https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/cheap-us-energy-leads-bluescope-to-1b-ohio-mill-expansion-20190816-p52hxu

Bluescope is expanding steel production in the US whilst shutting down production in Aus due to high energy costs.

"US energy prices just one-third of those in Australia, along with a robust manufacturing sector stoked by President Donald Trump's policies, have prompted a $1 billion expansion of an Ohio steel mill by BlueScope."

I can clearly remember when Aus power prices were substantially lower than the US.

America is also taking manufacturing from China because of its lower costs and the fact that Donald Trump doesn't want to sit on the board of every business like the commos do. But, yes, the RET mania in Australia has made our country too expensive for manufacturing.

yep its certainly bad but thank God for men like Alan Jones who at least has pushed back against the gw scams and lies.

Take the so of the https then the link works SM
Yes true our power, nothing to do with renewables is too dear
We privatised it there is the problem
This country needs to take ownership of power producing back
And subsidise power for industry
Not pretend privatisation works, it never has

Re: Alan Jones. It's disappointing that he apologised to that naive little girl posing as the PM of Not-relevant Zealand. There would be many people ready to supply old socks for the job. Ardern is a ridiculously childish person with appalling manners. With China expanding into the Pacific, NZ is another tinpot island that could succumb to the lure of the same conditional loans and 'aid' other countries in the region have, and will, fall for. Another one to keep our eye on. They could do us more harm than repacking Chinese vegetables and sending them to us. Buy only Birdseye frozen veggies, by the way: the last Australian company left in the business.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We have been through this numerous times. Natural gas produces more energy than coal in the US. Renewables contribution in the US are now on par with nuclear and outstrips Australia's proportions.

The big difference is that the US have jealously guarded their domestic energy production throttling exports of coal and gas to a minimum so it could support their manufacturing with cheap energy. Even now they only export less than 10% of production.

Australia on the other hand, with your blessing, has squandered our energy advantage with the vast bulk of gas production headed overseas.

At least the Rudd/Gillard government tried to pare some of it back but not your lot.

Shame.

Got to laugh, page one and the only input one poster has is defending pants down
As seen in a thread above some want to believe renewable like solar, still get massive subsidy
They do not however yes subsidy's are behind the high prices
Government sold our power plants to friends even some of them selves and profit came before people again

Dear Shadow Minister,

Oh and I just went and checked the manufacturing data from the Fed Reserve and this was their take;

"Manufacturing output declined 0.4 percent in July, with durables, nondurables, and other manufacturing (publishing and logging) all posting decreases. Production fell for most major durable goods categories. The largest declines were recorded by wood products, machinery, and nonmetallic mineral products, while the only sizable gain was registered by aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment. Paper products posted the only increase among nondurables; the indexes for textile and product mills, for printing and support, and for plastics and rubber products each fell 1.0 percent or more."

Come off the raw prawn SR.

There would be no need "pare some of it back" if your ratbag lot had allowed the harvesting of their own gas in their own states. Lefty buying of green preferences is doing Oz more harm than anything else.

Belly, you need to get a bit more math if you want to argue where the ridiculous power prices are generated.

We privatised it there is the problem
Belly,
Unfortunately, it was because of excessive Union demands that it all got privatised.

Hasbeen a certain satisfaction comes in reading your and Shadow Ministers posts on this subject
Knowing you both are wrong, and ill informed, helps
Oh knowing you both are victims helps too
Defending the fossil fuel owners rights to damage the planet, while thinking only coal can save us, must be painful
Maybe not
As both do not fully understand what the whole debate is about
Privatization is not working
Rather like climbing a tree sitting down and cutting the very limb you are sitting on down
Government has a duty to see our industry's get power at the same prices as any other country

SR,

1 I don't see relevance that fluctuations in the US manufacturing index has on business investment moving to lower cost US from higher cost Aus?
2 Most of the big gas contracts export permits were put in place under Labor, meaning that export limits would create huge government liabilities which made it very difficult for the libs to act. Labor also put moratoriums in place to stop gas exploration.
3 Renewables in Aus are now far higher than the US.

Belly,

Every power generation privatisation in Aus has led to lower prices. The reason prices go up is government interference.

