1. The very rationale behind electricity market privatization was to insulate energy policy from political meddling. Those advocating for a return to publicly owned utilities should recognize this regression would reintroduce precisely the type of interference we sought to eliminate.
2. Politicians alone cannot shoulder blame for our current energy predicament. Polling consistently reveals a fundamental voter contradiction: demanding climate action while simultaneously refusing any associated costs. This expectation is fundamentally irrational given fossil fuels' foundational role in industrial civilization. Replacing this infrastructure within constrained time-frames inevitably incurs substantial costs - claims to the contrary are simply dishonest.
3. A genuine commitment to addressing climate change would manifest as straightforward carbon taxation. Such revenue could fund universal basic income programs to offset regressive effects. Instead, voters repeatedly elect officials who implement regulatory approaches that obscure true costs, rendering them less visible to consumers.
4. While solar and battery technology will likely achieve market dominance eventually, government intervention to manipulate this timeline is unwarranted. Market forces should determine adoption rates. However, renewable proliferation alone will not resolve climate change - cheaper energy will accelerate economic growth in emerging markets, merely reducing carbon intensity rather than absolute emissions.
5. Australia's fossil fuel royalties likely provide sufficient resources to address domestic climate adaptation needs. Climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh and Solomon Islands possess no legal leverage against Australian fossil fuel industries. Should their diplomatic complaints persist, Australia could simply embargo fossil fuel exports to these countries and deport their non-citizen nationals to demonstrate our leverage. Our regional position remains dominant - neighboring countries' dependence on Australia exceeds any reciprocal need.
Re your second paragraph: all we are really looking at doing is replacing our aging coal generator fleet with a better alternative as they come to the end of their operational life. We would have to replace them with SOMETHING anyway, so choosing renwables which, even with firming, remain, at worst, one of the cheaper options while ALSO taking useful action to reduce the civilisationally existential problem of climate change by greatly reducing the single largest source of our emissions is not merely economically wise but actually one of the best investments we could possibly make.
Unfortunately you haven’t understood the main problem.
Renewables are cheap-ish for developers but cheap to build doesn’t mean a cheap system. Massive overbuilding of wind/solar/batteries/networks makes the electricity system cost more, so we pay more.
A lot of commenters seem to be missing the point of the article.. which is supposedly independent regulatory bodies are NOT regulating independently but seem to be feeding a ministerial department exactly what it wants to hear. That is alarming to say the least.
Australians used to be able to trust and pride ourselves on our high state capacity founded on sensible politicians who understood their place and powers and a competent civil service that understood a) serving a people is just that, and b) that policy (for better or worse) has a technical aspect AND a cultural effect that should be weighed seriously. Not anymore it seems.
No, you are missing the more important point: unless you have detailed and expert inside knowledge of this whole regulatory system - which you certainly don't and of which I have only a rudimentary understanding - you absolutely need to know whether or not those writing a polemic of this kind are themselves truly expert and, maybe even more importantly, even vaguely objective, impartial and evidence-backed. This post meets none of these criteria.
If the author had come to the conclusion that ‘big coal and gas’ were benefiting from this regulatory dysfunction instead of renewables would you be accusing him of the same thing? If your knowledge is “rudimentary” why should accept your judgment that the author is unworthy to work in this area? Pot meet kettle.
Frankly it doesn’t matter who benefits from the corruption, or how noble the cause seems, it’s still corruption and alarming and bloody unaustralian.
For what is worth, I do have a fair bit of expertise in policy, governance and politics (mostly in foreign policy and trade). I have family members who DO work in this the energy and I have had many a fascinating conversation over Sunday lunches. You can get this kind of capture in any government domain. And even then, you only need a nose to smell a rat.
Re the introductory paragraph "Breaking down how much of this investment is necessary regardless of generation type (e.g. coal, gas, renewables, or even nuclear) and how much is a cost premium for solar and wind is an important first step for understanding if these renewable energy sources are worth the cost."
