Malcolm Turncoat's imploding act

 
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Abbott - He's a Queenslander

Oh? The Wikipedia article on him would seem to indicate that he has always lived in Sydney since he emigrated to Australia from London aged 3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott


You're quite right - Abbott is a Pom by birth. It was Alex Downer who was the only non NSW/Vic person to have ever led the Liberals.
gippslander
When was the last time a non-lawyer or accountant was Liberal leader - Malcolm Fraser? Although Brendan Nelson was a doctor in his former work come to think of it.

Sponsored advertisement

  gippslander Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Gippsland, Vic
Abbott - He's a Queenslander

Oh? The Wikipedia article on him would seem to indicate that he has always lived in Sydney since he emigrated to Australia from London aged 3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott


You're quite right - Abbott is a Pom by birth. It was Alex Downer who was the only non NSW/Vic person to have ever led the Liberals.
When was the last time a non-lawyer or accountant was Liberal leader - Malcolm Fraser? Although Brendan Nelson was a doctor in his former work come to think of it.
don_dunstan
Alexander Downer was a banker and career diplomat before he entered politics.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
PM's previous history

Don't care what the PM's former background was. Both Turnbull and Abbott are Rhodes Scholars, but that didn't help them. Bob Hawke was also one so thats hardly a negative. Turnbull was a Banker and Rudd and Abbott basically a professional politician, but Howard was also the later and seemed to have done much better than either. Gillard was a lawyer, that didn't help her either. So there is certainly alot more than professional and education that goes into making a good PM.

On the power side.

To quote Abbott, "The number 1 rule in govt is to cause no harm where possible". So the Australian state and fed govts should be providing Australia with reliable and cost effective power to enable the country to remain a source of low cost power for energy intensive industries and its citizens which has been a key component of our growth fr last 50 years.

RE is all well an good, but regardless of what Australia does or does not do we will not save the planet as we produce less than 2%, however we cannot ignore the environment either. A number of our coal fired power plants are far from the most CO2 friendly even for coal fired power and could and should be replaced with state of the art modern plants that will continue to do what their predecessors did for last 40 years. I didn't shed a tear that Hazellwood in Vic and Northern in SA closed, rather that they were not replaced and you cannot do it with wind and solar, well not yet anyway. The time will come, but that's not next year or the next decade.  

Vic needs a 4GW plant to replace the loss of Hazellwood and support SA and to a lessor degree NSW in hot weather. Potentially a 2nd 4GW plant needs to be built in northern NSW to offset the loss of predicted closures over next 5-10 years. RE has its place and will continue to grow as a % of the generated output, but this is a two generations project, not a decade as SA has clearly demonstrated.

Gay Marriage

Personally I don't understand the level of importance of same sex couples feeling the need to get married, but I'm not gay either. As for my own marriage it wasn't essential for us but my wife wanted it and I felt it would ultimately be appreciated by my future kids. My youngest (7) actually wants us to get married again so he can watch. We will probably do something for our 20 years in 2020.

I don't agree with the Pro No vote that Marriage is this holy scared cow. Its not, look at the divorce rate (~40%) and the realistic rate of those who step outside the martial home for something extra (likely +50%), does this define marriage? (Interesting data, a DNA survey in UK some years back showed 10% of kids call the wrong person Daddy and don't know it)

Marriage used to mean a transfer of ownership of the woman from the father to the husband, does this define marriage today, unlikely? Most people now seem to feel marriage defines the institution for which you have kids, but how many couples are getting married that already have kids or will never have kids? Today 25% of women will not have off-spring, plus all the later in life marriages usually the 2nd or 3rd marriage that will be childless. So others feel gay's shouldn't married because they cannot reproduce, but what about those who take on a gay relationship after having kids in a traditional relationship and hence raise their off-spring in a homosexual relationship.  

Legally after I think 6mths of living together, we are considered defecto which is marriage without the certificate, regardless of your sex. Right now many Gay or Lesbian couples choose to a have a commitment ceremony with all the usual fanfare of a normally wedding, again marriage without the certificate. As Don said, weddings have changed dramatically, gone are the days of the usual prediction of church, white dress covering the (supposed to be) virgin, fancy dinner, dance and leave. I think every wedding I have been too since before mine was significantly different from tradition and the last wedding, but as a kid it was mostly same ol same ol. About the only thing mostly common any more is the bride usually wears a dress or sorts that is white, whether its a beach wedding (friends ~50yo) or in a church.

