Scott Morrison's imploding act

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted 3 years ago

  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
For the umpteenth time, but not always directed to the same naysayer, coal is NOT as reliable as imagined. Renewables are NOT entirely reliable either, but they are entirely PREDICTABLE; coal is NOT.
DirtyBallast
Everything I've read says that we can't operate a modern industrial economy on more than 50% renewables - even with larger and more numerous battery installations - in fact we will have blackouts and brown-outs galore. The head of Tomago Aluminium certainly seems to think the same thing.
As for the weak "Other countries burn it anyway" argument, how about Australians create the right to bear arms so that we can shoot each other, or deny girls the right to go to school or women from driving or voting, or carry out female circumcision, or invade other countries and wipe out the indigenous population (oh wait...)...as stated, the argument is weak. If we send a lump of coal overseas to be burnt to provide electricity for a region in a developing country that doesn't already have it, the benefit will be far greater to the people over there than if it was burnt here. Far greater. On the other hand we are decades ahead and are at the other end of the coal fired generation spectrum. So, if they are going to burn it, we have to make bloody sure that we don't so as well. We're smarter than that.
DirtyBallast
What about Australians that can't afford electricity now? Is it any coincidence that my own state of South Australia has the highest uptake of "renewables" and also the highest domestic electricity charges in the world? There is actually large social cost; we do actually have poverty in this country you know and not all of us take comfort in knowing we're pretend banishing the imaginary carbon fairy. Not all of us can afford the middle-class boondoggle of a roof-top solar system and a battery - some of us (especially those who rent) are completely captive to the grid. You're saying it's okay to help people in India get out of poverty by burning our coal but we have a moral obligation NOT to access cheap power? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense.

We are only responsible for 1.5% of global emissions, even if we stopped tomorrow it would have no difference to the outcome.

Sponsored advertisement

  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
As I write, South Aus is currently at 80% renewables and the wholesale price of electricity there is MINUS $51.22 per MW/h.

They are exporting 650MW to Vic, who in turn are passing on a total of 1415MW to NSW and Tas. There's so much surplus on the grid right now that the coalies don't know where to hide.

DYOR on electricitymap.org

Blame your retailer. The source of electrons is irrelevant.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The source of electrons is irrelevant.
DirtyBallast
This is the complete opposite of what you were saying earlier up the page.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
As I write, South Aus is currently at 80% renewables and the wholesale price of electricity there is MINUS $51.22 per MW/h.

They are exporting 650MW to Vic, who in turn are passing on a total of 1415MW to NSW and Tas. There's so much surplus on the grid right now that the coalies don't know where to hide.
DirtyBallast
Global poverty is something that we can actually do something about: Not carbon dioxide emissions. There is absolutely nothing we can do in this country that will have a meaningful impact on that outcome. Most of the high quality black coal we're presently exporting to continue to make China rich - and it gets burnt - and it ends up in the exact same atmosphere that you and I are currently breathing right now.

Like I said, there's nothing we can do to stop rising carbon emissions.

In the meantime it's the poorest Australians who have to pay for this folly, the ones who can't afford the government's green-tinged middle class welfare. That's not something you generally hear any concern about but yeah, it's the people who are captive to the grid who are paying for all this. To try and influence an outcome that we have zero impact on.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
As I write, South Aus is currently at 80% renewables and the wholesale price of electricity there is MINUS $51.22 per MW/h.

They are exporting 650MW to Vic, who in turn are passing on a total of 1415MW to NSW and Tas. There's so much surplus on the grid right now that the coalies don't know where to hide.
Global poverty is something that we can actually do something about: Not carbon dioxide emissions. There is absolutely nothing we can do in this country that will have a meaningful impact on that outcome. Most of the high quality black coal we're presently exporting to continue to make China rich - and it gets burnt - and it ends up in the exact same atmosphere that you and I are currently breathing right now.

Like I said, there's nothing we can do to stop rising carbon emissions.

In the meantime it's the poorest Australians who have to pay for this folly, the ones who can't afford the government's green-tinged middle class welfare. That's not something you generally hear any concern about but yeah, it's the people who are captive to the grid who are paying for all this. To try and influence an outcome that we have zero impact on.
don_dunstan
And as more people get solar panels on their roof, the more the poor and/or renters etc have to pay for their electricity so the retail companies can keep their profits rising.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
The source of electrons is irrelevant.
This is the complete opposite of what you were saying earlier up the page.
don_dunstan
Show me.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
The source of electrons is irrelevant.
This is the complete opposite of what you were saying earlier up the page.
Show me.
DirtyBallast
On "the source of the electrons"; you were saying that it's important for us to not burn coal to generate those electrons because somehow it's a moral issue.