I believe the cost of renewables is being hidden.
1. I think it is true that a turbine at maximum rated wind generates cheapest electricity.
2. Because wind does not blow at maximum all the time more turbines needed.
3. Because wind at times does not blow at all more locations are needed.
4. Somewhere the wind will be blowing hard enough. More locations needed.
5. A grid capable of switching power from anywhere to anywhere is needed.
6. Maximum size turbine appears to be 10Megawatt. So for each Gigawatt
100 turbines are needed.
7. Australias demand is say 20 Gw, 18.5 GW at this moment.
8. 100 turbines x 20Gw x 12 mult factor = 24,000 turbines.

Batteries connected in strategic locations will help but will never be big enough.
All these factors generate a multiplication factor that tells you how
many turbines needed to supply maximum demand.
This factor appears to increase in inverse proportion to the size of
the country.
For the United States I have seen 12 suggested for the multiplication.

Now, I am not in the industry but if I have some faulty logic here I
would like to hear it. I did not use solar for this because it has to
work at night in peak time.
I do not think anyone is planning on 24,000 turbines.
So what is the real cost ?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You write;

“I don't see relevance that fluctuations in the US manufacturing index has on business investment moving to lower cost US from higher cost Aus”

What? Are you serious? This was an opening line in your original post for this thread;

“along with a robust manufacturing sector stoked by President Donald Trump's policies”

Typical from you mate. You get pulled up on something then you are quick to disown it.

Now to the contention it was all down to Labour;

“An Australian-based consortium has won a contract to supply China with liquefied natural gas worth up to $25 billion in what will be the nation's biggest single export deal.”

“The Prime Minister, John Howard, who announced the deal, said the contract to supply China's first liquefied natural gas power station in the rapidly growing Guangdong province would benefit Australia for years.”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gas-boom-as-china-signs-25bn-deal-20020809-gdfiz2.html

It turns out at the time of negotiations the gas prices were at a historic low and the contract locked these prices in until 2035. Chinese manufacturers are paying a third of what Australian industry is paying for our own bloody gas. Only you could applaud this situation.

Your solution is to start one of the dirtiest short term methods of gas extraction, fracking, to blight our farmlands and our water tables, even though we are the world's largest exporter of natural gas.

Thankfully your party is finally going to act;

“A portion of Australia's gas supplies could be set aside for domestic use as part of a Federal Government push to try to bring down gas prices.

Resources Minister Matt Canavan announced the Commonwealth would formally examine a domestic gas reservation scheme in Western Australia, where he said consumers paid some of the most affordable gas prices in the world.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-06/federal-government-to-consider-domestic-gas-reserve/11385596

According to you this will make them socialists.

Added to the monetary costs are the social costs of divisiveness that occurs with all fads that have been thrust upon us since the beginning of time: the Earth is flat; some women are witches; the end is nigh; acid rain; the millennium bug, and so on - none of which were true. And, as it has been in the past, the perpetrators of the current scare campaign about perfectly normal climate change will not be brought to book or made to pay.

The presumption in the preceding post is that 100% reliable supply
is required. I gather that the standard normally set is 99% or thereabouts.
If a lower reliability is accepted then a very large expenditure will
be needed by industry and commercial concerns to provide backup power.
For instance large battery or generator systems will be needed in every
commercial building with lifts as the risk of being caught in a stopped
lift will reduce the rentability of building space.

Factories will need no break generator systems to enable production.
No doubt there are many other customers who will be very inconvenienced
by frequent power interruptions.

When will someone put a dollar figure on the cost of 100% renewables ?

ttbn, the millennium bug was real. A programmer friend of mine bought
a new car on the strength of it. He worked a lot of overtime on his
firm's customers' computer systems.
I had a couple of my own programs that needed the ability to handle
four character year fields.

It is often used as an example of spurious conspiracy panics.
The only reason it did not happen was because a lot of programmers
fixed the problem before 2000. Some time before 2000 it was under
discussion and new versions of programs used four character fields

SR,

I wonder if you have any economic qualifications whatsoever?