Isn't this a very incomplete description of the ideal investment analysis. Shouldn't it be analysis based on investment necessary regardless of generation type, then the cost premium for each ofthe different generation type, not just a cost premium analysis of solar and wind?
The problem is that there's really not much that overlaps between the systems proposed. There's not a 'base' with 'add ons' for a different generation source. They're just entirely different.
Hadn't realised Aidan Morrison was from the Centre for Independent Studies and is therefore taking dictation from the likes if the US Heritage Foundation and Koch...
I think you'll find that Aidan is one of the few people who actually read the AEMO and CSIRO analysis in enough detail to find serious flaws and omissions. He began this examination independently prior to working at CIS—in fact I linked to an article he wrote prior to being at CIS noting the omission of major transmission project costs from the method of costing renewables.
I need to add that, while I understand why your are now defensive about Aidan's involvement with the CIS, unless he was press-ganged into working for them, your claim that he researched and wrote this material before joining up is staggeringly limp and irrational, particularly as it may well have been this work that helped get him the position.
You are playing with fire and associating with dangerous extremists. If you care about your reputation, you need to do a bit of basic research of your own about exactly who you are backing. Or, are you a proud fellow-traveller with the Atlas Network?
The problem is he doesn't understand them so his conclusions are usually about 180 degrees wrong. For example lets say we need to spend $25bn on transmission, that works out at 3bn/y across the NEM in finance depreciation and operation or $250 per customer on the NEM. Wind and solar work out at about $70/MWh or about $100/MWh cheaper than new coal and $150/MWh cheaper than new gas. So replacing all but 5 TWh of 130 TWh of coal and gas across the NEM would save $10-12bn/y after paying the finance depreciation and operation costs of the wind/solar/battery farms.
1. Coal is currently selling for about $130-160/tonne at the mine. A supercritical coal plant uses about 0.4 tonnes of coal per MWh. $52-65/MWh for fuel + freight
2. A new coal plant with waste dam, cooling water supply, coal storage and is $4-5 m/MW, finance, depreciation and insurance about $500m/y
3. Average CF of black coal in Australia is around 62%. While the newest most efficient plants are higher, that only lasts until a more efficient source comes along, so using a lifetime CF of more than 65% would not be acceptable to a financier unless the plant had a secure exceptionally cheap source of coal or a really tight PPA. so at 65% that is $85/ MWh
4. While Supercritical plants have lower staffing requirements than old plants, the materials used in the hot path are more expensive so $30/MWh for operation and maintenance over the long term is quite optimistic.
5. NOx/SOx/PM2.5 scrubbers are not fitted to existing Australian power stations but they would be required on new ones, these cost $5-10/MWh to operate not including capital cost
6. Waste disposal at $20/tonne and water at $200-2,000/ML adds another $3-5/MWh.
This article claims that the data relied on (i.e. CSIRO Gencost) didn't account for the full costs of renewables, yet they clearly stated when releasing the 2023-24 Gencost Report that "...updated modelling found that renewables - including costs associated with additional storage and transmission - remain the lowest cost, new build technology."
I believe this matches the findings of international experts like Lazard.
maybe some state capture analysis on the systematic problems in the market might help the overall understanding.
blaming politicians for engaging in politics would be naive for someone born yesterday but coming from this corner of the world just looks like cherry picking
The reason why the real cost of unreliable energy is larger than the authorities claim is explained by Schernikau and Smith in The Unpopular Truth About Electricity and the Future of Energy. In brief, wind and solar power can only survive as parasites on more efficient generators and the authorities don’t count the full cost of RE, as Aidan and others have shown. See this video for the Schernikau story in 20 minutes. https://youtu.be/j3d4348UxvY
They wrote that the recent period when the progressive West embraced “carbon mitigation” policies will be seen as a potentially catastrophic aberration in the history of the Western world. Look out for my next book “How wind droughts almost destroyed western civilization as we know it.”
