Aidan,

“Neocons”. “Useful idiots”. “Output above above average” at that time. The problem is, with unreliables, nobody knows when or how they will perform - as it is with all things unreliable. Calling people names will not change that reality.

I am not interested in reliability! That's a stupid comment even from you. Tell me, who doesn't want a reliable electricity supply!

“It doesn't tie in with (my) preconceived notions of cost, even though those bear very little resemblance to the truth”. My “notions” are not “preconceived”. I follow the money, and the increasing costs are as plain as the nose on your face. You are in complete denial of the facts. And the ‘truth’ is clearly foreign to you.

You have also run out of wind; you are just left with the bag, which you have pulled firmly over your head to shut out the real world. Get out more, Aidan. You will find that you need to make more sense than you do in your little echo chamber when you have deal with real people.

Now AEMO tells us that they will pay SA and VIC electricity users to reduce their consumption. What a whacky, costly way to deal with their incompetence and blatant undermining of our once reliable power supply from coal-powered plants.

These ridiculous people say that rolling blackouts are “common” in first world countries. One commentator says, yeah, if South Africa can still be called a first world country. Or Pakistan.

How much longer is the gutless Australian majority going to put up with this crap!

ttbn,

"How much longer is the gutless Australian majority going to put up with this crap!"

Probably until someone corners the market on candles and forces the price up, even then some will be content with fat lamps.

Is Mise,

I think that we are closer to dark caves (no lights at all) than we realise.

ttbn,
Notice that commentator didn't give Germany as an example?

I make no apologies for referring to runner as "the neocons' useful idiot" because it's an accurate description of him. The neocons noticed that the environmentalists (and indeed the climate scientists) threatened their commercial interests, so they came up with the idea of calling it a religion to make it seem logical to their fellow atheists and evil to Christians. Most people were smart enough to see through that ploy, but runner has fallen for it hook line and sinker. I've alerted him to it a few times in the past, yet he's at it again on this thread!

>The problem is, with unreliables, nobody knows when or how they will perform - as it is with all things unreliable.
But it turned out the renewables performed pretty well at that time - as I said, their output was above average. Whereas technical problems and scheduled maintenance meant that Yallourn and Loy Yang A could not be relied upon.

Regarding interest in reliability, let me clarify: yes, you want a reliable supply (as we all do) but you're not interested in the technical details of how that can be achieved. And because of that you support policies that would make our electricity supply more expensive rather than more reliable.

If you followed the money properly, you'd abandon your preconceived conclusion that renewables are the cause of the increased costs, and you'd start to learn about the real cause.

JBowyer,
I unironically ask: what sarcasm? I very rarely use sarcasm on the internet, and have not done so at all in this thread.

I have never disputed the seriousness of the profiteering problem. What I have pointed out is the stupidity of blaming renewables when it's the fossil fuel generators who hold out for a better price, and it's the Generators at Yallourn and Loy Yang A being offline (at a time of very high demand) that caused the supply problems.

Renewables actually put downward pressure on prices. But many people would rather scapegoat renewables than look at the real reason for high prices.

I don't claim to know you, and I'm not part of (nor financially involved in) the industry, so why do you disrespect me?