|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. . Yup, the timing considering what SA had announced days ago to disrupt the market is just the Feds trying to keep pace imo. -PB Don't you think they would have been working on this for a few months at least? First, they would have done some kind of rudimentary feasibility. I doubt they would have just come out with such a thing in a week because it would be embarrassing if they got it wrong Yeah plans to expand the snowy river scheme have been floating around for years. It's all a little too convenient that in the same week as the SA plan comes out they have this "ready to go". And by "ready to go" it's a 12 month feasibility study, not an actual project. Just an announce-able.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. It's one of the biggest issues going on in the national scene. When SA went dark, like North Korea, it was on page 1 of the West Australian. It was like a Monty Python comedy. The only State that always cops it most of the time is WA. We fund more on a per capita basis and from State raised GST revenues and only get $0.35 back and on top of that, we can't get any power from an inter-connector because we are too far away. But I still like the Snowy River Scheme, because it's a good initiative even though it won't have a direct energy benefit for us. The least the Feds and States can do for us is raise the GST allocation to the WA Budget. But no.....not going to happen because Weatheril will be the first to block it. Weatheril always has his hand out, but why should WA pay for it to the extent it is? It may be a big issue but you continue to turn a blind eye to the actual issues in the system. The old GST chestnut that ignores the fact WA was a benefactor of getting a larger allocation than what they generated for years (and with the downturn they may go back to). WA is another classic example of the claim that the Liberal Party being good economic managers is a massive furphy. As opposed to the Socialist Labor party's brilliant economic record? Why is it that Leftist will scream until they're blue in the face that people should look at the facts and scientific evidence before making judgement but conveniently ignore all evidence when it comes to the economy. Talking to a Leftist about the economy is like talking to a Conservative about climate change.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. It's one of the biggest issues going on in the national scene. When SA went dark, like North Korea, it was on page 1 of the West Australian. It was like a Monty Python comedy. The only State that always cops it most of the time is WA. We fund more on a per capita basis and from State raised GST revenues and only get $0.35 back and on top of that, we can't get any power from an inter-connector because we are too far away. But I still like the Snowy River Scheme, because it's a good initiative even though it won't have a direct energy benefit for us. The least the Feds and States can do for us is raise the GST allocation to the WA Budget. But no.....not going to happen because Weatheril will be the first to block it. Weatheril always has his hand out, but why should WA pay for it to the extent it is? It may be a big issue but you continue to turn a blind eye to the actual issues in the system. The old GST chestnut that ignores the fact WA was a benefactor of getting a larger allocation than what they generated for years (and with the downturn they may go back to). WA is another classic example of the claim that the Liberal Party being good economic managers is a massive furphy. As opposed to the Socialist Labor party's brilliant economic record? Why is it that Leftist will scream until they're blue in the face that people should look at the facts and scientific evidence before making judgement but conveniently ignore all evidence when it comes to the economy. Talking to a Leftist about the economy is like talking to a Conservative about climate change. I didn't say Labor's was better (though arguments could be made with evidence along those lines). Just that the Liberal party are not good at it and once again there is evidence to back all that up. P.S. The Labor party are barely "socialist" and have been down pretty similar economic path as the Liberal party since the 80s.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. It's one of the biggest issues going on in the national scene. When SA went dark, like North Korea, it was on page 1 of the West Australian. It was like a Monty Python comedy. The only State that always cops it most of the time is WA. We fund more on a per capita basis and from State raised GST revenues and only get $0.35 back and on top of that, we can't get any power from an inter-connector because we are too far away. But I still like the Snowy River Scheme, because it's a good initiative even though it won't have a direct energy benefit for us. The least the Feds and States can do for us is raise the GST allocation to the WA Budget. But no.....not going to happen because Weatheril will be the first to block it. Weatheril always has his hand out, but why should WA pay for it to the extent it is? It may be a big issue but you continue to turn a blind eye to the actual issues in the system. The old GST chestnut that ignores the fact WA was a benefactor of getting a larger allocation than what they generated for years (and with the downturn they may go back to). WA is another classic example of the claim that the Liberal Party being good economic managers is a massive furphy. As opposed to the Socialist Labor party's brilliant economic record? Why is it that Leftist will scream until they're blue in the face that people should look at the facts and scientific evidence before making judgement but conveniently ignore all evidence when it comes to the economy. Talking to a Leftist about the economy is like talking to a Conservative about climate change. I didn't say Labor's was better (though arguments could be made with evidence along those lines). Just that the Liberal party are not good at it and once again there is evidence to back all that up. P.S. The Labor party are barely "socialist" and have been down pretty similar economic path as the Liberal party since the 80s. I get it. Our two main political parties are poor economic managers and somehow have guided Australia through the largest period of uninterrupted economic expansion in world history through sheer luck. Simples.