Ironically the Catholic and some other churches are the may fighter of same sex marriage, yet how many people get married there anymore or if they do, actually go back to service the following week?

As I said before, its a complicated and I believe personal subject and I don't think there is a easy Yes or No in this and I don't care what Germany etc has done. But I don't think a banker, lawyer or professional politician should be making the final say on who is legally married and who isn't, let the people decide and lets hear the end of it one way or another and let the pollies focus on keeping the lights on at an affordable price.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Agree have the bloody referendum and be done with it.
Include voluntary euthanasia in the same referendum while we are at it.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
Gay Marriage
RTT_Rules
As an aside, I know a woman of that name... Laughing
  apw5910 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Location: Location.
As for my own marriage it wasn't essential for us but my wife wanted it and I felt it would ultimately be appreciated by my future kids.
RTT_Rules
Working in Dubai and living together would have been fun if you weren't married...
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

It is imperative that we have some form of stable base power supply and there just isn't a green option at present, so why are so many people in Australia prepared to cripple this country while the rest of the world continues to use coal and nuclear.

I long ago decided to vote YES on the marriage proposal. If 2 people believe they are in love and want to spend their life together as partners what right do I have to stop them. Why should I even care? I am a Christian but I take the Bible with a grain of salt. You cannot believe it word for word as it has passed through many hands over many centuries and we all know what Chinese whispers can do to something.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
As for my own marriage it wasn't essential for us but my wife wanted it and I felt it would ultimately be appreciated by my future kids.
Working in Dubai and living together would have been fun if you weren't married...
apw5910
Makes it more of a challenge but not impossible.

Meanwhile the single guys are shagging themselves silly as this is a single mans paradise.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

I hold a conservative view on marriage.  Call me a fossil or whatever, but I tend to see efforts to redefine it as a symptom of the already diluted meaning of marriage with no-fault divorce, no-strings attached relationships, and so on.

Whether you're religious or not, it's far to say that any society that redefines marriage to such an extent is conducting an experiment which I suspect will backfire.

Look, if it does happen here (highly likely whether popular vote or by parliament), I think it's essential that religious freedom of both individuals and organisations is maintained.  Perhaps that might mean a complete separation or privatization of marriage (i.e. State registered marriages aren't recognized by the Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Temple and Vice Versa).  But funny enough many of those lobbying for a redefinition don't want this.  It seems to be an 'all-or-nothing' request....
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

I hold a conservative view on marriage.  Call me a fossil or whatever, but I tend to see efforts to redefine it as a symptom of the already diluted meaning of marriage with no-fault divorce, no-strings attached relationships, and so on.

Whether you're religious or not, it's far to say that any society that redefines marriage to such an extent is conducting an experiment which I suspect will backfire.

Look, if it does happen here (highly likely whether popular vote or by parliament), I think it's essential that religious freedom of both individuals and organisations is maintained.  Perhaps that might mean a complete separation or privatization of marriage (i.e. State registered marriages aren't recognized by the Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Temple and Vice Versa).  But funny enough many of those lobbying for a redefinition don't want this.  It seems to be an 'all-or-nothing' request....
Carnot
You sound like a good old RC. I find such conservative views on marriage at odds with the less than ideal ways many priests conducted themselves with children. Far as I am concerned marriage should entirely be a civil affair with the choice of an additional religious service up to the individuals involved.

I find it odd that the religious conservatives always seem to like meddling in the private affairs of individuals. Maybe this is why most churches are empty. They have little relevance to modern life.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I hold a conservative view on marriage.  Call me a fossil or whatever, but I tend to see efforts to redefine it as a symptom of the already diluted meaning of marriage with no-fault divorce, no-strings attached relationships, and so on.

Whether you're religious or not, it's far to say that any society that redefines marriage to such an extent is conducting an experiment which I suspect will backfire.

Look, if it does happen here (highly likely whether popular vote or by parliament), I think it's essential that religious freedom of both individuals and organisations is maintained.  Perhaps that might mean a complete separation or privatization of marriage (i.e. State registered marriages aren't recognized by the Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Temple and Vice Versa).  But funny enough many of those lobbying for a redefinition don't want this.  It seems to be an 'all-or-nothing' request....
You sound like a good old RC. I find such conservative views on marriage at odds with the less than ideal ways many priests conducted themselves with children. Far as I am concerned marriage should entirely be a civil affair with the choice of an additional religious service up to the individuals involved.

