Liberal Party heavyweight solves Australia’s energy emergency

A number of the generators that we rely on to produce our electricity haven’t come online in the way we expect them to. We’re not telling people to turn off their heating… we’re just saying maybe if you’re running the dishwasher at 7.30pm to delay it until 8.30pm.”

This entry was posted in Climate hoax, Left-wing extremism. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Liberal Party heavyweight solves Australia’s energy emergency

  1. Tel says:

    We rely on them … but they haven’t come through in the way we expected them to.

    That pretty much sums up my opinion of the “Leadership” class in this country.

  2. Lee says:

    And all because of the biggest scam/hoax in history.
    Far worse to come.

  3. twostix says:

    Facepalm to the power of facepalm.

  4. twostix says:

    South African refugees like to tell of how regular “load shedding” is the marker of what a shit country the place became – I.e it’s so dysfunctional that it can’t even get its act together to provide reliable electricity to the place.

    They all came here. LOL.

    Also can we wage a war on the euphemism “load shedding”, it’s rationing. They’re rationing electricity….in 2022.

    I hate that every word, term and phrase in the news and political language is a workshopped lie now.

  5. Hugh says:

    “A number of the shoe producers that we rely on to produce our shoes haven’t come online in the way we expect them to. We’re not telling people to stop wearing shoes. We’re just saying maybe if you’re planning on buying shoes on Monday to delay it until Friday.”

    Mr Kean clearly hasn’t imbibed Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” Ch 10, which I’m shamelessly apeing above:

    “The libertarian who wants to replace government by private enterprises
    … is thus treated in the same way as he would be if the
    government had, for various reasons, been supplying shoes as a tax financed
    monopoly from time immemorial. If the government and only the
    government had had a monopoly of the shoe manufacturing and retailing
    business, how would most of the public treat the libertarian who now
    came along to advocate that the government get out of the shoe business
    and throw it open to private enterprise? He would undoubtedly be treated
    as follows: people would cry, “How could you? You are opposed to the
    public, and to poor people, wearing shoes! And who would supply shoes
    to the public if the government got out of the business? Tell us that! Be
    constructive! It’s easy to be negative and smart-alecky about government;
    but tell us who would supply shoes? Which people? How many shoe
    stores would be available in each city and town? How would the shoe
    firms be capitalized? How many brands would there be? What material
    would they use? What lasts? What would be the pricing arrangements for
    shoes? Wouldn’t regulation of the shoe industry be needed to see to it that
    the product is sound? And who would supply the poor with shoes?
    Suppose a poor person didn’t have the money to buy a pair?”

    These questions, ridiculous as they seem to be and are with regard to
    the shoe business, are just as absurd when applied to the libertarian who
    advocates a free market in fire, police, postal service, or any other
    government operation [E.g.: Energy. H]. The point is that the advocate of a free market in anything cannot provide a “constructive” blueprint of such a market in
    advance. The essence and the glory of the free market is that individual
    firms and businesses, competing on the market, provide an ever-changing
    orchestration of efficient and progressive goods and services: continually
    improving products and markets, advancing technology, cutting costs, and
    meeting changing consumer demands as swiftly and as efficiently as
    possible. The libertarian economist can try to offer a few guidelines on
    how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted
    from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward
    freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive
    and ever- inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market
    activity. No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the
    pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity.
    We just know—by economic theory and by historical insight—that such a
    free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly
    of bureaucratic government.”

    To paraphrase Exodus 1:8, a generation of Liberals has grown up which knows not Rothbard, both in his insights, and his hilarious, Chestertonian examples. More to the pity, and the ruin of our nation.

  6. jupes says:

    Meanwhile in WA, McClown has been observing the disaster unfolding on the east coast and come to the obvious conclusion that WA will not only keep all its remaining coal fired power stations but will build more so the citizens can be guaranteed cheap and reliable power.

    Just joking of course. He’s decided to get rid of them all by 2029.

  7. NoFixedAddress says:

    Zero Taxation.

    Never, ever, ever give a gang the power to protect you.

  8. Buccaneer says:

    They have no idea because they all think the solution to every problem is more Government. How can the problem be government when more government is the answer, they might say. Even with the prospect of market failure, they just intervene in the market more and wonder why the providers decide not to play. When government makes it that you can’t buy fuel that will produce energy at the price you want, activists make it so you can’t borrow money to fix your equipment and everyone tell you you will be legislated out of existence, what might these organisations actually have to lose by being the bad guy, they’re already in the doghouse.

  9. NoFixedAddress says:

    Over the years I have often wondered and asked how to go about de-registering The Liberal Party of Australia which has been a false flag operation from its very inception.