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. It's one of the biggest issues going on in the national scene. When SA went dark, like North Korea, it was on page 1 of the West Australian. It was like a Monty Python comedy. The only State that always cops it most of the time is WA. We fund more on a per capita basis and from State raised GST revenues and only get $0.35 back and on top of that, we can't get any power from an inter-connector because we are too far away. But I still like the Snowy River Scheme, because it's a good initiative even though it won't have a direct energy benefit for us. The least the Feds and States can do for us is raise the GST allocation to the WA Budget. But no.....not going to happen because Weatheril will be the first to block it. Weatheril always has his hand out, but why should WA pay for it to the extent it is? It may be a big issue but you continue to turn a blind eye to the actual issues in the system. The old GST chestnut that ignores the fact WA was a benefactor of getting a larger allocation than what they generated for years (and with the downturn they may go back to). WA is another classic example of the claim that the Liberal Party being good economic managers is a massive furphy. As opposed to the Socialist Labor party's brilliant economic record? Why is it that Leftist will scream until they're blue in the face that people should look at the facts and scientific evidence before making judgement but conveniently ignore all evidence when it comes to the economy. Talking to a Leftist about the economy is like talking to a Conservative about climate change. I didn't say Labor's was better (though arguments could be made with evidence along those lines). Just that the Liberal party are not good at it and once again there is evidence to back all that up. P.S. The Labor party are barely "socialist" and have been down pretty similar economic path as the Liberal party since the 80s. I get it. Our two main political parties are poor economic managers and somehow have guided Australia through the largest period of uninterrupted economic expansion in world history through sheer luck. Simples. Once again not what I said :) And no it's not simple. There were massive reforms in the 80s that has set up this period of uninterrupted economic expansion, that is something a political party did to help the situation so they're not all bad. You'd have to be naive to think that we haven't had any luck with the rapid growth of China and India and their needs for resources though.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. It's one of the biggest issues going on in the national scene. When SA went dark, like North Korea, it was on page 1 of the West Australian. It was like a Monty Python comedy. The only State that always cops it most of the time is WA. We fund more on a per capita basis and from State raised GST revenues and only get $0.35 back and on top of that, we can't get any power from an inter-connector because we are too far away. But I still like the Snowy River Scheme, because it's a good initiative even though it won't have a direct energy benefit for us. The least the Feds and States can do for us is raise the GST allocation to the WA Budget. But no.....not going to happen because Weatheril will be the first to block it. Weatheril always has his hand out, but why should WA pay for it to the extent it is? It may be a big issue but you continue to turn a blind eye to the actual issues in the system. The old GST chestnut that ignores the fact WA was a benefactor of getting a larger allocation than what they generated for years (and with the downturn they may go back to). WA is another classic example of the claim that the Liberal Party being good economic managers is a massive furphy. As opposed to the Socialist Labor party's brilliant economic record? Why is it that Leftist will scream until they're blue in the face that people should look at the facts and scientific evidence before making judgement but conveniently ignore all evidence when it comes to the economy. Talking to a Leftist about the economy is like talking to a Conservative about climate change. I didn't say Labor's was better (though arguments could be made with evidence along those lines). Just that the Liberal party are not good at it and once again there is evidence to back all that up. P.S. The Labor party are barely "socialist" and have been down pretty similar economic path as the Liberal party since the 80s. I get it. Our two main political parties are poor economic managers and somehow have guided Australia through the largest period of uninterrupted economic expansion in world history through sheer luck. Simples. Once again not what I said :) And no it's not simple. There were massive reforms in the 80s that has set up this period of uninterrupted economic expansion, that is something a political party did to help the situation so they're not all bad. You'd have to be naive to think that we haven't had any luck with the rapid growth of China and India and their needs for resources though. We have had the benefit of some favourable circumstances but we have also had the benefit of our government (both Liberal and Labor) being forward thinking enough to position the country in a way that can take advantage of those circumstances. I think both Liberal and Labor do a good job relative to other Western countries when looking at economic management but you would be hard pressed to put Labor ahead of the Liberals when looking at how the country is run from a pure economic point of view. Labor have been and always will be stronger in the social aspects of policy.