If you do not maintain anything it becomes unreliable.
In previous years the power station reliability never needed to be
discussed, why was that I wonder ?
With a coal fired station there are three vital major components.
Coal handling plant; Boilers; and steam turbines.
As I understand it the boilers are the most expensive and they need
more maintenance.
The rotating electrical part is the most reliable.
I am aware of one DC rotation machine that was a 100 yrs old when shut
down because DC was no longer needed.
So with reasonable maintenance and boiler rebuild program, one boiler
at a time we could keep the power on forever without our crazy
government policy of blowing up power stations before the replacements are installed.

Bezza,

You're right that neglected machines become unreliable. But the deeper point is: why has maintenance been scaled back?

//With reasonable maintenance and boiler rebuild program… we could keep the power on forever.//

In theory, maybe. But in reality, we don't maintain coal plants like we used to because they're no longer economically viable. They can't compete with low-marginal-cost renewables during the day, so their revenue collapses - making large-scale reinvestment in boilers and long-term maintenance financially irrational.

That's not ideology, it's just the market.

//In previous years the power station reliability never needed to be discussed…//

That's not true. Coal plant reliability has been a concern for over a decade in Australia. AEMO reports regularly document unexpected outages due to age, heat stress, and coal delivery problems - particularly in summer. In fact, fossil fleet unreliability was a major factor in the 2017 South Australia blackout, not just wind generation.

//Rotating machines can last 100 years…//

Sure - but so can steam trains, if you maintain them. That doesn't mean they're still the best solution in 2025.

The problem isn't just technical. It's economic and systemic:

- New renewables are cheaper to build than maintaining ageing thermal generators.
- Coal is inflexible, which is a liability in a grid that needs to respond quickly to changing demand and distributed generation.
- And yes, policy certainty matters, but so does reality. Private operators aren't reinvesting in coal, because they see the writing on the wall.

If the choice is between propping up uneconomic assets or investing in a more flexible, modern, lower-emission grid, the answer is obvious - even if nostalgia makes it harder to swallow.

Its pretty funny that the renewable fetishists want to talk about wholesale prices when its the retail price that the consumer, big and small, see, pay and react to. What's happening upstream of the final consumer is not really the point..

We all know why they insist on talking about wholesale. Its because it tells the story they want to hear. Whereas retail, you know the price we actually pay, is telling a very different and unwanted story and therefore must be banished. It wasn't all that long ago that the renewable fetishists were swooning when the then incoming Labor government was promising to reduce retail costs. But now that they realise it can't be done with the current settings they suddenly decide that it was always about wholesale.

And why is wholesale supposedly falling why retail is indisputably rising? Because of all the infrastructure required to get renewable electricity from where its made to where its needed. Unlike coal (and nukes for that matter) which can be plonked right next to urban centres which needs the power, wind/solar go where the wind blows (sometimes) and the sun shines (half the time) and then demand that someone else pay the cost of getting it to the consumer. And ultimately the person paying that cost is the consumer.

That's why national comparisons always show that the more renewables a nation has, the higher the retail costs of its electricity.

Meanwhile yet another major manufacturer is on the skids (Tasmanian Bell Bay Aluminium) due to power costs. The government will for the moment throw some money at the problem to kick it down the road. But that can't go on forever although many on the left don't realise that ...."sooner or later you run out of other people's money".

A long way from the heady days when prices were going to fall by $275. Now the people would be thrilled if they only rose by $275.

WTF?

mhaze: I know that of late that you have made strides in your comprehension of discussions on OLO.

For you, just because you are making an effort, I'll point out that the first post in this thread mentions both wholesale and retail prices.

Many others have discussed both wholesale and retail prices in this thread.

You state: "We all know why they insist on talking about wholesale. Its because it tells the story they want to hear. Whereas retail, you know the price we actually pay, is telling a very different and unwanted story and therefore must be banished".

Quite a bizarre comment given this thread as a whole.

WTF, I don't know why, given that you created the thread, but its about wholesale prices. Its in the title.

And the word 'wholesale' is used much more often than 'retail'.

And when I pointed out that retail prices were rising, you and others raced to tell me that the real story was wholesale prices.

Somehow all that went over your head yet you still act smug. Go figure!

No, it's not "funny," mhaze. You're just not very good at this stuff.

And if you're going to call people "fetishists," then at least provide data that shows at SOME level of disproportionality on your opponents' part. It's been... how many years now?

Let’s clear a few things up, and number each point for the cognitively impaired

1. Wholesale prices matter

Consumers pay retail, yes, but wholesale prices are a major component of retail. The only reason to "banish" them from discussion is because they show how cheap renewables have become. Retail includes network, environmental, and retailing costs - all of which are changing for reasons outside the cost of generation. Blaming renewables for the total ignores this.

2. Transmission was always part of the plan

Coal isn’t magically "plonked" next to cities. Most of it is shipped from mines to plants hundreds of kilometres away. Renewables need transmission, so did coal. The difference is a future grid is being built, and these are once-off investments. Nuclear would require just as much, if not more, given safety buffer zones, water access, and centralised design.

3. Your country comparisons are dumb

Germany? Look again. Their high retail prices are due to legacy policy decisions, taxes, and levies. Not just renewables.

Denmark? Same story. Meanwhile, countries like Portugal, Sweden, and Spain - with high renewables shares - have seen falling or stable prices.

4. Bell Bay Aluminium was subsidised under coal too

The aluminium industry has always relied on heavily discounted electricity, and often paid for by the taxpayer. This isn’t new. It’s not a wind/solar issue. And companies want nuclear? Sure, in theory. But in practice? They want cheap, fast, low-risk power, and modern renewables with firming are delivering faster than nuclear anywhere outside France or China.

5. Your $275 talking point

You can’t keep quoting it without noting: the bulk of retail hikes were driven by coal and gas price spikes, supply disruptions, and ageing assets. It’s not renewables driving those costs - it’s the legacy system trying to hang on.

Try again, mhaze - but this time, bring data.