I find it odd that the religious conservatives always seem to like meddling in the private affairs of individuals. Maybe this is why most churches are empty. They have little relevance to modern life.
nswtrains
Without drifting off the martial thread, all the religious groups mentioned above have longterm issues in their historical view of marriage and in-particular treatment of women in marriage. The women's rights movement has never been driven or supported by any of the major religious groups although some have accepted and adapted to it more readily than others and the RC I think has suffered a significant loss in support because of their historical approach.

As i said before, what really defines marriage?
  Carnot Minister for Railways

I hold a conservative view on marriage.  Call me a fossil or whatever, but I tend to see efforts to redefine it as a symptom of the already diluted meaning of marriage with no-fault divorce, no-strings attached relationships, and so on.

Whether you're religious or not, it's far to say that any society that redefines marriage to such an extent is conducting an experiment which I suspect will backfire.

Look, if it does happen here (highly likely whether popular vote or by parliament), I think it's essential that religious freedom of both individuals and organisations is maintained.  Perhaps that might mean a complete separation or privatization of marriage (i.e. State registered marriages aren't recognized by the Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Temple and Vice Versa).  But funny enough many of those lobbying for a redefinition don't want this.  It seems to be an 'all-or-nothing' request....
You sound like a good old RC. I find such conservative views on marriage at odds with the less than ideal ways many priests conducted themselves with children. Far as I am concerned marriage should entirely be a civil affair with the choice of an additional religious service up to the individuals involved.

I find it odd that the religious conservatives always seem to like meddling in the private affairs of individuals. Maybe this is why most churches are empty. They have little relevance to modern life.
nswtrains
I'm not RC and never have been.

What needs to happen is that the State should not have the ability to meddle in the religious adherence of individuals.  Which I suspect will come a big issue in coming years.

Most churches are empty because they forgot what their primary mission and message was, or they conducted themselves in shameful and evil ways (i.e dodgy priests who were protected by a cabal, or got greedy with $$$).
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
I hold a conservative view on marriage.  Call me a fossil or whatever, but I tend to see efforts to redefine it as a symptom of the already diluted meaning of marriage with no-fault divorce, no-strings attached relationships, and so on.

Whether you're religious or not, it's far to say that any society that redefines marriage to such an extent is conducting an experiment which I suspect will backfire.

Look, if it does happen here (highly likely whether popular vote or by parliament), I think it's essential that religious freedom of both individuals and organisations is maintained.  Perhaps that might mean a complete separation or privatization of marriage (i.e. State registered marriages aren't recognized by the Church/Mosque/Synagogue/Temple and Vice Versa).  But funny enough many of those lobbying for a redefinition don't want this.  It seems to be an 'all-or-nothing' request....
Carnot
The above is why I think we have to have a referendum, it enables people to enable Church and State to remain separated by not dragging a potential religious decision by many into a Federal Election.
  gippslander Chief Commissioner

Location: Central Gippsland, Vic
[quote="don_dunstan"][quote=RTT_Rules]Turnbull is a Greenie at heart and believer in not stopping the boats so he will always be weak on these issues while he is a LNP leader as he is in conflict with his support base and I'm confident is mandate when given the job excluding changing certain popular policy like the boats.

To sort the energy situation out, he is the wrong person for the job. You someone to similar say, this is what we need, this is what we will do NOW, ie build at least 4GW of coal fired generation and deal with RE as time allows without impacting on price and reliability of supply.

[/quote]

There is no doubt that fresh baseload capacity is urgently needed for Vic, SA & Tasmania. The problem is that the regulatory bar for new coal based projects has just been lifted by the Vic Gov to cover even tighter environmental outputs. Secondly, the major international financial instiutions are now very wary of base load coal, and also of the sovereign risk in Australia - ie a Liberal State Gov gives the in principle approval and an incoming ALP gov puts doubts on it. With all the media and politicians talking up significant population increase in Melbourne, where do they think the electricity and water is going to come from? In any case, the significant opportunity once enjoyed by Vic/SA as locations for cheap energy is now lost and we are on the cusp of losing more energy-reliant heavy industry.