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI thought Weatheril actually made a dork of himself and that Frydenberg handled it really well. What it showed me is that Weatheril is desperate to appear he is fighting for the State's interest in a last desperate attempt to gain credibility over this issue. But good on Frydenberg for keeping it classy. Meanwhile, Turnbull's Snowy River Scheme mark 2 is the one creating waves. 2000MwH for 2 Billion compared to 250MwH for $550 million. Do the sums. It's also clean, green, and will operate day and night and isn't dependent on wind. It will create enough extra power for 500k homes. That's impressive! Yeah, nah. He already has a lot of credibility, certain media types continue to misreport things and the take down was completely justified. Snowy River Scheme is a good idea but what does it do for SA? Absolutely nothing. Frydenberg was there to announce $20 million battery project. Pathetic. If they actually were interested in helping to fix problems rather than wedging a Labor state government (and look after their eastern state interests) they'd be doing a hell of a lot more. That's what you say, but that isn't the consensus around the country nor within the SA electorate. Weatheril isn't being honest I'm afraid. SA, unlike WA, is part of the National Electricity Grid. 2000MwH into the grid will free up supply into the SA Market. It might not be power from the Hydro scheme, but electricity will stream through the inter-connector. So yes, it does benefit SA too, but it won't be immediate. It will take 4 to 7 years. Good to know you're so up with SA politics, I'll be honest and say I don't know anything about WA politics until the election happened. Yeah the inter-connector that they love to smash us about because "we're relying on Victoria". As PB says it's all very convenient that this is coming out now. It's one of the biggest issues going on in the national scene. When SA went dark, like North Korea, it was on page 1 of the West Australian. It was like a Monty Python comedy. The only State that always cops it most of the time is WA. We fund more on a per capita basis and from State raised GST revenues and only get $0.35 back and on top of that, we can't get any power from an inter-connector because we are too far away. But I still like the Snowy River Scheme, because it's a good initiative even though it won't have a direct energy benefit for us. The least the Feds and States can do for us is raise the GST allocation to the WA Budget. But no.....not going to happen because Weatheril will be the first to block it. Weatheril always has his hand out, but why should WA pay for it to the extent it is? It may be a big issue but you continue to turn a blind eye to the actual issues in the system. The old GST chestnut that ignores the fact WA was a benefactor of getting a larger allocation than what they generated for years (and with the downturn they may go back to). WA is another classic example of the claim that the Liberal Party being good economic managers is a massive furphy. As opposed to the Socialist Labor party's brilliant economic record? Why is it that Leftist will scream until they're blue in the face that people should look at the facts and scientific evidence before making judgement but conveniently ignore all evidence when it comes to the economy. Talking to a Leftist about the economy is like talking to a Conservative about climate change. I didn't say Labor's was better (though arguments could be made with evidence along those lines). Just that the Liberal party are not good at it and once again there is evidence to back all that up. P.S. The Labor party are barely "socialist" and have been down pretty similar economic path as the Liberal party since the 80s. I get it. Our two main political parties are poor economic managers and somehow have guided Australia through the largest period of uninterrupted economic expansion in world history through sheer luck. Simples. Once again not what I said :) And no it's not simple. There were massive reforms in the 80s that has set up this period of uninterrupted economic expansion, that is something a political party did to help the situation so they're not all bad. You'd have to be naive to think that we haven't had any luck with the rapid growth of China and India and their needs for resources though. We have had the benefit of some favourable circumstances but we have also had the benefit of our government (both Liberal and Labor) being forward thinking enough to position the country in a way that can take advantage of those circumstances. I think both Liberal and Labor do a good job relative to other Western countries when looking at economic management but you would be hard pressed to put Labor ahead of the Liberals when looking at how the country is run from a pure economic point of view. Labor have been and always will be stronger in the social aspects of policy. Yep that's a reasonable position. Didn't mean to frame them as basket cases because clearly they're not. I can see how what I wrote came across that way. Just that one is better than managing debt and "lowering taxes" than the other is spin. The reality is that most of that sort of thing is actually out of their control.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Rofl http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/clarke-and-dawe:-the-energy-market-explained/8359762Also: Senate crossbenchers are questioning whether the Government's plan to expand the Snowy Hydro scheme is feasible and a good use of taxpayers' money.Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced he was prepared to invest $2 billion to expand the capacity of the Snowy scheme to increase electricity production by 50 per cent.Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg also indicated he may be prepared to chip in even more if the New South Wales and Victorian governments did not contribute.  The Prime Minister wants to further investigate pumped hydro as a way of boosting energy stability in Australia. But what is it and could it help South Australia in particular?Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonjhelm was not impressed by the Government's plan."I think it's being rash. I think it's policy on the run," he told AM.Senator Leyonhjelm said while the plan might work from a technical perspective, he did not think it was a good use of taxpayers' money."Technically there's nothing wrong with the idea," he said."I think there is an issue over whether it will keep the lights on over the next four summers at least before it's introduced, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea. It's an issue over who pays really."  INFOGRAPHIC: Plans include an increase of 50 per cent of the scheme's output, building a 27km tunnel and new powerstations. (ABC News)'This country cannot wait five years'The Snowy Hydro expansion project was announced yesterday, but it was only the previous day the Victorian and New South Wales governments heard about it.They own the majority share of the scheme, while the Federal Government has just a 13 per cent stake.Infrastructure Australia, which is the Government's independent adviser, did not include the multi-billion-dollar Snowy expansion dream on its recently released priority list.South Australian senator Nick Xenophon said he thought the Government's commitment to the plan was premature. 
Environmental groups are calling for an independent inquiry into the Snowy Hydro expansion, saying it could potentially scar already vulnerable eco-systems."It's a plan to have a feasibility study, which is fair enough," he told AM. "Then all going well, it's going to be at least five years before it's online. This country cannot wait five years, given the energy crisis that we're facing." He said he had a hunch the Snowy expansion plan was a case of one-upmanship."I suspect what's happened here is that the Commonwealth Government wanted to react to the South Australian Government's plan," Senator Xenophon said."It's been on the back foot, it's reacted in this way by bringing forward or coming up with this plan."Both Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Xenophon said they could not promise their support if the plan needed to be passed in the Upper House."It's a bit early to say [which way he'd vote], but I'm sceptical," Senator Leyonhjelm said."What I'd like them to do is reconsider their policy settings before they go throwing taxpayers' money at something."Senator Xenophon said it was not yet clear how the Government would pay for the scheme."Who knows whether this will need to go before the Parliament, at this stage the details are incredibly sketchy," he said."Let's see what a feasibility study comes up with, but that's nine months away. So if it needs legislative approval let's deal with it then, but there needs to be some urgent action otherwise this will drag this country down in a way that will have lasting, scarring effects on the Australian economy and the community."The Government argued the plan could come online in four years rather than five. But that detail, and more, will be revealed once the feasibility study is completed by the end of the year. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Leyonjhelm's only concerned about who's going to pay for it :doze:Nick on the other hand. "It's a plan to have a feasibility study, which is fair enough," he told AM. and "I suspect what's happened here is that the Commonwealth Government wanted to react to the South Australian Government's plan," Senator Xenophon said."It's been on the back foot, it's reacted in this way by bringing forward or coming up with this plan. Apart from the terrible name, Nick's SA Best party is going to do very well in the next state election.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Jesus one black out because the transmission lines fell over and everyone loses their shit.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Hydro announcement seems to be working for Mal in the news polls. Let's see if it gets through Parliament ever. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHydro announcement seems to be working for Mal in the news polls. Let's see if it gets through Parliament ever. -PB It will probably come back as infeasible. They were so desperate for a good news story that they even suggested they were willing to pour in more than $2 billion if the NSW and Vic governments (who are major shareholders in it) weren't willing to chip in. I don't reckon the hydro announcement has much to do with the poll bounce, maybe it's a bit of the tightening effect like you see near an election. The WA election result probably spooked a few slightly right voters.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Snowy 2.0 is half-baked and damaging answer to the energy crisis: Danny PriceThe public is right to be confused at what is laughingly referred to as energy policy in this country. This week the federal government dusted off a previously rejected plan to increase, at great expense to taxpayers, Snowy Hydro's ability to generate power at peak times.This announcement was called a "game changer", even though there has been no feasibility study, and even though it appears the other shareholders who own 87 per cent of the scheme were informed of the plan the day before or, in the case of Victoria, when they read the newspapers.On the basis that the engineering has been figured out, according to the Prime Minister, the announcement is apparently not a thought bubble. This lacks any authenticity.There are no details on how the project will be financed, how it will make money, or what the effects will be on prices and the viability of competing peaking generators – who could easily be forced from the market by this proposal.
