The author confirms that some supposed conservatives are misinformed alarmists.

Ttbn: “We have gone from having the world's cheapest power, to the dearest. … And, in apportioning blame, we must remember that it was the Howard so-called conservative government that introduced RET in 1997. … thought that I saw a news item saying that Turnbull is thinking of dropping subsidies on renewables.”

Such price escalation has been largely the result of heavy subsidisation of renewables (wind and solar), at the expense of low-cost, controllable, reliable coal-fired power. But, as yet, renewables can be relied on only for about 6% of total contributing electricity supply on average. One can only wonder how higher reliance on renewables would lead to lower electricity prices and not affect supply reliability, as Turnbull and Labor are leading (or rather, misleading) us to believe.

As for Turnbull dropping subsidies on renewables, there appears little prospect that he would unshackle himself from entrenched political correctness and, instead, positively act in the national interest.

In any case, who could ignore Turnbull’s (through Frydenberg) ‘thoughtful’ solution of asking(/paying?) suffering consumers to turn off airconditioners on stinking-hot days so as to not overload the supply system and cause blackouts.

Assumedly, Turnbull supporters would be ‘re-assured’ by what the Oz reported yesterday: “Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has rejected calls from two of the nation’s most renowned economic reformers to wind back Australia’s commitment to the Paris climate accord. Mr Turnbull said Australia was “on track” to meet its commitment to cut emissions by between 26 per cent and 28 per cent by 2030. “Australia is a nation that when it makes international commitments of this kind it keeps them,” Mr Turnbull told reporters in Sydney this morning. “You keep the lights on, you ensure people can afford to keep them on and you meet your emission reduction commitments”.

As if we believe anything the pollies say. In response to the power needed by an aluminium smelter. Aluminium melts at much higher temperatures than steel. So it requires a huge amount of power which I doubt any renewables we would come up with would handle the load or draw. As for Iceland, as one commentor already said, they have geothermal and hydro. They can plug into the ground and catch water from melting snow, and all this on a larger scale than we can ever dream up.
Someone has to tell the greens to shut up and get off the train, they are de-railing the train for nothing more than political gain and of course, money. The greens leader is nothing more than a 'mouth'. Knows only what the blind, deaf and dumb followers push. Because of a childish notion and level of reasoning, we have allowed this joke of a party to exist. It has never offered one salient intelligent and workable solution, just pipe dreams.

My understanding of the aluminium production problem is that if the
power goes off during production it solidifies in the pots and they
have to be dismantled and the aluminium has to be cut up into smaller
pieces and then reprocessed in some manner.
Think about that, the work would just make it all a big loss.
No wonder it is guarantee supply or we are out of here.

Bazz, correct. No one is going to invest or even spend money in the power generation industry at all in the hope that things will normalise. Even if renewables could one day step up to the mark, it's not happening now. Aluminium smelters are just one small player in all this. The Australian public is the major stake holder and the largest user of electricity so we should be given priority. We require regular and reliable supply because we have things that cannot go without power for too long a period. So we the public come first again, but it seems we are irrelevant. The power suppliers know that we're not going anywhere and that they can hold us to ransom while they play at manipulating power supply and prices at will, and we just have to shut up and take it. Another privatisation scam/con.

Once upon a time there was this man and woman who bought a house so as to raise a family and the mantra they raised this family by was 'use only what you 'need'.....not 'want'....'need' and this isn't a case of same same but different.
When it came to electricity they only lit the room they were in and only for as long as was needed. They were conservationists but didn't know it.
They were 'frugal' but didn't realise it. They were practical because they needed to be.
Now it's said that 'life is in the struggle' which is true as the intensity of life itself is felt in hard times whereas when things are plentiful, they're taken for granted and the true value is somewhat distorted.
Today you have people who think that every light bulb in the house is there to be lit irrespective of whether it's needed or not and then complain about the price of electricity. Government buildings fully lit with no one in them...why?....who knows.
We have a society of self indulgent, disrespectful, social morons who have no idea as to what they have other than to demand more.
You use what you've got while you've got it and be thankful because things change ever so quickly.

I have just read an article on mixing renewable electricity into the
grid and the associated techniques that need to be undertaken.

However one quote from it sums up what I think is the authors view as the only possible result;

“…. if the UK would accept electricity shortages for 65 days a year,
it could be powered by a 100% renewable power grid (solar, wind, wave
& tidal power) without the need for energy storage, a backup capacity
of fossil fuel power plants, or a large overcapacity of power generators.”

The article was published in Resilience from Low Tech Magazine.

http://tinyurl.com/y95nbpeo

I think the quotes I have been hearing since Tony Abbotts speach does
sum it all up about running the grid on 100% renewables is to the point;
as the little boy said;
"The King has no clothes !"

Reading this article has convinced me that my gut feeling was right,
that it is just not possible run the grid, even with battery backup,
on 100% renewables. Also it is unaffordable.

It seems to me that the debate is over, hold renewables at their
present level while we refurbish Liddell and other plants and perhaps
build a new coal one or two.
Once we have those projects started a study should be made on if/when/where
we build a nuclear power station.
Hopefully a fusion plant may be on the horizon.

We really do not have the time now to stuff around with suspect
techniques but just have to get on with building what we KNOW will work !