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-manufacturing-what-it-is-statistics-and-outlook-3305575

The monthly fluctuations in manufacturing output is due to a variety of factors along the entire range of products some seasonal some not. The issue is the underlying factors for manufacturing ie, power costs, labour costs, taxes, legislation, access to markets etc.

That Aus power prices, labour costs, legislative compliance costs, taxes etc have all increased compared to the US and pretty much the rest of the world which is why non mining manufacturing is shrinking year by year in Aus whilst over the last 2yrs it has grown in the US.

As for the gas contract you linked to that was in North West WA which due to distance cannot supply any of the east coast and has no effect on gas prices on the east coast. And Vic Labor has blocked not only fracking, but any new gas supplies.

For god's sake read up on the subject before posting irrelevant factoids. It feels like I am debating a child.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Really mate? Do you even read these things before posting them?

What a useless puff piece you have delivered up as a counter to my actual figures, full of 'is forecast to', 'Manufactuing (sic, couldn't even get the spelling right) will be boosted by the tax cuts', 'depends on the strength of the U.S. dollar' and 'It predicts production will grow'.

Go and find something of substance so I don't have to waste my time on dross.

SR,

I take it that you have realised the idiocy of the karatha gas link?

The "puff" piece I posted was by senior economists discussing the manufacturing sector, but I guess that it was too intellectual for you.

Here is the real data you need
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-gdp-from-manufacturing.png?s=unitedstagdpfroman&v=201907201017V20190821&d1=19190101&d2=20191231

Notice how the manufacturing in the US accelerates in 2017. It is entirely possible to have a monthly drop whilst still maintaining a growth trend. A fact most 10 year olds can fathom.

By comparison, Australia's non mining sector has shrunk.

Shadow, you have to want to understand even simple facts.

Posters like SR, Belly, O & Paul con not under any circumstances allow themselves to understand these simple facts, or their whole lefty belief system would come tumbling down.

It is critical to socialists, global warming shysters & academics do not let facts enter their consciousness, or their all is lost. They must believe warmist crap, like CO2 is making fish left handed, or they will shrink away to nothing.

Hasbeen you do you know, make me grin so much miss placed self confidence in such a small package
Just think, when it can not longer be seen as a scam climate change will have even your side of politics claiming they always knew it
Us lefty's [code for center progressives anyone not Trump like], are amused to read your stuff

miss placed,

placed, placed ? hm 'she french ?

Shadow,
The cost of renewable power is very low. Indeed that's a crucial factor in keeping the Whyalla steelworks open. The problem Australia has is the high cost of mains electricity and gas.

>Every power generation privatisation in Aus has led to lower prices.
That's simply untrue. It led to higher prices in SA, as well as a decline in reliability.
___________________________________________________________________________________

SteeleRedux,
>Australia on the other hand, with your blessing, has squandered our energy
>advantage with the vast bulk of gas production headed overseas.
>At least the Rudd/Gillard government tried to pare some of it back but not your lot.

I don't recall the Rudd/Gillard government ever trying to do anything about it. What did they do, and why didn't it succeed?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
You seem really keen to believe that renewables still work out more expensive than fossil fuels, but you're increasingly clutching at straws to contrive that conclusion.
The cost of using wind turbines to supply 100% of our electricity needs is of course ridiculously high, but nobody's suggesting suggesting we do that. Do you even comprehend why it's totally irrelevant? It's akin to saying that a bridge from Bali to Java would be too expensive because a bridge from Bali to Australia is impractical.

Dear Aiden,

It was called a mining tax. However they lost that argument didn't they and now we don't reap the benefits we should.

"Over the next few years, on similar LNG export volumes, while Qatar collects $26 billion in royalties — not including income tax and proceeds from state-owned companies — Australia will collect absolutely zero in PRRT from the booming offshore gas industry."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-01/tax-credits-for-oil-and-gas-giants-rise-to-324-billion/10959236

Just imagine if that 27 billion dollars were to be used to subsidise gas prices in this country? How much cheaper would energy be for our manufacturing and how much more competitive would they be as a result?

Aiden, well you have certainly missed the plot.
100% renewables IS the aim of the left of Australia's political scene.
They say it often enough and they want to do away with coal, gas and oil.
They also are totally opposed to nuclear energy.
Whats left, pedal generators ?