All this is a significant failure of public policy. In Victoria we have Loy Yang as the one major coal station that still has a few decades left. Yallourn is 40 years old, has limited coal reserves and getting very tired - what happens if it has a major mechanical failure and its owners decide they had enough?
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
It is imperative that we have some form of stable base power supply and there just isn't a green option at present, so why are so many people in Australia prepared to cripple this country while the rest of the world continues to use coal and nuclear...
Showtime
The base load power bogey doesn’t rule out renewables. There isn’t somewhere in Australia sun / wind / geothermal /tidal-currents can’t be generating more than enough energy with little if any fuel cost. Some storage technologies (battery/thermal/hydro/electrolysis-hydrogen etc, etc) would be involved but it’s hardly rocket science. Where there’s a will there’s a way, just look at battery technology advancement driven by mobile devices.

One hundred years ago, most Australians would have poo poo'ed the automobile and investing in facilitating infrastructure would have been 'out-there'. Building stables and horse troughs and expecting 40 year ROI would be considered sound judgement at the time.    

New or refurbished coal fired power stations are very expensive and these would have a dubious economic lifespan as alternative technologies continue to evolve. Those advocating such will (yet again) end up on the wrong side of history but as usual, profit handsomely in the meantime. It is in their interest to blame renewables for electricity and fracking bans for gas price rises Surprised
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
It is imperative that we have some form of stable base power supply and there just isn't a green option at present, so why are so many people in Australia prepared to cripple this country while the rest of the world continues to use coal and nuclear...
The base load power bogey doesn’t rule out renewables. There isn’t somewhere in Australia sun / wind / geothermal /tidal-currents can’t be generating more than enough energy with little if any fuel cost. Some storage technologies (battery/thermal/hydro/electrolysis-hydrogen etc, etc) would be involved but it’s hardly rocket science. Where there’s a will there’s a way, just look at battery technology advancement driven by mobile devices.

One hundred years ago, most Australians would have poo poo'ed the automobile and investing in facilitating infrastructure would have been 'out-there'. Building stables and horse troughs and expecting 40 year ROI would be considered sound judgement at the time.    

New or refurbished coal fired power stations are very expensive and these would have a dubious economic lifespan as alternative technologies continue to evolve. Those advocating such will (yet again) end up on the wrong side of history but as usual, profit handsomely in the meantime. It is in their interest to blame renewables for electricity and fracking bans for gas price rises Surprised
Groundrelay
Incorrect

Solar does not yet provide a cost effective solution to a 24/7/365 supply

Wind does not yet provide a cost effective solution to a 24/7/365 supply (Note the wind farm operator in SA is seeing reduced revenues this year due to reduced wind)

Tidal has not yet been industrialised on a large scale to replace coal fire power station and the lower tides in the SE corner make it unattractive there anyway.

Geothermal in Australia is very very limited option and should not be confused with commonsense.

The unit costs of wind and solar are decreasing, but the issue of what to do when the wind stops after the sun goes down has not been resolved and still a decade in the working at least when you look at GW capacity. Hydro is the usual backstop, but this option is limited and even more limited expansion options.

just because the energy is sourced from the sun/wind/sea/ground, does not make it free. The cost is usually higher per install MW and has higher costs than quoted when you factor in the need to supply base load. ie you can buy a wind turbine cheaply, but it only operates at 35% name plate on average, so you need 3 turbines and a 4th source of power such as gas turbine for when there is zero wind.

Coal is low capital cost, but higher operating costs but over 25 years still lower than most alternatives on the market today. We need the power now and more so over the coming few years, nothing else makes economic sense now or likely to in next decade. Do we sit in the dark and wait for the magic solution? Fusion has been 50 years in the making and still considered 20-30 years away.

The efficiency of coal in Vic is bad and operates far from best industry bench mark. The comment on previous post about where does water come from, the water heat from a coal fired power station can be used to make water and thus improve its operational efficiency. Currently most Australia coal fired power plants operate stand alone, unlike many other parts of the world.

While we stick our heads in the sand on coal, it is still being rolled out on large scale in many parts of the world including Oman and UAE to reduce their dependence on imported gas.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
just because the energy is sourced from the sun/wind/sea/ground, does not make it free. The cost is usually higher per install MW and has higher costs than quoted when you factor in the need to supply base load. ie you can buy a wind turbine cheaply, but it only operates at 35% name plate on average, so you need 3 turbines and a 4th source of power such as gas turbine for when there is zero wind.
RTT_Rules
I'm concerned about the other impacts that don't get measured when green solutions are subsidised; and the manifestly over-stated benefits. The Tesla battery here in SA is so small that it will contribute bugger all to grid stability and yet you'd think it was the solution to all our woes the way it was being feted the other day. It also has a much shorter life-span than (say) a coal-fired plant - it'll become dodgy about the 12-15 year point and what do we do with the enormous amounts of industrial waste that the battery plant becomes at that point - unicorn farts?

