Another BOM document reporting on itself.

Steel the BOM reporting on their own results, wow surprise surprise!
How about answering the critics on their temperature records? Oh yes slight errors but not to worry.
They are now totally politicised and should start having their funding reduced. We have spent billions on all their politics like the last lot of weather radar that failed to work and of course the idiots had destroyed the old system.
The man told me temperature in Melbourne had been stable for one hundred years then along comes, what is it this week Global warming? Suddenly the continent is coloured red and we are all dying? Pull the other one mate!

SteeleRedux Quote
"Dear Jbowyer,

“go outside”?

What trite dribble!"

** Interesting comment but When someone else made a more absurd statement you were silent, your bias is showing. **

Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 11:38:02 AM
"No science needed here just walk out the door"

Fester,
My rejection of radicalism is not new, so it should be too mundane to b worthy of congratulation.

I mostly agree with Bjørn Lomborg's point about strong economic being better at environmental protection. But problems arise when politicians try to set up a false dichotomy between economic strength and environmental protection.

'Twas Bjørn Lomborg who predicted that renewables would become cheaper than fossil fuels. I think he was wrong on the driver of that change (he thought it was economic growth in general) and the results, but his central point has proven to be correct. Renewables are now cheaper at meeting our needs. See my link on the other thread to the CSIRO report about which you misinterpreted the SMH report.

So why, you ask, have electricity prices gone up? Firstly, electricity prices bear little relation to the cost of generation – that sets a minimum price (disregarding short therm fluctuations) but when demand is high, the generation companies set their charges much higher because it's more lucrative to do so.

Secondly, the additional supply of new renewables on the grid has not quite been enough to compensate for the closure of coal fired power stations. This was partly due to the political reluctance to increase the RET.

Thirdly, the price of fossil fuels has risen. Gas rose most as when it started to be exported from eastern Australia, the price rose to math the international price.

Fourthly, other charges such as that for poles and wires have risen. So, I think, has retail profit margin.

Fifthly, renewables have only recently become cheaper than coal. They could have been cheaper sooner if they'd had access to cheap credit, but the CEFC was hamstrung by the government. Also big batteries have only recently become available.

There's probably a few more reasons, but I'm too tired to think of them now.

Aidan, I welcome your enthusiasm for renewables, BUT, unfortunately it is mis-guided.
The whole concept is too fragile, from the point of generation to delivery to the joining into the grid.
Where you once had one single large source producing a single large amount of power, now with renewables you have say, 100 sources to produce the same amount of power.
Without going into detail, renewables are NOT up to the task.
We cannot introduce batteries into this discussion as it is a new component and therefore is not relevant.
Whether fossil, nuclear, or hydro, we are discussing the generation or creation of power, not the storage of it.
Batteries can apply to the old systems as well as the new, so therefore not relevant.
The only reason we are discussing batteries is because the renewables duty cycle is, unreliable.
We did not need batteries before so we do not need them now, unless renewables are already proven to be unreliable, which I believe they have.
Then there is the other problem of compatibility of integration of the new system to the old, at least for the foreseeable future.
The way I like to see it is to compare a 1000HP diesel engine to a 1000HP petrol engine.
Even though they both produce the same HP the latter is completely incapable of producing the same results 24/7, unlike the diesel powered counterpart.
Or another way is one 1000HP diesel compared to 1000, 1HP renewables.
It just does not feel right.
Now back to the batteries, the reason they are suddenly being considered is that renewables are unreliable, and because of this the use of batteries will mitigate the failures and really bad duty cycles of renewables.

Aiden you and your idiot mates will keep hanging in there saying renewables work, they don't.
When the main stream media and politicians catch up with common sense there will be an almighty reckoning of the realisation that you have cost us billions of dollars for nonsense.
You can rely on aforementioned media and politicos to then abandon you and lead the lynch mob. Roll on that day!
How many times do you have to be told they have cost us four times the price and the reliability that Monash gave us nearly one hundred years ago? You are beyond any common sense, you idiot!