Massive system load
In spite of the paucity of information about how the proposal will operate, many people, including environmental groups, reacted enthusiastically. This was surprising and premature as Snowy 2.0 will represent a massive load on the system, equivalent to a large aluminium smelter. This is because Snowy 2.0 will probably use about 30 per cent more electricity pumping water up a hill than it generates letting it flow back down a hill.In announcing Snowy 2.0 it was stated that water will be pumped up the hill using surplus renewable supply. However it will be many, many years before that is true. In the meantime, the largest beneficiary of Snowy 2.0 will be base load coal-fired generation. The truth is that Snowy 2.0 breathes new life into coal. While this will be welcomed by the Coalition, the thought that such a nation-building project would extend the life of coal will be an anathema to many.The battery in South Australia is a different case, because the state has no coal plants with life to extend. What South Australia does have is abundant wind and solar power courtesy the Commonwealth's Renewable Energy Target, not any policy of the South Australian government. Importantly, batteries deliver to the system almost as much power as they take in, unlike Snowy 2.0.The Prime Minister said that we needed the expansion of Snowy to fill the "holes" caused by intermittent supply from renewables; renewables that are are paid for under the RET. This concern about the holes created by renewables raises an extremely important question. If the Prime Minister knew that intermittent power from renewables created "holes" then why didn't his government have a plan in place to avoid these known problems? Or has the energy security issues thrown up by renewable supply taken governments by surprise?
Renewable integration challenge
To answer this question, you need only look back at the Warburton review into the RET which reported its findings only a couple of years ago in August 2014. Warburton reported that the Australian Energy Markets Operator (AEMO) assured him the NEM design was well placed to deal with challenges of integrating renewables. Warburton quoted AEMO as saying that they consider it "technically feasible to integrate the renewable energy likely to emerge from the existing RET settings while maintaining the security of the power system" even though AEMO recognised that there would be greater challenges in South Australia given the high penetration of wind from the Commonwealth's funding of wind in that state.In spite of these reassurances, Warburton went on to recommend AEMO consider making better use of their powers to ensure these security issues are managed with more prudence, and to consider new arrangements to encourage greater provision of system security services. Warburton reported that AEMO was continuing to study these issues and intended to release further reports.In May 2016 the South Australia Premier urged the federal government to take national leadership at an Emissions Reduction Summit to improve the adaptability and resilience of the electricity market, but this fell on deaf ears.Following the state-wide blackout in South Australia in September 2016 the federal government was quick to blame South Australia for its embrace of the wind resulting from the Commonwealth's own scheme. Instead of working to solve the very problems Warburton and the SA Premier had earlier highlighted, the Prime Minister and federal Energy Minister launched a relentless and dishonest campaign against a state government in the midst of a crisis.Faced with no prospect of national leadership on this issue, South Australia has developed, over months rather than overnight, a carefully thought out plan to deal with the problems of accommodating modern renewable technology into its power system. By necessity the South Australian plan is constrained. It requires no changes in the national electricity market and will only cut across the interests of the market at times when they would exercise extreme market power, which is what consumers expect.It's in the federal government's gift to solve the problems of the market. The key problem is that investors have abandoned the market because of the extreme political risks, risks that have been amplified by a federal government waking up one morning and conceiving of a half-baked Snowy 2.0 project. http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/snowy-20-is-halfbaked-and-damaging-answer-to-the-energy-crisis-danny-price-20170319-gv1bva Danny Price was involved in the SA solution but has also been and adviser to Turnbull. The two "solutions" aren't mutually exclusive so I don't think bias really plays a part in this article. This claim was of particular interest to me This is because Snowy 2.0 will probably use about 30 per cent more electricity pumping water up a hill than it generates letting it flow back down a hill. I thought pumped hydro had better efficiencies than that. I assume it's this much because of the geology or geography of the area.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Jules the article seems to draw a few conclusions that haven't been ironed out yet in the absence of a feasibility study.