The centrepiece of The Unpopular Truth is the analysis of the full cost of electricity to explain that the so-called renewables are a drain on the net energy balance of the industrialized world. They are energy stealers, incapable of making an independent living, leaning on more efficient providers like spoiled children who never leave home. They borrow your car without asking and they never clean up after themselves.
The author’s unpopular story can be summed up in three statements.
1. Present and future energy requirements far outstrip Net Zero pathways and possible “renewable” generation.
2. There is a disconnect between the installed capacity of unreliable energy and generated electricity due to the ten factors that account for the full cost of energy (FCOE.)
3. The lack of viable long-term grid-scale storage.
Finally they look at the way governments are treating the three main objectives of energy policy: security of supply, affordability and environmental protection. They conclude that net zero programs focus simplistically on reducing CO2 emissions, blind to the harm inflicted by “climate mitigation” policies, while the two primary objectives are undermined at the same time. A veritable trifecta of failure.
Clearly the transition to unreliable energy is not going to happen, it is just a matter of how many more trillions will be spent making power more expensive and less reliable before the Wind and Solar Titanic does a U-turn.
Schernikau and Smith, you have to do a lot better, because about 90% of their claims are demonstrably untrue.
a) Currently the world uses about 12 PWh/y of primary energy of which about 3.5 PWh is transformed into useful work i.e. sensible, heat cold or mechanical work. By 2033 Germany and the UK will be generating about 2 GWh/square km/y from renewables. There is about 150-160m square km of land and coastal waters suitable for renewable generation almost all of it with higher renewable energy availability per square km that the Germany or the UK, thus there is potential for at least 300 PWh from renewables or about 100 times current useful demand or 20-30 times the demand needed to bring the world to Western European standards.
b) Almost all thermal grids have enough capacity to supply 30-60% more energy per year than they actually did, eg in 2010 before wind and solar were relevant, the US had 770 GW of Fossil fuels, 95GW of nuclear and just over 100 GW of hydro/pumped hydro to supply a peak of 610 GW and an average of 480 GW. Fossil fuels and nuclear supplied an average of of 400 GW at 90% for nuclear, 85% for coal and 50% for gas it could have averaged 600 GW from thermal capacity.
If it installed enough wind and solar to average 600 GW over the year, in the worst week last year with existing hydro and nuclear the US would have generated an average of 600-620 GW from renewables, hydro and nuclear. Over its worst week, demand averaged around 580 GW so there would have been little or no net change in storage levels. To average 600 GW over the year the US would need to install about 1,900 GW of wind and solar or about 230 MW/square km. Germany and the UK are aiming fro 1,000 MW per square km in far more denselly populated land.
I like to get complete and balanced evidence and arguments by (a) relying on impartial and expert opinion and (b) sampling a broad range of such opinions, rather than just a small, narrow and politically situated set.
And, just by the way, that "I like to focus on the evidence and arguments..." line is as limp as it is clicked. Almost all of us lack sufficient expertise to know what constitutes the full, necessary and reliable quantum of evidence needed to make an intelligent judgement, nor yet sufficient expertise to weigh and balance all that evidence to form a sound judgement. Therefore we have little choice but to rely on expert opinion, which is precisely why it bloody well does matter that we get a good sample of genuinely expert opinion, rather than second-tier commentators and political operatives.
You actually offered no real evidence at all, just a few predetermined arguments, so your "defence" is an abject failure as well as a cloche.
But sometimes you need to check your sources for either bias (who funds them) or relevant skills and knowledge both in terms of a) do they understand energy or health or housing and b) is their knowledge up to date.
For example Ben Beattie does have a very good understanding of MW, Volts, Amps etc so that is a start and his understanding of the some of the real world issues with grid stability, reactive power, matching instantaneous supply with demand is excellent, straight out of the text book. But his long experience in the gas industry makes him, like all of us biased toward the familiar and his lack of understanding of the interaction of wind, solar, hydro, storage and demand response shows he has not kept up with the latest knowledge.