  10. Romanitas says:

    Since we now have unofficial electricity rationing, can someone tell me why I need to buy a electric car again, which costs twice as much as a normal car, has half the range and the battery will die in 5 years with no viable replacement possible? Especially because I live in an apartment, which I was encouraged to do to reduce my global warming footprint. Hence no solar panels, nor no EV charging facilities. And now these clowns cannot provide enough electricity to hospitals or homes. Australia is governed by morons. Of all parties.

  11. Lee says:

    Australia is governed by morons. Of all parties.

    And traitors.
    Where is a noose and a trap door when you need them?

  12. Not Trampis says:

    The main problem was energy should have never been privatised. It is an essential service.
    coal fired power stations were always unreliable. Two years ago a unit in one was breaking down once every three days. It was thought it was more likely to occur in summer which is when AEMO always warned about black outs.
    The present situation occurred because we had 30% of units breaking down. moreover the power stations needed to buy coal at spot prices which are very high because of Putin.
    Normally this would mean gas fired power stations would fil the void BUT prices for gas have risen even more than coal.

    The head of Origin has belled the cat on this.
    They tried to get every last buck out of the coal fired power stations they bought for a song instead of investing in renewables.

  13. Fat Tony says:

    I’d say the Uniparty/WEF Plan is going ahead very nicely as planned.

    Credit where credit is due.

  14. Buccaneer says:

    I have some sympathy for the idea that electricity (not energy) should not have been privatised. I think it’s a contrived market as distribution is an effective monopoly and generators competing against each other only works if there is a secure baseline of supply.

    The intermittent “renewables” ruined the latter and marginalised operating profits. Profits that used to be solid if not spectacular. Now there is an incentive to restrict supply to increase margins.

    More hydro electric was the only real solution to this but the greens kyboshed more dams for the last 40 years.

    The problem isn’t per se coal or intermittents, it’s the government creating and interfering in an unstable market. The intermittents just make it all unworkable. If they were the solution SA would be sitting pretty.

  15. MatrixTransform says:

    The present situation occurred because we had 30% of units breaking down. moreover the power stations needed to buy coal at spot prices which are very high because of Putin.

    Trampis uses an ancient spell to slay Putin and summon the wind.

    …when will it take effect ??

  16. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Coal stations were reliable for generations, until the manic push for ruinables made it profitable for them to be run down, and replaced with subsidy farms.

    Food is also an essential service. Should the gumming take over farming and grocery stores.

    The rest of your comment is your usual evidence free assertions.

  17. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Can you put together a full list of the organisations and regulations governing the electricity system (it is clearly a lie to call it a “market”) in Australia.

    I am aware of the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, the Australian Energy Market Commission, the National Electricity Rules, the Cumulative Price Threshold, and the Australian Energy Operator.

    There also is the LRET. What else is there?

    And then explain in well written, correctly punctuated, sentences how such a highly regulated system can be called a “market”.

  18. Not Trampis says:

    coal fired power stations were NEVER reliable. Units have ben always breaking down. The difference was when State governments owned them so they built more than we needed. This meant base load power has us getting much more power than we ever needed at night.
    That is why they were privatised for a song.
    renewables were always going to be cheaper and once they were coal fired power stations were never going to make money during the daytime. ( look up soalr ducck cureve) Just to put into context at the time of the finkel report they were not cheaper than the coal stations.
    The power crisis at present is the result of getting rid of the price on carbon.
    If we had over 50% of power being dome by renewables we would not be in this mess.

    Deplorables who want new coal fires power stations are morons. It would take 8 years to build them and then the price would be well over twice the price of renewables. that is why no private sector company would touch them. Ad how unreliable they are and you have it.

  19. Buccaneer says:

    Of course, you know so much more about this topic than these guys.

    Reliability: One of the greatest advantages of coal fired plants is reliability. Coal’s ability to supply power during peak power demand either as base power or as off-peak power is greatly valued as a power plant fuel.

  20. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    coal fired power stations were NEVER reliable. Units have ben always breaking down.

    Everything mechanical will be subject to breakdowns, the difference now is that the incentive to maintain them well has been replaced by a financial incentive for subsidy farming. When the incentives were there, they delivered much higher percentage availability than ruinables ever have or will.

    The difference was when State governments owned them so they built more than we needed.

    The more rabid ruinable enthusiasts have spoken about needing up to 700% of necessary output available for ruinables to be able to do the job, because they are weather dependent, and therefore intermittent. Makes previous oversupply look piddling.

    renewables were always going to be cheaper and once they were coal fired power stations were never going to make money during the daytime.

    Indeed, good to see you recognise the reason maintenance of coal fired generators is being neglected. It is a direct result of government policy. But what about nighttime? Or do we all go to bed at sunset, and get up at sunrise?

    On the “duck curve”, what does it look like on a cloudy day?