Current renewables cannot contribute to base load I understand so of course current coal fired stations would benefit more. Seems like a moot point TBH to rile up the environmentalists.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJules the article seems to draw a few conclusions that haven't been ironed out yet in the absence of a feasibility study. Current renewables cannot contribute to base load I understand so of course current coal fired stations would benefit more. Seems like a moot point TBH to rile up the environmentalists. He does make some statements but he is an expert in this field. The 30% claim as mentioned I'm curious about how he got to that number. The main point he was making about this snowy hydro proposal is that it's an energy storage project. In NSW there's bugger all electricity being generated by renewables so what energy is going to be stored? Coal power. If the proposal was also back by a commitment to install wind and solar then it'd make a lot more sense.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Mal just roasted the fella from Port Adelaide in question time rofl. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMal just roasted the fella from Port Adelaide in question time rofl. -PB Mark Butler? Haven't seen anything about it.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xJules the article seems to draw a few conclusions that haven't been ironed out yet in the absence of a feasibility study. Current renewables cannot contribute to base load I understand so of course current coal fired stations would benefit more. Seems like a moot point TBH to rile up the environmentalists. He does make some statements but he is an expert in this field. The 30% claim as mentioned I'm curious about how he got to that number. The main point he was making about this snowy hydro proposal is that it's an energy storage project. In NSW there's bugger all electricity being generated by renewables so what energy is going to be stored? Coal power. If the proposal was also back by a commitment to install wind and solar then it'd make a lot more sense. Indeed. I was watching Campbell Newman talk about it last night and he explained it quite well. The intention is to pump water upstream into a holding position. When required, the water can be released to generate extra power in peak periods in a very short space of time. It doesn't sound like a terrible idea however the cost for what we're actually getting and the inefficiency associated with pumping all that water into a holding position 'just in case' is inefficient. Working out the 30% wouldn't be difficult. A civil engineer given storage volumes would be able to back calculate the required 'work' needed to pump the water from A to B. You have known volumes and assumed pipe sizes so it's actually not that difficult I believe. I understand that this held water is the storage meaning it can be released in a short period of time into a turbine to generate extra capacity where required. If I am correct, it would be much better than coal. If the government intends to do this, I would like to see the energy used to pump the water into a holding position to be generated by renewables. I would also like to see those renewables generate electricity for the grid when not being used to pump water. It's not that hard to have a split feed where you can do both functions.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
I still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB Politics maaaaaaan.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB Because Bolt got done for it.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xJules the article seems to draw a few conclusions that haven't been ironed out yet in the absence of a feasibility study. Current renewables cannot contribute to base load I understand so of course current coal fired stations would benefit more. Seems like a moot point TBH to rile up the environmentalists. He does make some statements but he is an expert in this field. The 30% claim as mentioned I'm curious about how he got to that number. The main point he was making about this snowy hydro proposal is that it's an energy storage project. In NSW there's bugger all electricity being generated by renewables so what energy is going to be stored? Coal power. If the proposal was also back by a commitment to install wind and solar then it'd make a lot more sense. Indeed. I was watching Campbell Newman talk about it last night and he explained it quite well. The intention is to pump water upstream into a holding position. When required, the water can be released to generate extra power in peak periods in a very short space of time. It doesn't sound like a terrible idea however the cost for what we're actually getting and the inefficiency associated with pumping all that water into a holding position 'just in case' is inefficient. Working out the 30% wouldn't be difficult. A civil engineer given storage volumes would be able to back calculate the required 'work' needed to pump the water from A to B. You have known volumes and assumed pipe sizes so it's actually not that difficult I believe. I understand that this held water is the storage meaning it can be released in a short period of time into a turbine to generate extra capacity where required. If I am correct, it would be much better than coal. If the government intends to do this, I would like to see the energy used to pump the water into a holding position to be generated by renewables. I would also like to see those renewables generate electricity for the grid when not being used to pump water. It's not that hard to have a split feed where you can do both functions. For sure. I understand it's purpose and reading a bit more the 70-80% efficiency is the accepted figures though some claim up to 86% (which is the number I've read before). I'm a big supporter of pumped hydro as part of the energy mix will wait and see if the feasibility studies comes back as affirmative and then the money gets allocated to it. There's plenty of reasons to be sceptical.