Aidan,

What nonsense. The system was designed specifically to be impossible to game by de linking any financial reward from one time segment to another. If you have a method to game the system there would be hundreds of mathematicians interested in how you do it especially given the $trillions governed by this system world wide every year. I am interested in this stroke of genius you have to reveal, however, I bet that this is just hot air.

Bazz,

There was a paper produced by the CSIRO on just this eventuality more than a decade ago.

Shadow -
" The system was designed specifically to be impossible to game by de linking any financial reward from one time segment to another"
And YOU accuse ME of posting nonsense!!

The system was gamed from when it was first privatised, as generation companies had so much market share that they didn't need to actively collude to be able to manipulate the price. Changes were made to REDUCE their ability to game the system: a maximum price was introduced and generation companies were encouraged to get into the electricity retail business. That alleviated the problem, but did not solve it: the market is still not very competitive. More renewables have made it more competitive, but only when the wind's blowing and the sun's shining.

You don't need hundreds of mathematicians to tell you that the assumption that the market is always efficient isn't always correct.

Aidan,

You have no clue. There have been no substantive allegations of gaming the system, and the maximum price is set so high that it is in essence pointless.

Put up or ...

Shadow

If you're able to watch yesterdays SA ABC news before it disappears (this evening) then please watch the stuff about electricity (near the start). It's at http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/abc-news-sa/NN1705S035S00#

If that ABC report isn't enough or you can't get to it in time, you could also try http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/11/electricity-price-spikes-caused-by-energy-companies-gaming-the-system-report-finds

Gaming the system is legal and ubiquitous, so you may not hear substantive allegations of it if you don't look for them. You may not have heard substantive allegations of workers taking tea breaks either. Do you think that's statistically impossible too?

Aidan,

I listened to the ABC report, and noted the AEMO stating the difficulty in predicting the wind and solar output. => Renewables.

As for the guardian article It is pure bunkum written by greenies with zero knowledge of the bidding system.

Shadow,

Are you sure that's what they said? It seems highly implausible to me! We're very good at forecasting when the wind is blowing and we knew there wouldn't be much of it at any time that day. And of course we know when the sun will set.

What AEMO couldn't forecast accurately was demand.

AEMO also appears to be negligent (telling Pelican Point not to start its generators) but I'm sure there will be further investigation of that.

As for the Guardian article, ITYF it was written by journalists, and based on a report from a research institute at the University of Melbourne. So is it the journalists you're so blithely dismissing? Or the academics? Or both? Or just anyone who disagrees with you?