The green solution was not properly thought through before attaining the status of unquestionable religion; why we had to be at the fore-front of this stupid rush to de-industrialise and strip jobs from this country is beyond comprehension.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Meanwhile - back to the topic at hand - an obviously finished Waffles Turnbull goes on Sunrise this morning to re-assure Australians that he's doing everything in his power to ensure that the elderly won't have to freeze to death as winter bites across the nation (as on Sky):

“My government taking a presented action on limiting export of mass from the East Coast of Australia to ensure that there is added gas supply in the market,” he told Sunrise host David Koch.

Mr Turnbull said there had been a “real failure of policy” and said he vowed to clean it up.

How many years of LNP government and now - NOW - they decide that there's a policy failure and a crisis?

Asked if he thought elderly Australians could die as a result of being unable to heat their homes, Mr Turnbull said “I absolutely hope not”.

“I cannot predict how much it will come down, it will put downward pressure on energy prices,” Prime Minister Turnbull added.

I bet it doesn't work and we're still having this conversation in 12 months time.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
RTT  wrote
"RE is all well an good, but regardless of what Australia does or does not do we will not save the planet as we produce less than 2%"

This argument really irks me, what happens when 20 countries that put out less than 2% decide not to do anything because their little bit "makes no difference".


I sit out on the Ponderosa after a long weekend where one car in 100 goes along and decides to throw all their rubbish out the window.  A day or two later with a good southerly there is ship blowing everywhere, but one car load of rubbish "makes no difference".


It does make a difference
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
The long-drawn out implosion of the LNP is certainly a sight to behold. The leader of the Nationals gives the Guardian an off-the-cuff opinion about the nexis of the problem:

Barnaby Joyce has unloaded on his Liberal colleagues in Canberra, saying constant infighting is driving disaffected voters to One Nation, and branding a renewed internal debate about marriage equality as divisive and unhelpful.

The deputy prime minister and Nationals leader told Guardian Australia that many voters were now of the view that the government was a “philosophers’ club” rather than a group of people concerned with improving living standards and jobs.…“You are arguing about Menzies’ view on conservatism, you are having a debate about international agreements and renewable energy targets which, I in Smith Street Jonesville, don’t get, and now, the last thing needed to solve all this is talking about changing the definition of marriage.

“[The Liberal party] needs to concentrate on things that actually matter.


Oh dear, Barnaby - the things that actually matter are way too hard for your colleagues to even think about - witness our Prime Minister squibbing on energy prices yet again this morning. Better off to focus on the things that don't matter precisely for that reason.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
RTT  wrote
"RE is all well an good, but regardless of what Australia does or does not do we will not save the planet as we produce less than 2%"

This argument really irks me, what happens when 20 countries that put out less than 2% decide not to do anything because their little bit "makes no difference".


I sit out on the Ponderosa after a long weekend where one car in 100 goes along and decides to throw all their rubbish out the window.  A day or two later with a good southerly there is ship blowing everywhere, but one car load of rubbish "makes no difference".


It does make a differenc
wobert
Unless the biggest emitters in the world get on the band wagon nothing we do will be noticeable and I call it a band wagon for a reason in that its still not proven.

While China is building wind, but its still building coal. I work in the Aluminium industry, one of the biggest users of power in the world. China makes over 50% of the worlds aluminium, nearly all via coal and they are not slowing down. SO WHY ON EARTH  SHOULD WE DESTROY OUR INDUSTRY AND THE WELL PAID JOBS THAT GO WITH IT???

Over the last 15 years, the middle east has grown to produce 25% of the world's aluminium, much of this production relocated from western countries, 100% of the middle east aluminium is from gas. They are now using so much gas to make aluminium that they are in some cases building coal power stations to compensate.

We live in a dream if we think we can stand back with the hoiler than though approach to destroying our lifestyle and our industry for the sake of an ideology that not everyone shares or believes in or will only support if it doesn't impact on their industry. The EU is able to get away with it far easier as they have physical size to trade with each other, plus a long history being technical providers and have a brand that is worth something. ie MADE IN GERMANY carries alot more weight than MADE IN AUSTRALIA when it comes to manufactured goods such as cars and white goods.