    Deplorables who want new coal fires power stations are morons. It would take 8 years to build them and then the price would be well over twice the price of renewables.

    How many years, and how much money, will it take to build multiple times the required output worth of ruinables, to cover nights and windless periods? And the many billions for new interconnectors to everywhere? And the batteries to cover the periods when runiables deliver nothing?

    And then add ion the costs of replacing the ruinables and batteries after their relatively short working lives?

  21. Lee says:

    How many years, and how much money, will it take to build multiple times the required output worth of ruinables, to cover nights and windless periods? And the many billions for new interconnectors to everywhere? And the batteries to cover the periods when runiables deliver nothing?

    And then add ion the costs of replacing the ruinables and batteries after their relatively short working lives?

    John, the promoters of ruinables and Green types like NT, just utterly ignore or wave all that away as of trifling or no consequence.
    Or say that in the future “we will have the technology to blah, blah, blah.”
    Electrical engineers and others know better.

  22. Tel says:

    For the pea-brain who goes around using units of MW/h for electricity.

    https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-volume-weighted-average-30-minute-prices-regions

    Back in 2001 to 2004 there was a stable wholesale price in NSW of about $40 per MWh (take note: that’s megawatt hours, NOT megawatts per hour). Here is a chart of solar capacity in Australia which was negligible before 2010.

    https://pv-map.apvi.org.au/analyses

    NSW happily ran mostly fossil fuel electricity (with some hydro) for a decade from 2000 to 2010 and it was reliable, steady, and very cheap at the wholesale level. Normal operating cycle for a power station with 4 steam turbines is 3 running with one as backup and doing regular maintenance … slowly rotating through the 4 turbines to ensure they all get maintenance. That means 25% of capacity normally offline (but occasionally brought online as required), not because of any breakdowns but by design to ensure the plant and equipment gets maximum lifespan.

    Name one power generation windmill that has provided better than 75% of maximum nameplate capacity for 50 years? There isn’t one of course … modern wind turbines have a design life of merely 20 years, and if you are lucky you might perhaps get 25 years out of it … but should you get hit by storms you can be unlucky and get only 15 years.

    Even during those 15 to 25 years, the typical real-world measured capacity factor of wind turbines is approx 40%, with the best of the offshore wind farms achieving a bit over 50% … none of them come close to coal fired reliability … none of them come close to the lifespan of a coal fired generator.

    You don’t actually have any idea what a capacity factor is do you?

  23. Boambee John says:

    Tel

    You don’t actually have any idea what a capacity factor is do you?

    Non Mentis doesn’t know about capacity factors, he doesn’t know about dispatchable power, he doesn’t know about baseload levels. What he does know about electricity generation could be written on the front of a postage stamp with a whiteboard marker, without obscuring the picture.

  24. Buccaneer says:

    Wind farms often produce less power when they age past the 10-year mark because the loss of federal tax credits halts maintenance – a finding that could shift policymakers’ plans for climate policy, according to a new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    This is an interesting site with lots of links.

  25. Boambee John says:

    Buccaneer

    Wind farms often produce less power when they age past the 10-year mark because the loss of federal tax credits halts maintenance

    I am so shocked. Subsidy (and tax credit) farmers lose interest when the subsidy declines or disappears.

    I wonder how many ruinable generators there would be still operating in Australia a year after subsidies ceased?

  26. Not Trampis says:

    Ahh Tel the Ret man who claimed that RET meant a coal fired power station was closed down. Unfortunately for him Alinta said otherwise, In fact every company has said otherwise.
    didn’t know what MW/h was either but it is all over the RET website. Is he a liar or just plain ignorant??

    The problem has occurred because coal fired power stations have had a large number of breakdowns. this is a regular occurrence. It is usually said to because of aging power stations except in this instance it is occurring in QLD. It occurred on a regular basis in the 60s and 70s but was not noticed because of the large number of stations.
    It is only now we know breakdowns will occur regularly in coal power statins when it is very hot

    Our primary school drop out talks about dispatchable power and base load power.
    Just so all the ignorant around here understand base load power means power on 24 hours a day. It is not dispatchable as it is already on.

    Yet we still have these ignorant deplorables ( yes a tautology) wanting a new coal fired power station.
    It would take 8 years to build, it would over two times what renewables would be and of course it would break down a lot.

    Why are they sooo stupid

  27. Fat Tony says:

    Not Trampis

    You must be doing all these posts as a joke – just having a lend of everyone.

    I know this is the case cos nobody could be as fukn stupid as you in real life – they’d forget to breathe…

  28. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Ahh Tel the Ret man who claimed that RET meant a coal fired power station was closed down.