Steele,
Was there ever a serious suggestion that the PRRT should be used to subsidise domestic gas supply? I don't think that was ever meant to be its purpose.

The problem should have been sorted by reserving a proportion of gas for domestic use, as the USA did with there gas. Or it could have been sorted by locking in a supply contract before the prices went up, as the foreign consumers who are now paying peanuts did. But neither side of politics was convinced of the need to do anything. To be fair though, nor was I. Few anticipated how quickly gas prices would rise.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
>100% renewables IS the aim of the left of Australia's political scene.
Yes, and it's an aim the right and centre should be trying to match.

But trying to do so with wind alone is utterly stupid, as it varies a lot whereas solar is quite well anticorellated with wind. And there's also hydro in use already, with the potential to make much better use of it. Then there's battery storage, which is likely to become a lot more common in future, particularly if (as seems likely) batteries using cheaper elements are developed.

>They say it often enough and they want to do away with coal, gas and oil.
That doesn't mean immediately reducing all consumption to zero. Gas turbines will still be an important part of our electricity generation infrastructure, though they will be less frequently used and eventually the gas will be from non fossil sources.

>They also are totally opposed to nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is just too expensive at the moment. It would have made sense twenty years ago, but renewables are now a cheaper solution for Australia.

Where can we get all the raw materials from to build renewable energy facilities if we're to get away from using oil ?

Yes renewables are ridiculously expensive, & only exist with huge subsidies paid by government & the consumer, but there rare other costs & fallacies.

Former NASA Climate Scientist, James Hansen, writing in the Boston Globe last year, argued that "the notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries."

Continued attempts to power the world with renewables will result in bankrupt western nations, & a darkening world.

Dear Hasbeen,

Well blow me down with a feather. Is it really you quoting James Hansen? The father of climate science? Well done old cock I'm impressed.

Yes I am certainly on board with most of what James has said and agree lithium storage to fulfill bulk energy needs is pie in the sky and environmentally questionable.

James has always supported a price on carbon, a carbon tax, to get proper results and so do I.

Here is a link to his article in full;

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/26/thirty-years-later-what-needs-change-our-approach-climate-change/dUhizA5ubUSzJLJVZqv6GP/story.html

And here is a link to the Citizen Climate Lobby which is attempting bipartisan action on carbon pollution;

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/

This is the policy;

How does it work?

1. Carbon Fee
This policy puts a fee on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. It starts low, and grows over time. It will drive down carbon pollution because energy companies, industries, and consumers will move toward cleaner, cheaper options.

2. Carbon Dividend
The money collected from the carbon fee is allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. Program costs are paid from the fees collected. The government does not keep any of the money from the carbon fee.

3. Border Carbon Adjustment
To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, imported goods will be assessed a border carbon adjustment, and goods exported from the United States will receive a refund under this policy.

4. Regulatory Adjustment
This policy preserves effective current regulations, like auto mileage standards, but pauses the EPA authority to regulate the CO2 and equivalent emissions covered by the fee, for the first 10 years after the policy is enacted. If emission targets are not being met after 10 years, Congress gives clear direction to the EPA to regulate those emissions to meet those targets. The pause does not impact EPA regulations related to water quality, air quality, health or other issues. This policy’s price on pollution will lower carbon emissions far more than existing and pending EPA regulations.

Glad to have you aboard.

Yes our target and more than half the world isone hundred percent renewable s
In the next 30 to 50 years
By then it will be easy
We will progress we will invent new fuels, new power
And the coal lobby will run out of reasons to rant about change

Aiden, well I see that you realise 100% renewables is impracticable.
From what I have read nuclear has become very high in cost.
Perhaps these modular reactors may solve that cost problem.
When its fuel runs out, send it back to the factory and connect up the replacement.
As far as hydro is concerned many would need dams and the greens
leverage on Labour would rule them out.
If we are to use coal for an extended period we will need to restrict
its export. China appears to be into peak coal already as some coal
mines have closed for economic reasons.
As Pres Xi said; "We will burn all our coal, then we will burn all yours !"