I have no issue with RE and support it and in the past I supported the subsidy, but now the subsidised industry is wiping our the main stay of our electricity generation and we are seeing the results, gone from cheapest to one of the most expensive electricity markets in the western world within a decade. SA cannot even guarantee the lights will stay on. We were increasingly falling back to gas turbine as a backstop, but now the gas industry cannot even  guarantee that if it gets too cold and again prices are now more expensive than Japan. SA is a electrical market between 1500MW and 3500MW, on the east coast this would be covered by no more than 10 generating units. In SA it now takes close to 100 to do the same, surely this is not cheaper? Meanwhile when the wind stops they are relying on the back they can import up to 800MW or so from the east coast coal fired plants. When this is peaked out, they rely on the back of the large users of power reduce production. What happens when they shutdown due to age and economics? Like wise the aging coal fired power stations on the east coast?

Boyne Smelters in Qld has for 2nd summer in 3 years cut production because the top part of its power contract simply became too expensive. Other industries are building their own power sources because grid power is getting to expensive and unreliable, this is third world stuff. They are doing that to protect their business because its here, but who would build a new business here with this going on. RE batteries are becoming viable in Australia not because they are so cheap, but because the power price has resin so much. Likewise people are going off the grid because its cheaper again because of the rising power prices, not the dropping technology prices.

WHEN WILL WE GET A PM/STATE PREMIERS THAT SAYS ENOUGH!!!!

RE is all well and good, but stablise the supply and price FIRST and if it means building coal fired, then build the bloody things and if you think its wrong, take a long hard look at RE technology and tell me what you can build TODAY that will keep the lights on when the wind stops and the sun goes down. The countries with the highest incomes tend to throw the least amount of rubbish out the cars window.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
"Unless the biggest emitters in the world get on the band wagon nothing we do will be noticeable and I call it a band wagon for a reason in that its still not proven."

The biggest emitters are moving in the right direction China India and the US, despite Trump and the GOP. People seem to think it can be done overnight, no it will take several decades.  As for not proven,the argument was over nearly a decade ago, if you don't accept the science ,nothing I say will convince you, I'm not going to waste my time.

"While China is building wind, but its still building coal. I work in the Aluminium industry, one of the biggest users of power in the world. China makes over 50% of the worlds aluminium, nearly all via coal and they are not slowing down. SO WHY ON EARTH  SHOULD WE DESTROY OUR INDUSTRY AND THE WELL PAID JOBS THAT GO WITH IT???"

That's a nice little strawman you've built there.Need a few exclamation marks at the end for emphasis  

"Over the last 15 years, the middle east has grown to produce 25% of the world's aluminium, much of this production relocated from western countries, 100% of the middle east aluminium is from gas. They are now using so much gas to make aluminium that they are in some cases building coal power stations to compensate. "

So, "Some cases" should I take your word for that?


"We live in a dream if we think we can stand back with the hoiler than though approach to destroying our lifestyle and our industry for the sake of an ideology that not everyone shares or believes in or will only support if it doesn't impact on their industry. The EU is able to get away with it far easier as they have physical size to trade with each other, plus a long history being technical providers and have a brand that is worth something. ie MADE IN GERMANY carries alot more weight than MADE IN AUSTRALIA when it comes to manufactured goods such as cars and white goods. "

So  sea level rises displacing millions, climate change induced crop failures causing starvation and mass migrations ( a few thousand boat people is but a pin prick)  is all okay  as long as we don't have to adjust our life style.

'I have no issue with RE and support it and in the past I supported the subsidy, but now the subsidised industry is wiping our the main stay of our electricity generation and we are seeing the results, gone from cheapest to one of the most expensive electricity markets in the western world within a decade. SA cannot even guarantee the lights will stay on. We were increasingly falling back to gas turbine as a backstop, but now the gas industry cannot even  guarantee that if it gets too cold and again prices are now more expensive than Japan. SA is a electrical market between 1500MW and 3500MW, on the east coast this would be covered by no more than 10 generating units. In SA it now takes close to 100 to do the same, surely this is not cheaper? Meanwhile when the wind stops they are relying on the back they can import up to 800MW or so from the east coast coal fired plants. When this is peaked out, they rely on the back of the large users of power reduce production. What happens when they shutdown due to age and economics? Like wise the aging coal fired power stations on the east coast?"

