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

Ok more on the "Centre for Independent Studies". Which is known to have one of it's primary backers as being BHP, Australias largest coal miner.

Here we have Aidan Morrison telling the people on Sky News that we've got too many renewables already, and the renewables honeymoon is over. He's saying we've got too many renewables and it's going to push power up. He claims there is nowhere that you could possibly build more hydro (the only renewables they like) unless you damed the Franklin which is really beautiful!. Ooops.. he completely fails to mention the whole concept of pumped hydro. Never mind that we have lots of potential sites that aren't the franklin. This has been known for a long time.

https://arena.gov.au/assets/2018/10/...lete-Atlas.pdf

Oh and a coal power station in Gladstone is being shut down, and it's all a big mistake and Rio are just trying to get maximum renewable subsidies out of the government to do it, and it was all set up by the previous labor government. And he thinks it won't actually happen so they will just keep running the coal power station and getting paid renewable money from the suckers that are the labour government tying to pursue their folly of net zero.

So, what have we got here. We have the "Centre for Independent studies" who we know is controlled by the LNP and funded by BHP. What points have the got in.

1. The renewables Honeymoon is over and if we add more the grid will get more unstable and power will get more expensive.
2. There is no way to avoid this. Vague assertions that it has failed everywhere else in the world.
3. The opposition (Rio) are making a motza off public money thanks to the gullible labor government.

Bravo .. well done you've earned your pay this week! Big TICK!

So what do we know about Aidan Morrison. He must be an expert in the field right? He is their "director of energy research". He must be qualified and experienced in the field?? He was one of the people who contributed to the earlier video.

Well he's got a degree which is good I suppose but not that uncommon these days. A Bachelors in Theoretical maths and Physics. Meh. He ran a bar and cafe between 2013 and 2021. Then he got a job as data scientist and analyst until he started work for the CIS at the end of 2023.

Personally I'm not inclined to think that he's at all qualified to be an "expert" advisor in the renewable energy field.

Personally it makes me really sad that vested interests are able to control and influence our media. And that people believe them. Hook line and sinker. Shame Australia, shame.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/aidan-morrison-23340128/

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Perhaps watch some of the long form videos.

It's not mad, but it's also why it's important to start. Your influencer is trying to make it all seem too hard. All problems no plan. Hopefully we all just say "screw it let's just keep doing what we're doing".

If we never start, we're never going to get there. Every time we allow someone to put in a gas heater at home, or gas oven, then the emissions from that are baked in for another xx years until they are replaced. With cars, every new ICE car that we put on the roads.. that's it.. it's going to keep using that amount of fuel until it gets retired. I keep saying don't worry about people with whacky needs - just electrify the easy ones. Lets get that done. So, many of the schemes you see now are to encourage people to make good choices. I'm not saying there aren't problems.

People like Saul are genuinely smart people. They've thought about it and come up with a plan. And they care.

There are just so many vested interests trying to stop progress, and the "centre for independent studies" is an excellent example of the forces working against getting there.

You see I prefer common sense. In theory (isn't theory always great). we "may" be able to do "something". the problem the "something" we do will bankrupt the next generation or two of australia while creating the most expensive power we have ever seen in Australia.... At the same time building power generation that will probably barely last a decade (maybe two) before it all needs replacing. Again, at massive, staggering stupid costs. Who do you think will pay for all of this? Us and our childen and grand children will be.... The degredation of our childrens lifestyle from the flow on effect of expensive power (so no local industy) will be just incredible. We can't survive by just making each other coffees.

I prefer the insinuations that anyone that doesn't agree with you is "trying to stop progress" rather than saying they are stupid and personally attacking them.

I would call this stupid:

• Gifting away our natural resources for bargain basement prices without doing anything with them ourselves
• Refusing to use our natural resources (gas, oil, coal, uranium etc) ... to build any industry or provide cheap power..... "because burning it is bad". What in the hell do you think the countries we are selling it to are doing with it? They are creating cheap power so they can build all the stuff our industry used to build
• Even if every target is met by this net zero nonsense. The overall affect to the planet with regards to pollution and heating would be so incredibly minor ... so tiny it would not even be record-able in any way. simply because australia generates next to none of the pollution on a world wide scale. The greenies love to twist this by claiming pollution output per person. Much more sensible would be by land mass as a whole. as our infrastructure has to cover such a huge area.