Belly, I think it is starting to dawn on some of the closed minds
that closed mines are not the answer.
I do not think there will be acceptance until there is some sort of
accident with a crowd of people in a lift or train or some housewife
gets really steamed up because the power went off while she was cooking
and spoilt her cake or something.
Very politically incorrect that but such things have moved mountains.

Bazz,
>Aiden, well I see that you realise 100% renewables is impracticable.
Not as most people would understand it to mean. There are no technical obstacles that would prevent us achieving it in a decade, though for economic reasons it MAY be better to wait slightly longer to do the last one or two percent, as we can't predict the rate of battery technological improvement.

But hypothetically if we were stupid enough to rely on a single technology, and used massive overbuild as a substitute for storage, of course it would be impracticable. Do you understand why that has no bearing whatsoever on whether we should install more wind turbines now?

>From what I have read nuclear has become very high in cost.
>Perhaps these modular reactors may solve that cost problem.
I think it depends what you consider solving the problem to be. I doubt they'll ever be sufficiently cost competitive to supply Australia's needs, but they'll be great for those countries with high power requirements that don't have our solar and wind resources.

>As far as hydro is concerned many would need dams and the greens
>leverage on Labour would rule them out.
Green opposition to dams is based on damage they'd cause to the ecosystem. That's usually much less with off river dams, and finding a few more sites suitable for pumped storage shouldn't be a problem. But the main improvements from hydro will come not from building more dams, but from changing how we use the existing ones.

>As Pres Xi said; "We will burn all our coal, then we will burn all yours !"
Did he really say that? It sounds like fake news.
Our coal mines need repurposing, to use as a chemical industry feedstock rather than an energy source. And we're not in any danger of running out of coal. I'd like to see Coal Export Duty (which was abolished by the Hawke government, despite Howard later promising the GST would replace it) reinstated for environmental reasons, but I don't see how any government could get away with that politically.

Bazz coal will be used for another 50 years
Deceased use but used
We know if we will let our selves say it, man will invent other power sources
It is called progress

There are hundreds of tidal flows under bridges and also wave motion that could be used as energy sources, Especially across the Top End.

It is called progress
Belly,
No, it's called necessity is the Mother of invention.

Aidan,

The whole argument that renewables are cheaper than coal fired generation is laughable. If they were then they could survive without subsidies, and Germany would not be building HELE coal generators to replace their nuclear power stations. Once you add in the cost of storage and the additional reticulation, nuclear is cheaper than renewables and safer.

SR,

The mining tax did not apply to gas and oil which already has a super tax. Also the mining tax got bugger all returns, which didn't stop Labor spending what they promised it would return.

Surely most of us remember the one pound note?
Two dollars in today's money
Inflation, big impact for small word
I could jump in my car at Ingelburn fill the tank but a pack of Rothman,s cigarettes and drive to Wollongong
Have quite a few beers and arrive home Sunday
Not a chance now BUT inflation will have its say, 50 years from now the price we pay for renewable s will look huge, but so will our income

Shadow,
>The whole argument that renewables are cheaper than coal fired generation is laughable.
Fools often laugh at the truth. I think it's some sort of coping mechanism.

>If they were then they could survive without subsidies,
And on long term contracts at least, they can. But in our NEM it's more profitable to create a shortage of power than to fill one, so there needs to become sort of incentive for more generation infrastructure if we want to bring the price down.

>and Germany would not be building HELE coal generators to replace their nuclear power stations.
ITYF they're not any more, and are planning to close all those coal fired power stations by 2038.
And remember, Australia is a much sunnier country than Germany, and has a lower population density, so the economic ceasefire renewables here should be a lot better than it is there.

>Once you add in the cost of storage and the additional reticulation, nuclear is cheaper than renewables and safer.
Possibly if you make heroic assumptions about the cost of nuclear. But when Britain has failed to get good value nuclear power, how do you expect Australia to?

Aidan,

Serves you right for laughing at the truth:

Here is a list of coal fired power plants very recently built in Germany.

http://airclim.org/acidnews/germany-still-constructing-new-coal-power-stations

I also remember Merkel promising that nuclear power would be replaced with renewables about a decade ago. 0% coal in Germany is as likely as federal labor producing a budget surplus.

As for renewable surviving "And on long term contracts at least, they can" This is only true if the contracts include subsidies and guaranteed revenue.

