but their position on population is absurd. I met with someone who spoke with DiNatale first hand a couple of weeks ago and he (Di Natale) said that they know population is an issue, but they just cant touch it, which is piss weak, they should rename themselves the only-when-its-convenient greens.

The consumption thing is not wanted, its not wanted by me, or 1970crow, or bicks, or dd23 or anyone in here. The only ones that want it are the Triguboffs, Murdoch's and Gerry Harvey's of the world. Why do we let this happen to us? Its far from a foregone conclusion, like its default human behavior, look up any anthropological record, they would regulate their populations all the time, by tribal rules and often infanticide. There is nothing technically difficult about stopping population growth, just supply contraception, a bit of health education and a bit of life education and its done, but there are people with a lot of power in this world vehemently against this, half for economic reasons, half for religious reasons and both those are seriously misguided.

Anyway, regarding being furqed, well then if you assume that as a default, I guess I can see where you are coming from. You might as well not quote any dollar figures in that case. But otherwise, if dollar figures count, then like DD23 said, we can just subsidise it, except all the govts around the world are captured by this nonsense balance the budget bullshit, which just doesn't apply to sovereign economies. I think its a shame to just expect our demise, there is still plenty of time to fix it, but yer, if we're 90% short of energy when fossil fuels finish, a rough approximation is that 90% of the population will die as a result, between about 2040 and 2060. Hope you don't have any kids or grandkids.

It's not fixable in the current climate. The far left that is ideologically engaged with protecting the planet also protects unlimited population growth. These positions are diametrically opposed. And these guys weild significant influence or even balance of power. We're screwed, there is no solution, just accept it.

 

[1970crow]

That finite consumption one is interesting.

Before I come to that, let me just say that I may appear a green, and I guess I largely have a lot of philosophies aligned with them, but their position on population is absurd. I met with someone who spoke with DiNatale first hand a couple of weeks ago and he (Di Natale) said that they know population is an issue, but they just cant touch it, which is piss weak, they should rename themselves the only-when-its-convenient greens.

The consumption thing is not wanted, its not wanted by me, or 1970crow, or bicks, or dd23 or anyone in here. The only ones that want it are the Triguboffs, Murdoch's and Gerry Harvey's of the world. Why do we let this happen to us? Its far from a foregone conclusion, like its default human behavior, look up any anthropological record, they would regulate their populations all the time, by tribal rules and often infanticide. There is nothing technically difficult about stopping population growth, just supply contraception, a bit of health education and a bit of life education and its done, but there are people with a lot of power in this world vehemently against this, half for economic reasons, half for religious reasons and both those are seriously misguided.

Anyway, regarding being furqed, well then if you assume that as a default, I guess I can see where you are coming from. You might as well not quote any dollar figures in that case. But otherwise, if dollar figures count, then like DD23 said, we can just subsidise it, except all the govts around the world are captured by this nonsense balance the budget bullshit, which just doesn't apply to sovereign economies. I think its a shame to just expect our demise, there is still plenty of time to fix it, but yer, if we're 90% short of energy when fossil fuels finish, a rough approximation is that 90% of the population will die as a result, between about 2040 and 2060. Hope you don't have any kids or grandkids.

And yes, I don't have any kids or grandkids. And that was a conscious choice. Humans consider procreation as a right that society needs to subsidise, its bullshit. You should need to pay for a license to have children. Try running with that policy to an election.

 

[Bicks]

Why build interconnectors if your not going to use them? I thought this was the max efficiency way, instead of everyone have surplus capacity, have an overall smaller system, but shift the surpluses to places that need them. SA does export energy the other way, esp in the colder months. Also, given the pumped storage and rise of batteries at private residences over the next few years in SA, where does that leave us? In better and better condition. Meanwhile what's going to happen to the other states? Eventually they'll have to bite the bullet wont they?

Don't you understand just how little Wind and solar/battery are contributing currently?? It's going to be decades before they're a viable supply let alone standalone.