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/07/truth-behind-electricity-price-increases/

Boyne Smelters in Qld has for 2nd summer in 3 years cut production because the top part of its power contract simply became too expensive. Other industries are building their own power sources because grid power is getting to expensive and unreliable, this is third world stuff. They are doing that to protect their business because its here, but who would build a new business here with this going on. RE batteries are becoming viable in Australia not because they are so cheap, but because the power price has resin so much. Likewise people are going off the grid because its cheaper again because of the rising power prices, not the dropping technology prices

Over 90% of Queensland Electricity is produced from coal. Highest percentage in Australia.

"WHEN WILL WE GET A PM/STATE PREMIERS THAT SAYS ENOUGH!!!! "
Jay Wetherill is having a crack.!!!!!!!!!!!!


"RE is all well and good, but stablise the supply and price FIRST and if it means building coal fired, then build the bloody things and if you think its wrong, take a long hard look at RE technology and tell me what you can build TODAY that will keep the lights on when the wind stops and the sun goes down. The countries with the highest incomes tend to throw the least amount of rubbish out the cars window."

Sigh, ever tried Google.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
I love watching the LNP implode, it's like watching Mexcians froth at the sight of a DL lead Freight Razz

Kind Regards
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Wobert
You want evidence of coal fired power stations under construction in China, India and Middle East, Google it! I also worked in India and saw them for myself as it one project was linked to mine. Google Dubai Coal power, RAK coal power, Oman coal power....Abu Dhabi is building a massive nuclear power station.

China and India and others are rolling out wind and solar, because its the right thing to do and no one said it wasn't. What they won't do be be so stupid as to compromise the supply, reliability and cost to consumers and industry. It is well published in the Pro Wind Farm Literiure that 20-25% is the typical upper limit for wind generation on a typical thermal based grid. Those with high % of Hydro can go alot higher and basically match the hydro output MW for MW. Hence Tasmania could in theory get to around 1500-2000MW of installed capacity for wind. Meanwhile SA which has zero hydro.

There is nothing wrong with the use of wind power in Australia (and I support it) as long as it doesn't affect the grid reliability and used as an excuse to shutdown base load power. SA has gone too far and now paying the price for their stupidity. Roof top solar also has its place, but even if you do not get a subsidy from the govt to install its still subsidised compared to a commercial large scale operation as land and other costs are not factored into it.

For every sea level rise video there is one proving the opposite. I have watched the claims of one south pacific island showing video's of buildings underwater but 2-3m, but meanwhile my parents who live on the water less than 30cm above the king tide mark for 40 years have not seen any change. Likewise Abu Dhabi where most of the Emirate is less than 0.5m above sea level has not seen a change in the coast line.

There are many in the northern hemisphere quietly praying for global warming as it would make most of the northern EU, Canada and Asian countries far more productive agriculture wise, however this is not a justification to promote climate change.

Regardless of other industries moving in which is perfectly fine, Australia is still being de-industrialised by they left extremists pushing RE at any costs. For the lower half of the work force this is resulting in less opportunity.

As I mentioned previously, you can resolve some of the CO2 emissions from coal by simply building new ones that emit significantly less and use decent coal, not the crap in eastern Vic. That solves two issues at same time. While they likely be the last generationof coal fired power stations? Likely yes because in 30-40 years time technology in others sources will have had time to evolve, be viable and commerical. In the mean time if you believe wind and solar are so good, disconnect from the grid and install them on your house and stop leaching off coal while at same time talking it down.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
New or refurbished coal fired power stations are very expensive and these would have a dubious economic lifespan as alternative technologies continue to evolve. Those advocating such will (yet again) end up on the wrong side of history but as usual, profit handsomely in the meantime. It is in their interest to blame renewables for electricity and fracking bans for gas price rises Surprised
Groundrelay
You can't be a hundred percent sure of being on the 'right side of history'; the green-wash might get exposed for what it is one day.

Solar and wind will always have their place as a contributor to a domestic grid but it was wrong to ask ordinary consumers to foot the bill to subsidise those who got panels - green energy should have taken the place of coal/non-renewables as the market determined that they were economically feasible - not because of regulation. The green-wash over carbon has been particularly painful for those people in Australia who have lost jobs because of extortionate energy prices or who are struggling just to heat their houses in winter.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.