How anything that has people controlling the strings can actually be cheaper is the stuff of fables !

Shadow,
>Serves you right for laughing at the truth:
No, I'm not laughing, as your attitude is tragic rather than comic.

>Here is a list of coal fired power plants very recently built in Germany.
I didn't say there weren't coal fired power plants built very recently in Germany. Of course there were (though I wouldn't count all of those in the article as VERY recent). But that was fro last year, and events have moved on. Renewables are being installed more quickly now and, as I said, they're planning to complete the phaseout of coal fired power by 2031

>I also remember Merkel promising that nuclear power would be replaced with renewables about a decade ago.
Yes. I've previously described that policy as unwise, but it's what was implemented. And because it was implemented they didn't start phasing out coal soon enough. But now at last they are.

>0% coal in Germany is as likely as federal labor producing a budget surplus.
The budgetary outcome has more to do with the economic conditions in Australia and its trading partners (and competitors) than which party's in power federally. Historically both major parties have produced budget surpluses from time to time.

>As for renewable surviving "And on long term contracts at least, they can"
>This is only true if the contracts include subsidies and guaranteed revenue.
If you look at the context you'll see that tit can't be true if the contracts include subsidies, for that would be a contradiction.

And yes, long term contracts include guaranteed revenue - it wouldn't be in the interest of any power generation company to sign a long term contract that didn't! The cost of renewables is still falling, and they bring the wholesale electricity cost down, so without price certainty there's a lot of commercial risk. Can you think of a better way to incentivise new power generation infrastructure?

And I repeat my final question:
:When Britain has failed to get good value nuclear power, how do you expect Australia to?

individual,
When two things have people controlling the strings, one will usually be cheaper than the other.

When two things have people controlling the strings, one will usually be cheaper than the other.
Aidan,
So, the Chinese must be pulling harder at their strings than the Australian manufacturers ?

Shadow,
Apologies for the above typo. Germany are planning to complete the phaseout of coal fired power by 2038 (as I originally said) not 2031.

phaseout of coal fired power by 2038
Aidan,
Something tells me they won't achieve that unless they go nuclear all the way.
Consider that by then, Germany will be a Muslim State & therefore will be doing one step forward & three back !

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why are you posting old links.

This is the situation in Germany now.

"In the first half of 2019, hard coal generation is 8TWh (24%) lower than a year earlier, while lignite is down 14TWh (21%) – with coal down 22TWh (22%) in total and 44TWh (36%) over five years.

The gap left by coal-fired electricity has been largely filled by renewables, with output from German windfarms up by 11TWh (19%) and solar up by 1TWh (6%) in the first half of 2019, while demand fell by 9TWh (3%) and gas generation only increased by 3TWh (16%). The shift means wind is on track to become the single largest source of electricity in Germany this year, overtaking lignite.

In total, these changes mean that emissions from Germany’s electricity sector were down 20MtCO2 (around 19%) in the first half of the year, compared to the same period in 2018."

http://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-german-coal-power-is-falling-fast-in-2019

Experience overseas suggests that, apart from hydro power, renewables are unreliable, uneconomical and very unfriendly to the environment they are claimed to protect. Evidence from places investing heavily in renewables such as Denmark, Germany and California demonstrates they are intermittent power generators needing back-up from conventional energy sources

South Australia found this out the hard way earlier this year, when heatwaves caused widespread blackouts there (and in neighbouring Victoria). That giant back-up battery Elon Musk sold the former Labor government at undisclosed and, presumably, enormous cost, failed after a few hours and they had to fire up expensive diesel generators to keep the lights on.

According to a recent report by the Heartland Institute, it is estimated that up to 328,000 birds are killed each year in the US by wind turbines.”

studies report the same problems.

When even Bob Brown turns against wind turbines you know the technology’s moment has all but passed. And the Greens patron saint is not the only one to lose the faith. Time magazine “environmental hero” Michael Shellenberger says he was once a firm believer in wind and solar, but the Californian experience changed his mind.

Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.”

Australian steel producer BlueScope will invest $1 billion in an Ohio-based American steel plant, citing the United States’ energy-friendly policies which have driven power bills down to a third of what Australians pay as a decisive factor. The United States has reinvigorated its manufacturing sector thanks to its shale gas revolution and the cutting of red tape to lower electricity bills.