    Tel asked you to provide a link to that purported statement. You did not do so. Until you do, there is no evidence to support your statement.

    didn’t know what MW/h

    This statement demonstrates (if it is true) that the people running the RET website are as ignorant as you are.

    Our primary school drop out talks about dispatchable power and base load power.
    Just so all the ignorant around here understand base load power means power on 24 hours a day. It is not dispatchable as it is already on.

    Repeating rubbish does not improve its accuracy.

    It would take 8 years to build, it would over two times what renewables would be and of course it would break down a lot.

    You still haven’t told us how many years, and how much money, will it take to build multiple times the required output worth of ruinables, to cover nights and windless periods? And the many billions for new interconnectors to everywhere? And the batteries to cover the periods when runiables deliver nothing?

    And then add on the costs of replacing the ruinables and batteries after their relatively short working lives?

  29. Buccaneer says:

    I am so shocked. Subsidy (and tax credit) farmers lose interest when the subsidy declines or disappears.

    I wonder how many ruinable generators there would be still operating in Australia a year after subsidies ceased?

    No surprises that the resident numbskull didn’t pick up that it’s the subsidies to renewables that are sucking away capital from traditional power generation maintenance and when those subsidies go away the capital also disappears for intermittent power generation.

    I suppose that’s what happens when all you can do is parrot someone else’s line.

  30. NoFixedAddress says:

    Not Trampis

    you are a liar… you are legend… you are a gadarene swine…

    I am sick of your filth and you are no different to the bird shit that infected Sinclair’s site nor the filth that tries to infect “the furniture store”.

    I have started publishing the list of 90+ ip’s that I have banned.

    f*ck off you xunt.

    and Why is there not a single comment to any post at Not Trampis?

  31. Boambee John says:

    NFA

    and Why is there not a single comment to any post at Not Trampis?

    Two options.

    .1 No-one reads it.

    .2 No-one cares about what he writes, even if they do read it.

  32. NoFixedAddress says:

    3. No-one wants to be associated with such a demented ferkin dickhead.

  33. Tel says:

    Ahh Tel the Ret man who claimed that RET meant a coal fired power station was closed down. Unfortunately for him Alinta said otherwise, In fact every company has said otherwise.

    You still can’t produce a link to demonstrate I said anything about Alinta … you can’t achieve that because it’s right out of your own imagination.

    … didn’t know what MW/h was either but it is all over the RET website. Is he a liar or just plain ignorant??

    This is amazing … you double down on stuff that is not only wrong, but easily can be checked. Find one link where any official policy website is using units of megawatts per hour. Just post any quote … you are wrong, you know you are wrong, everyone here also knows you are wrong, and you look like a complete turkey because the only thing you know how to do is repeat your wrongess over and over hoping what failed last time will somehow work.

    I know exactly what a megawatt hour is, but that’s not what you have been writing, is it? You don’t even comprehend the actual notation of your own posts. You copied from somewhere, didn’t understand what you were copying, messed up and now believe that stamping your foot will make it real.

    Still have not seen you post up one single example of a wind farm that has delivered 75% capacity factor over a period of 50 years. Post one, should not be difficult.

    Heck, I will settle for at least 75% capacity factor over 30 years … I’m going out of my way to make it easy for you … and you still have no hope.

  34. Buccaneer says:

    He’s just a little confused, since they deliver a megawatt per hour to his place for the hydroponic set up…

  35. Old Lefty says:

    Occasionally and randomly, the ABC, by some freakish and inexplicable accident, produces something good. Google Clarke and Dawe on the energy market for an example.

  36. Tel says:

    Buccaneer, here’s how the math problem looks:

    Suppose Homer’s grow-op lights require 200 kilowatts, and he runs the lights for 8 hours per day, and it takes 60 days to grow the plants to full size … how much energy is embodied in one crop of plants?

    Answer: take the 200 kilowatts, and multiply by 8 hours and then by 60 days you get 96000 kilowatt hours, which is 96 megawatt hours. That’s a measure of total electrical energy consumed by one crop of plants.

    At no time do you divide the number of megawatts (i.e. power) by the number of hours (i.e. time) because power divided by time means nothing … it’s not a useful measure. It may sound like nitpicking, but those details are the most essential principle in getting any kind of science-related question right. It’s also the easiest and most obvious way to quickly ascertain the difference between someone who knows the material vs someone who is blustering and doesn’t understand what the heck they are talking about. The reason technology has progressed is because generations before us spent the time and effort to get those little details right, and figured out a system for it.

  37. Buccaneer says:

    I don’t think it’s nitpicking, the measurement is clearly labelled on your electricity meter. I just like taking the piss out of him…

    I understand a watt per hour measurement can be used to measure the rate of change in either generation or usage, but this is not actually relevant to the reference our obtuse blogger is using.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.