There is no need to wait, so why waste any more time and energy on these elections: everyone knows that Labor won, not because they are any good but because our disgust of the Liberal party has reached such proportions, similar to the levels of disgust of Labor last time they were in power.

Hard times ahead for those who due to moral convictions and values are unwilling to receive even a cent from tax-payer funds. Perhaps though a ray of hope for the refugees who languish in Nauru - their cries of anguish have reached the heavens!

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your gracious reply.
You make so many valid points that are worth
discussing and debating. My husband and I have
already voted. Hopefully we made the right choice.
However, I guess we shall have to wait and see
what the future will bring.

Either way, I have every confidence in our political
system, our institutions, our legal framework.
I consider ourselves to be lucky in this
country that no matter who is in power - we have
enough safeguards in place that protect us from
disaster. We are indeed the Lucky Country.

Salpetre my saying Ilike and read your posts is true whatever the content
Not the time for me to be frank, but I have never claimed my mob have got everything right
Always demand better /reform
But with a sure certainty see them as the best on offer
Too fear, true, the rise of the very right, and too the very left, [greens]
That upper house!
Surely it insults democracy
A single miss spoken word can swing the election, Morrison, [it was planned] has saved the boat people till after his Sunday opening
The chooks will flock to him, not caring to see that was the only plan he had
Labor will not restart the boats, they understand they dare not

Luciiferase,
Your inference that my statement "Germany does place a higher value on supply reliability than most nations" is
>Spoken like one who thinks reliability should be tradable for emissions reductions.
...is really quite stupid! It's neither a statement about what should be done, nor directly about emissions reduction; it's about the tradeoff between cost and reliability that exists in every country. Reliability's regarded as more important in Germany, but that doesn't mean they need the extreme level of redundancy that you claimed.

Neo-Malthusians are irrelevant.

As I said before, Germany's emissions reductions from switching to renewables are being cancelled out by there phaseout of nuclear power (which obviously they'd've been better off sticking with). Their target date for abandoning coal isn't till 2038.

Meanwhile in SA, which of course has never had any nuclear power stations, renewables have resulted in huge cuts in emissions.

FWIW I agree with you about transparency, though the problem's just as bad in the other states and common internationally too.

>The battery is only to delay blackouts,
>or, some profitable arbitrage enabled by the destructive disruption of the market caused by the RET.

I hadn't realised your understanding of the grid was that poor!

Firstly, blackouts are caused by not being able to deal with the effects of unforeseen events quickly enough. The battery provides time to deal with them, PREVENTING NOT JUST DELAYING the blackout.

Secondly, that profitable arbitrage is very useful, as it significantly reduces peak prices. And high peak prices were a problem long before the RET - if anything, the RET has alleviated them slightly.

Thirdly, the battery has also been very valuable for FCAS (frequency control and ancillary services) doing the job more effectively and far cheaper than was previously done with OCGTs.

>Actual grid-storage, were it batteries or anything else, would blow SA off the economic map.
WTF do you mean by "actual grid storage"? Considering that battery has a greater output than some power stations, why doesn't it count? How many of those batteries would be needed for you to count them as "actual grid storage"?
(tbc)

Luciferase (continued)
SA will definitely get more batteries, and probably pumped storage as well, but we'll do it in a cost effective way, whether or not it conforms to your labels. We're pursuing genuine sustainability, not mere virtue signalling. We certainly aren't relying on interstate baseload sources for firming, but we make no apologies for trading power interstate when it's profitable to do so.

>why did SA install an expensive fleet of diesel generators that cost a monza to run?
To increase generation capacity. As they're used far below 1% of the time (and only when electricity prices are very high) their running cost isn't an issue. But I doubt any more will be installed, as more batteries on the grid reduce the need for them.

>If grid-storage is so feasible why does Germany build coal instead
Storage is not an alternative to generating the power in the first place!

>Labor's energy policy will make Oz less competitive unless cost of compliance is subsidized...
Though that assumption appears sensible, IMO it is incorrect. Solar power is already cheaper than coal, but doing nothing is still the most profitable option for existing generators. Shorten's NEG will address that, bringing prices down. Their renewables target is quite pathetic, but still a lot better than the Liberals' policy which (by your standards) has had a track record of shrinking the pie.

When it comes to non-electric energy, the situation's a bit different. AIUI the policy details haven't been finalised yet, but I'd expect them to include reimplementation of some sort of ETS, which would lead to some increased costs for business. However it would also encourage greater efficiency (leading to lower costs) and a shift towards more use of electricity.

>Trumps war on China is ensuring our exporters will have a hard time of it regardless of energy policy.
Maybe, maybe not (as they've avoided doing much so far). And those that export to America stand to gain from less intense Chinese competition. Either way, the level of our dollar is likely to be a bigger determining factor, and that's ultimately self correcting.

The generators cost a monza both to build and to run and maintain, yet storage was not considered in their stead, given its so economically feasible?

Bottom line, if SA disconnected from fossil-fueled electricity it'd be stuffed. Bottom line,'grid-storage' is really important to distinguish from SA's little battery, and the label is most important:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4260555-caiso-data-highlights-critical-flaws-evolving-renewables-plus-storage-mythology?fbclid=IwAR1IxAcE-vG4QkN8E59m4qbitjQIQA0163TAxezHIKInYyRG-EaOjsObKEA

The question "If grid-storage is so feasible why does Germany build coal instead?" obviously presumes renewables will charge it and negate the need for coal, but Germany hasn't taken that path because it is economically infeasible by comparison with building baseload. Now you're saying SA knows better than Germany? Gawd.

On the grand scale, I'm a big fan of govt's that try to grow the pie in real terms to ensure everyone gets what they need. Labor, doesn't do this as well as the Libs and concentrates instead on re-slicing a fixed pie to rob Peter and pay Paul. This election will determine what the public wants done with the pie.