The Australian government lacks the guts to do the same, preferring to waste taxpayers money on unreliable, expensive wind and sun power

A further note on you beaut, unreliable and expensive energy: Australia’s net emissions are DOWN 12 per cent since 1990 while NZ’s are UP a whopping 65 per cent over the same period - despite their natural energy advantage, hydro electricity.

ttbn,
I think your memory's tricks on you. Heatwaves didn't cause widespread blackouts in SA this year, and those that occurred were the result of distribution problems (transformer failures) rather than inadequate supply. The big battery (the cost of which is no mystery, and small compared to the benefits it provided) didn't fail. Expensive diesel generators were used in SA, but that was mainly to alleviate a shortfall in Victoria after one of their coal fired power stations.

The Heartland Institute is an unreliable source. They set out to discredit wind turbines because those threaten the profitability of Koch Industries. And note the weasel words "up to"?

Early wind turbines had exposed trusses, which looked birds like good nesting sites. Now tubular structures are used instead, bird strike is a lot less common. Some does still occur, so Bob Brown's comments were not baseless, but birds usually know to avoid wind turbines. Bats are more susceptible, so there are some locations unsuitable for wind turbines. But to claim the technology's had its day is rather silly, as it used to be quite an expensive option but is now cheaper than new coal even when the cost of firming's included.

But of course many people are far too pig headed to accept that wind or solar could ever be cheaper than fossil fuels...

"Cutting of red tape to lower power bills" wouldn'tt be effective here. Unless the USA, we have no export restrictions here, so more fracking wouldn't lower the domestic gas price except by the minuscule amount that it would lower the international gas price. And don't forget: the regulations are there fro a good reason: there were a lot of shoddy firms involved in the gas rush in Australia, resulting in water pollution and gas leaks. Until that problem is completely solved, a moratorium in environmentally sensitive areas is the best policy.

I'm not arguing against the safety of nuclear power; merely that it's expensive. Nor do I know the reason for NZ's increase in emissions, though I expect starting from a very low base plays a big part.

"Cutting of red tape to lower power bills" wouldn't be effective here.
Aidan,
I'd say it'd be effective, it's the unwillingness of the hordes of bureaucrats to curb it as would deny them to continue on the Gravy train.
Just about every backward step is down to Bureaucracy & the selfishness of those who don't contribute ! A perfect example is the objection to a National Service scheme. It's all take but no give !

individual,
Regardless of what you say, cutting red tape won't prevent companies charging as much as they can get away with, nor will doing so reduce the amount they can get away with charging.

People contribute by paying taxes. Imposing a National Service scheme on top of that would just cause resentment. and there's no good reason for such a large confiscation of people's liberty.

there's no good reason for such a large confiscation of people's liberty.
Aidan,
That's where we just have to agree to disagree. I believe not having a National Service is costing this Nation more than people care to guess. A national Service is most definitely not a confiscation of peoples' liberty, the exact opposite is the case. It provides a sense of belonging.
This sense has gone hence the utter mayhem of no culture & no care now. The reason why so many don't see that is because they haven't had it for so long that they don't even know the meaning of it !

individual,
Agreeing to disagree is the last refuge of those with deeply flawed arguments who are too stupid to concede.

>I believe not having a National Service is costing this Nation more than people care to guess.

A national Service is most definitely not a confiscation of peoples' liberty, the exact opposite is the case.
Seriously?!?!? Are you trying to beat runner in the delusionality stakes?
WTF do you think liberty means? And what would you regard as a confiscation of people's liberty?

>It provides a sense of belonging.
It may for some, but not everyone would react in the same way. And if they didn't gain a sense of belonging while they were in school, what makes you think National Service would do so? And don't you think it would be counterproductive for people who (at the time they do it) have no desire to belong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnhcxAULAcg

>This sense has gone hence the utter mayhem of no culture & no care now.
Most people do still care, though things often seem futile when you're so often ignored. And there's culture everywhere, even if you don't recognise it as such.

