Okay, so the aemo data dashboard says the wholesale price is zero or negative, but what doesn't the figure show? Yes, twenty billion plus to koala clubbing grifters for sure, but what is the subsidy paid per unit of generation? Also, wind and solar might be generating power that the dashboard doesn't show, and guess what? Yep, we pay the grifters for that too, and I've been hearing stuff about a five dollar a day connection fee.

This stuff about wind and solar being the fastest and cheapest dispatchable power is false. Australians are being conned big time.

Hi AC,

Quality control is harder in autocracies.

As usual there is something very fishy about the reported reduction in power prices.

Apart from being way off the $275 “promised” over and over again, South Australia copped an increase in price. So, the cause of the reported decreases can't be attributed to renewable energy.

SA is the second biggest state user of renewables, at 74%.

Tasmania 95%
SA 74%
VIC 37%
WA 35%
Old 27%
NT 20%

Paul,

" I hope the same naysayers bury their utterly ridiculous $600 billion spend of taxpayers money on the nonsense of nuclear power stations which would have generated 3.7% of Australia's end use electricity,"

That was a BS claim concocted by a Labor think tank. What you should be pondering is why Snowy 2.0 will cost over forty billion as well as why so many other costs associated with renewables infrastructure have risen several fold. The french built 150% of their electricity supply in just fifteen years for six hundred billion in today's dollars. Why isn't there a world wide effort to do the same if we are facing an existential crisis?

Hi Fester,

Snowy 2.0 was another energy fiasco started by the previous Noalition Government, that of Turnballs. The costing and such was never realistic, a bit like Dud Dutton's $600 billion Nuk Power brain fart. Labor has been left the clean up job for the "Turnballs Folly".

The wholesale price of electricity (the cost of generation) is the biggest input (30% to 40%) of the retail cost. A substantial drop in the wholesale price translates to a substantial reduction in the retail charge to the consumer. This is down to the cheaper cost of renewables, as opposed to the costs associated with fossil fuel generation.

You can't bring yourself to the reality that you are wrong about renewables, and wrong about fossil fuels as well. If we were talking about a sinking ship, I'd have to say the "SS Fossil Fuel" of which you are the First Mate, is going to sink with the loss of all hands.

According to Canstar, the regulators this week confirmed price drops of up to 8 per cent from 1 July, in the Eastern states, and South East Queensland, which for a typical household, translates into savings of up to $160 in 2026/27.

Canstar research shows if a typical household in Melbourne switched from the default to the lowest priced plans in 2026/27 they could potentially save $400.

Paul,

You are demonstrating the idiocy of being a political goon. You don't consider things critically or logically. You just keep repeating the same nonsense that Magoo or whoever else tells you to.

Who did what is irrelevant. What is idiotic is you coming here claiming that wind and solar are cheap when the wholesale price drop is the predictable result of having wind and solar in the system, while ignoring vast subsidies to koala clubbing, environment and farmland destroying grifters (yes, seven Tasmanias in area) as well as the huge amount of money being burnt on white elephants like Snowy Hydro.

How is wind and solar faster and cheaper than nuclear when the french built their power one and a half time over in fifteen years half a century ago? No, you can't give a logical answer because your goon minders won't let you think. Your job here is to mislead people and hide the truth.