So an overall summary would be we wish to build expensive throw away unreliable Chinese manufactured power generation at immense cost ... that will cripple our power system with unreliable "intermittent" power... that has a tiny lifespan, is horrendously expensive to upkeep and maintain while at the same time doing absolutely nothing for the environment.

They call us "the smart country".

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

You see I prefer common sense. In theory (isn't theory always great). we "may" be able to do "something". the problem the "something" we do will bankrupt the next generation or two of australia while creating the most expensive power we have ever seen in Australia.... At the same time building power generation that will probably barely last a decade (maybe two) before it all needs replacing. Again, at massive, staggering stupid costs. Who do you think will pay for all of this? Us and our childen and grand children will be.... The degredation of our childrens lifestyle from the flow on effect of expensive power (so no local industy) will be just incredible. We can't survive by just making each other coffees.

I prefer the insinuations that anyone that doesn't agree with you is "trying to stop progress" rather than saying they are stupid and personally attacking them.

I would call this stupid:

• Gifting away our natural resources for bargain basement prices without doing anything with them ourselves
• Refusing to use our natural resources (gas, oil, coal, uranium etc) ... to build any industry or provide cheap power..... "because burning it is bad". What in the hell do you think the countries we are selling it to are doing with it? They are creating cheap power so they can build all the stuff our industry used to build
• Even if every target is met by this net zero nonsense. The overall affect to the planet with regards to pollution and heating would be so incredibly minor ... so tiny it would not even be record-able in any way. simply because australia generates next to none of the pollution on a world wide scale. The greenies love to twist this by claiming pollution output per person. Much more sensible would be by land mass as a whole. as our infrastructure has to cover such a huge area.

So an overall summary would be we wish to build expensive throw away unreliable Chinese manufactured power generation at immense cost ... that will cripple our power system with unreliable "intermittent" power... that has a tiny lifespan, is horrendously expensive to upkeep and maintain while at the same time doing absolutely nothing for the environment.

They call us "the smart country".

Sky talking points. TICK

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Sky talking points. TICK

Really? Do you have any links? I'd love to hear some common sense from someone rather than the propaganda everywhere. I figure net zero is like a cult or religion. You have to throw away every ounce of common sense when you join up Seriously... Where is the article speaking common sense like this, Iwant to read them

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

Really? Do you have any links? I'd love to hear some common sense from someone rather than the propaganda everywhere. I figure net zero is like a cult or religion. You have to throw away every ounce of common sense when you join up Seriously... Where is the article speaking common sense like this, Iwant to read them

Where to start. I would start with Saul's book which I mentioned above. If you don't want to read a book, tell me which form you'd like it in? I concede it's difficult sorting this stuff out and knowing who you should listen to on topics like this. It's not our job to be experts in everything. It's hard to be informed in all things. We have limited time and resources. And who is to say we don't get it wrong sometimes no matter how hard we try to be objective.

If you want a video/podcast I'll see if I can find a good interview with Saul. If you want more information on general climate matters, Climate Adam on YT is a good start but there are soo soo many.

The big thing is if you're going to listen to someone find out who they are, what their experience is, and find out why they are spending their time talking about it. Until you've done this I wouldn't take anything they say too seriously. It doesn't automatically mean they are wrong but needs to go in the "unverified" pile

So I asked a mate of mine about CIS advising on this stuff. He is an academic who currently works in the field in power modelling. His take..

Someone from the CIS is arguing about wind capacity factors? Needs to be taken with an Uluṟu sized grain of salt. ? the thing is, if he has issues with the GenCost modelling or AEMO’s use of it, there’s a public process to make submissions and they do respond. Making a YouTube video is just trying to inject FUD.

So if you take one thing out of this, a talking head on sky who's from an independent opaquely funded organisation, with no experience or qualifications about which they are talking.. or who makes youtube videos and is passably pretty and pleasant to listen to... that's not the place to get your information.

I only just contacted my mate about this and i'd come to my conclusions about the CIS all on my own. So I'll take a pass mark on vetting.

One can even get Saul's book on audio, if reading makes one's head hurt.

The trouble with the media is either they naively believe in showing both points of view in the interests of being fair and balanced, or like to court controversy to make things interesting, or click bait. Whereas what they are really reporting on climate science is not a 50:50 ratio but rather thousands to one.