>The reason why so many don't see that is because they haven't had it for so
>long that they don't even know the meaning of it !
What the younger generations don't see is that the government is on their side. A lot of the opportunities the older generations had have diminished due to the political choices of the older generations, and now the older generations hypocritically whinge about the results.

SR,

I would check your links before you post them. Germany's electrical energy power consumption is annually about 550 TWhrs so your figures make no sense whatsoever.

https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.php?iso=DEU

Aidan,

The 2016 blackouts in SA were due mostly to the networks inability to generate sufficient power. There was solar but zero wind power.

If this is a hot summer, the same may very well happen to Victoria.

Aidan,
The baby sitting has to come to an end, no matter what. Economics will dictate that along with social dysfunction.
Australians must start acting now if they don't want to share this land & their tax dollars with dumbed-out, no good for nothing drugos !

Shadow,
> Germany's electrical energy power consumption is annually about 550 TWhrs so your figures make no sense
That's a complete non sequiter. Nothing in Steele's post or link contradicts your figure or link, though I did notice your link hasn't been updated at all in the last three years.

>The 2016 blackouts in SA were due mostly to the networks inability to
>generate sufficient power. There was solar but zero wind power.
Which 2016 blackouts were those? I don't recall any supply problems that year apart from the statewide blackout (caused primarily by tornadoes hitting powerlines). Do you mean the February 2017 blackout, over which the Australian Energy Regulator is currently suing the owners of Pelican Point Power Station for failing to disclose to them that one of its generators which was offline could've been made available with a day's notice?

A lot of the opportunities the older generations had have diminished due to the political choices of the older generations, and now the older generations hypocritically whinge about the results.
Aidan,
I won't dispute that, on the contrary. The political decisions made by State & Federal Govts for example are now haunting us ! More so those of Labor Govts !

Agreeing to disagree is the last refuge of those with deeply flawed arguments who are too stupid to concede.
Aidan,
you'll find that agreeing to disagree is in fact not what you're saying. You just don't have any relevant argument so you resort to ridicule.
To call a term of serving National Service a "confiscation of Liberty" is bordering on the least possible form of culture of a society ! To fail to see the benefit of a NS is beyond having a mentality at all.

Aidan,

Fair enough the 2017 blackouts were due to the complete failure of SA wind generators to generate any power leading to load shedding to prevent a total blackout.

The 2016 total SA blackout while triggered by the storm failure of a tower which did not cut off the wind generators, the main reason was due to the over sensitive protection which dropped the wind generators out causing the blackout which is why they are being sued.

individual,
Your Wednesday post was incoherent. You appear to be relying on some false assumptions, but your non sequiters meant I couldn't tell which false assumptions!

Regarding your Friday post, I'm puzzled why you think the Labor governments' decisions are any worse than the Libs? The problem is bipartisan, but ISTM the Libs are usually slightly worse as they tend to focus more on short term budgetary objectives.

Agreeing to disagree may be appropriate after a long discussion when nobody's prepared to give ground, but it's intellectually dishonest to be so unwilling to change your position that you claim (before it's discussed in detail) that we will HAVE TO agree to disagree.

>You just don't have any relevant argument so you resort to ridicule.
No, I resort to ridicule when you display the-moon-is-made-of-green-cheese level delusion!

When you said:
:A national Service is most definitely not a confiscation of peoples' liberty,
you were making an absurd claim. If you look at it objectively, that's exactly what it is. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not justified, but you can't honestly claim it's justified if you're basing that justification on a lie.

When you added:
:the exact opposite is the case.
That's thoroughly deserving of ridicule.

>To call a term of serving National Service a "confiscation of Liberty"
>is bordering on the least possible form of culture of a society !
You think culture depends on not calling things as they are?

>To fail to see the benefit of a NS is beyond having a mentality at all.
You assume I fail to see the benefit, but that's not the case. Looking at historical examples I see two major benefits: firstly the defence benefit (as there have been times when a huge army was needed) and secondly the social cohesion benefit (helping unite a society deeply divided along ethnic lines). I don't think either of those benefits would meet Australia's current needs, but they're there.

The big difference is I also see the disbenefits, which I think dwarf the benefits. You apparently ignore the disbenefits and instead imagine a lot of illusory benefits.