I want cheap electricity but I'm not allowed to have it. China and India are allowed to have it but not me. It's a moral issue. Why?
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
And as more people get solar panels on their roof, the more the poor and/or renters etc have to pay for their electricity so the retail companies can keep their profits rising.
Donald
This is the most outrageous part of the gouge - people with roof-top panels paid over-tote odds for their electricity produced at times of day that the grid doesn't need it, subsidised by the people who can least afford to pay for it - the people who are completely captive to the grid.

Punish the poor, reward the middle class with welfare.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
Just when you thought things couldn't get any stupider, Morrison has convened an urgent meeting of his party tonight, to try to make it harder to dislodge the PM, he is holding a presser now to outline his plan - https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/scott-morrison-summons-liberal-mps-to-after-hours-meeting-to-discuss-changes-to-leadership-spill-rules/ar-BBQpvDi?ocid=spartanntp

Kind Regards
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Did you see Malcolm "I'm not going to comment" Turnbull giving his two cents about this Liberal Party pre-selection battle and MP Craig Kelly? Its got to the ridiculous point now where Scott Morrison has to reward people for not leaving the Liberal Party... and Malcolm says that they should go earlier than May to try and help the hopeless Gladys Berejiklian win her election - since when did Malcolm care about anyone other than himself?
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
The source of electrons is irrelevant.
This is the complete opposite of what you were saying earlier up the page.
Show me.
On "the source of the electrons"; you were saying that it's important for us to not burn coal to generate those electrons because somehow it's a moral issue.

I want cheap electricity but I'm not allowed to have it. China and India are allowed to have it but not me. It's a moral issue. Why?
don_dunstan
Ahh, ok.

Australia is smart enough to get into renewables, and when they work effectively, the wholesale price crashes, since a lot of it automatically forces its way onto the grid. We often don't need much coal. In the interim, let's allow India to burn it to lift regions of their population out of poverty. But, let's not BOTH burn it, because there's simply no need. You stated that we are only responsible for 1.5% of global emissions, and you bang on about carbon fairies, so what would be the line in the sand for you? 3%? 15%? 30%? What???

If you think that an Indian slum dweller will be advantaged more than you if he is finally going to be provided with electricity that just happens to be produced from Australian coal, then by all means, off you go. In the meantime, you need to accept the fact that since 2017 India has invested more in renewables than coal.

In a twisted sort of way I'm actually FOR the Adani Carmichael mine. Notwithstanding that my biggest concern is for the potential further environmental damage to the Great Barrier Reef (it's probably stuffed anyway due to the lack of care to date), the reason I'm not against it is that the mine will be large enough to actually affect the price of coal on a global scale, rendering multiple pits particularly in the Hunter unprofitable. This will force far more people out of a job compared to those created, and act as a wake up call.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Ahh, ok.

Australia is smart enough to get into renewables, and when they work effectively, the wholesale price crashes, since a lot of it automatically forces its way onto the grid. We often don't need much coal. In the interim, let's allow India to burn it to lift regions of their population out of poverty. But, let's not BOTH burn it, because there's simply no need. You stated that we are only responsible for 1.5% of global emissions, and you bang on about carbon fairies, so what would be the line in the sand for you? 3%? 15%? 30%? What???

If you think that an Indian slum dweller will be advantaged more than you if he is finally going to be provided with electricity that just happens to be produced from Australian coal, then by all means, off you go. In the meantime, you need to accept the fact that since 2017 India has invested more in renewables than coal.

In a twisted sort of way I'm actually FOR the Adani Carmichael mine. Notwithstanding that my biggest concern is for the potential further environmental damage to the Great Barrier Reef (it's probably stuffed anyway due to the lack of care to date), the reason I'm not against it is that the mine will be large enough to actually affect the price of coal on a global scale, rendering multiple pits particularly in the Hunter unprofitable. This will force far more people out of a job compared to those created, and act as a wake up call.
I completely understand where you are coming from and that you believe in the cause - good that you believe in something. But the assumption that we continue to absorb the cost of converting to "green" sources of energy presumes that we all are equally capable of paying for that transition - and we're not. In fact as I was just discussing with Donald, it's an interesting fact that the people who are least able to afford electricity are the ones being expected to pay for the extremely generous solar feed-in tariffs and the 7% "green energy" transition levy on top of their power bill as they're usually the ones who are completely captive to the grid. Wealthier people on the other hand can capture all sorts of pervers