Thread: Power prices, gas prices- ouch or Solar perhaps?

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

I'm sure she's chosen her "facts" very carefully. She's got the target market she was paid to get.

What on earth are you talking about. Use your brain. Who cares who she is, do you think the newsreaders on the news investigate and know deeply the subjects they are talking about.

This defines a woke moron in my experience, attack the person that is saying something you don't agree with rather than sensibly discussing any topic.

Our entire system was built to have very large generators in one spot. From here the infrastructure is "giant high power cables" from the plant, slowly reducing in size as you get further and further away from the generator (this is common sense). So Lets say you live in Birchip Victoria. You might have one small power line running to the town. If we put in a huge solar and wind farm here ... We cannot feed anything back into the grid as the infrastructure is not designed for this (like I said, common sense... ).

What you are trying to argue is bluntly ... well moronic. Her overview as very good of the issues we are currently facing. Now a smart person (far smarter than me) would come up with way of getting around these issues. Building another giant sized power generator in the area the existing power generators are would be the smartest move. You cannot do this with renewables though as they take massive amounts of land. Just look at the insane wind farms within a couple of hours of drive from me. Just insane the infrastructure needs to get to all of them.

I'm not for or against any form of power generation, but gee's, can't there be just the tiniest bit of common sense applied ever

seeya
Shane L.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

FYI Zoe Hilton is not a climate scientist. She's got a science and arts degree. She's never worked in the field. She's been a policy adviser since she left uni in 2019. She aint no climate scientist.

Eloquently convincing people who don't know better is her career.

She's a mouthpiece.

Her career isn't based on telling the truth about these matters. Not like a real climate scientist. She's a policy advisor.

It's about persuading her audience about what her employers want her to say. She's an employee of the Centre for Independent Studies. There are several credited "researchers" for this piece.

Her employer, Centre for Independent Studies doesn't disclose who funds them. Strangely.

From AI

• Previously Disclosed Donors: Past corporate funders have included companies like BHP Billiton, Shell, ICI, and the Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation. Individual donors have included Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, Neville Kennard, and Robert Champion de Crespigny.

If that piece resounds with you then I'm happy for you. I'll keep listening to the scientists about these matters myself.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos. I can't get past the Ethos here.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Her career isn't based on telling the truth about these matters. Not like a real climate scientist. She's a policy advisor.

It's about persuading her audience about what her employers want her to say. She's an employee of the Centre for Independent Studies. There are several credited "researchers" for this piece.

Her employer, Centre for Independent Studies doesn't disclose who funds them. Strangely.

From AI



If that piece resounds with you then I'm happy for you. I'll keep listening to the scientists about these matters myself.

Ethos, Pathos, Logos. I can't get past the Ethos here.

I don't care who or what she is, is she speaking common sense? See what I mean, because she is stating simple facts, you attack her personally, rather than addressing the content she is posting (as she is 100% correct).. The hilarious part is ... you link woke propaganda pieces as your "source of truth". Even blind freddie can see the ABC article are nonsense. Well, not nonsense, but massively, hugely biased.

So to prove the first thing she says is wrong. Find me the country that has wind and solar renewables and cheap reliable​ power. There is an entire planet of countries to choose from. This should be very simple given everyone (especially the ABC) is screaming how much cheaper power is with renewables.

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

I don't care who or what she is, is she speaking common sense? See what I mean, because she is stating simple facts, you attack her personally, rather than addressing the content she is posting (as she is 100% correct).. The hilarious part is ... you link woke propaganda pieces as your "source of truth". Even blind freddie can see the ABC article are nonsense. Well, not nonsense, but massively, hugely biased.

So to prove the first thing she says is wrong. Find me the country that has wind and solar renewables and cheap reliable​ power. There is an entire planet of countries to choose from. This should be very simple given everyone (especially the ABC) is screaming how much cheaper power is with renewables.

Mate.. you can pick whatever facts you like to support any argument you like out there. It's the internet of things. She's got a message her employer wants to get out there, and she's picked the "facts" that support what they want her to say.