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB Because Bolt got done for it. He will be a martyr of free speech to the far right. Imagine if 18C was applied consistently. Anthony Mundine might have a case to answer :laugh:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB Because Bolt got done for it. He will be a martyr of free speech to the far right. Imagine if 18C was applied consistently. Anthony Mundine might have a case to answer :laugh: He wouldn't because they're genuinely held views. The only thing that should happen is that the requirements for it to go to court should be a lot tighter so we don't have another QUT students situation.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB Because Bolt got done for it. He will be a martyr of free speech to the far right. Imagine if 18C was applied consistently. Anthony Mundine might have a case to answer :laugh: He wouldn't because they're genuinely held views. The only thing that should happen is that the requirements for it to go to court should be a lot tighter so we don't have another QUT students situation. I don't get what you mean about genuinely held views? Have you heard some of the nonsense he comes out with? Replace the word 'white' in most of his dribble with 'black' and there would be serious outrage. Being a 'victim' should not give you a free pass to make racial statements which, when reversing the skin colour of the person making the comment, would result in a court case. Andrew Bolt was charged due to making humiliating/offensive comments about mixed race people using the aboriginal part of their heritage for career advancement. The headlines were offensive. I disagree with the 18C law including 'offending and insulting' in its terminology. The more pertinent terminology is 'humiliate or intimidate' which are perfectly reasonable reasons to bring the matter to court. Those involved in the Bolt 18C case could have sued for libel/defamation resulting from Bolt's personal attacks on their character without cause where they could have been awarded significant damages. It does beg the question, where do you draw the line in social commentary between acceptable criticism and offense? Could Bolt have published his views on this topic without being sued or is discussing this topic completely off limits? The words 'insult and offend' in the terminology of 18C resulted in the QUT case where an overly delicate human who happened to be aboriginal took exception to a valid criticism of the accessibility of the universities computer facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
can someone explain 18C to me? does it mean if I call someone on the street a nigger, a cracker or a gook, that I could have to go to court?
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xcan someone explain 18C to me? does it mean if I call someone on the street a nigger, a cracker or a gook, that I could have to go to court? Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity. Racial DiscriminationThe above link has some good examples.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Nice infographic that a former colleague of mine helped put together for the Advertiser on Electricity in SA http://media.adelaidenow.com.au/powerdossier/index.html
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI still don't get why these kunts are arguing over 18C STILL. Why is this so high on their agenda ffs. -PB Because Bolt got done for it. Not just Bolt but 3 QUT students in Queensland ended up getting done for it all over nothing. Bill Leak almost got done as well. These are the cases we know of because they are in the media. no doubt there are literally dozens more, if not hundreds, where hush "go away" out of court settlement money was paid. the idea is to take the subjectiveness out of the law, which isn't a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xcan someone explain 18C to me? does it mean if I call someone on the street a nigger, a cracker or a gook, that I could have to go to court? yes it means it is likely you could be taken to court if the other party can prove it and ends up taking you to the HRC. But you don't even need to call someone names. It's up to someone's interpretation. for instance, someone can invoke 18C because they feel offended from all the racist "Effnik" talk on this forum. that's what happened at the QUT. An Aboriginal Student said they were offended when a QUT Student questioned computer room segregation at the university.
|
|
|
|