Sorry, but I'd be more likely to believe a journalist. At least they have some ethics. We know who they are paid by, and who their employer is.

Rather than an early 20's policy adviser policy advisor with no qualifications in the field whose employer is funded by BHP and a bunch of others who her employer refuses to divulge. Red flag. It's just political advertising.

In the days where there is so much disinformation on the internet.. who its being said by, and who they are being paid by is important.

I'm happy to look at the points she makes if you can find them being made by a reputable source. I'm confident you won't.

Anyway, back to the topic.

With the feds going to force all the providers to offer free power 11-2 I'm very interested in how it's going to affect the market.

Like so much in the power market. It seems like a good idea but I'm not sure how many people will be able to meaningfully make use of it. I think people who can spend cash will be the real winners as they can set things. People with Pools, Batteries, EV's will be winners. People with more normal stuff. I mean you can run your washing machine and dryer, etc, but if it forces them onto demand pricing .. they may well save a little during the free time and end up paying more for peak power usage.

I can see power suppliers putting power prices up outside this window. House always wins.

The proposal is only for those on standard rates and therefore higher rates than those usually available. My bet is at the same time the standard FIT will be zero, not that its far above that now.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Mate.. you can pick whatever facts you like to support any argument you like out there. It's the internet of things. She's got a message her employer wants to get out there, and she's picked the "facts" that support what they want her to say.

Sorry, but I'd be more likely to believe a journalist. At least they have some ethics. We know who they are paid by, and who their employer is.

Rather than an early 20's policy adviser policy advisor with no qualifications in the field whose employer is funded by BHP and a bunch of others who her employer refuses to divulge. Red flag. It's just political advertising.

In the days where there is so much disinformation on the internet.. who its being said by, and who they are being paid by is important.

I'm happy to look at the points she makes if you can find them being made by a reputable source. I'm confident you won't.

So that is a 100% definite no, there is absolutely nothing in that video that can be disproven. I thought as much.

I don't care what a "side" or ideology of something is. I appreciate hearing good factual overviews. Both the "for" and "against" factual overview should be very close to matching up, but be looking at it from a different perspective .... ie: most things are a "gray" area. This is simple black and white though, she has basically stated the exact issues and problems we are currently facing.

Net zero appears to be some magic pie in the sky "thing" that trumps all. You only have to hear a broad overview of what they wish to do to know it is utter nonsense..... that could never be done. But what we do is we "hide" everything (eg: the UK burning wood for power generation and claiming this is good for the environment). Its all just nonsense if you have even the tiniest working brain.

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

So that is a 100% definite no, there is absolutely nothing in that video that can be disproven. I thought as much.

I don't care what a "side" or ideology of something is. I appreciate hearing good factual overviews. Both the "for" and "against" factual overview should be very close to matching up, but be looking at it from a different perspective .... ie: most things are a "gray" area. This is simple black and white though, she has basically stated the exact issues and problems we are currently facing.

Net zero appears to be some magic pie in the sky "thing" that trumps all. You only have to hear a broad overview of what they wish to do to know it is utter nonsense..... that could never be done. But what we do is we "hide" everything (eg: the UK burning wood for power generation and claiming this is good for the environment). Its all just nonsense if you have even the tiniest working brain.

Looks like they were successful. That's what they want you to think.

So there is an Australian. Dr Saul Griffiths. He lives in Woolongong I believe. He's got two kids. Have a read of his bio. Quite different to the influencer. He's doing this for his kids.

Saul Griffith | Inventor, author, founder, and scientist.

You're pretty got already, but if you want to see how it could be done have a watch of this video. It's the shortest one I could find and closest to the style you like. It's for America but it's the same plan for here.. it's the explanation I'm highlighting. Jump about 3 and a half minutes in where they've done a good job of explaining how it's done. If you understand that you'll see why it's not unachievable at all. We have the tech now.

He's also done this analysis for Australia. There are many long form excellent interviews done by him on YT. Heaps and heaps. O

That's who I'm going to listen to on this. Sorry.