Aidan on the other hand has no relevant knowledge and is from an extremely biased source, so I don't see why you let yourself be persuaded by his arguments, which anyone with more than a modicum of knowledge can easily debunk
Actually the privatisation of roads, poles and wires, water and gas pipelines and their writing up in value to justify higher prices charged to industry and consumers resembles the fiscal system of pre-Revolutionary France whereby the whole country was impoverished invisibly - we are now rediscovering a cost of living crisis. Don't worry, it can be made worse!
A classic is the ACT where water that cost cents oer kl years ago now costs up to $5.15 per kl.
I checked out your posted "refutation" of Mark Diesendorf. Apart from the fact that it is paranoid, coal-supporting not-even-faintly-peer-reviewed ranting, it is also from Ben Beattie, whose main fame is the he writes for The Spectator, who, just for one example, defames Professor Andrew Blakers - one of our most respected and eminent scientists - and does so without a shred of evidence.
So, mister "I prefer to focus on the evidence" all the so-called evidence you have provided is from utterly dodgy far-right grey "literature".
Considering where you are posting and all the grief and damage being caused in the US by a regime pretty much run by the Christo-fascist Heritage Foundation, which is a key member of the genuinely sinister Atlas Network, whose Australian affiliates include the Centre for Independent Studies (itself lead, inter alia, by the insane Maurice Newman) you have two choices, Cameron:
1. do the due diligence you should have done before posting this garbage and apologise and withdraw it, or
2. admit that you are part of this ugly and dangerous madness and hang your head in shame.
1. The very rationale behind electricity market privatization was to insulate energy policy from political meddling. Those advocating for a return to publicly owned utilities should recognize this regression would reintroduce precisely the type of interference we sought to eliminate.
2. Politicians alone cannot shoulder blame for our current energy predicament. Polling consistently reveals a fundamental voter contradiction: demanding climate action while simultaneously refusing any associated costs. This expectation is fundamentally irrational given fossil fuels' foundational role in industrial civilization. Replacing this infrastructure within constrained time-frames inevitably incurs substantial costs - claims to the contrary are simply dishonest.
3. A genuine commitment to addressing climate change would manifest as straightforward carbon taxation. Such revenue could fund universal basic income programs to offset regressive effects. Instead, voters repeatedly elect officials who implement regulatory approaches that obscure true costs, rendering them less visible to consumers.
4. While solar and battery technology will likely achieve market dominance eventually, government intervention to manipulate this timeline is unwarranted. Market forces should determine adoption rates. However, renewable proliferation alone will not resolve climate change - cheaper energy will accelerate economic growth in emerging markets, merely reducing carbon intensity rather than absolute emissions.
5. Australia's fossil fuel royalties likely provide sufficient resources to address domestic climate adaptation needs. Climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh and Solomon Islands possess no legal leverage against Australian fossil fuel industries. Should their diplomatic complaints persist, Australia could simply embargo fossil fuel exports to these countries and deport their non-citizen nationals to demonstrate our leverage. Our regional position remains dominant - neighboring countries' dependence on Australia exceeds any reciprocal need.
Re your second paragraph: all we are really looking at doing is replacing our aging coal generator fleet with a better alternative as they come to the end of their operational life. We would have to replace them with SOMETHING anyway, so choosing renwables which, even with firming, remain, at worst, one of the cheaper options while ALSO taking useful action to reduce the civilisationally existential problem of climate change by greatly reducing the single largest source of our emissions is not merely economically wise but actually one of the best investments we could possibly make.
Unfortunately you haven’t understood the main problem.
Renewables are cheap-ish for developers but cheap to build doesn’t mean a cheap system. Massive overbuilding of wind/solar/batteries/networks makes the electricity system cost more, so we pay more.
However, I will admit your third paragraph makes a great deal of sense.
Your fifth paragraph is the most morally repugnant thing I have read for some time.
A lot of commenters seem to be missing the point of the article.. which is supposedly independent regulatory bodies are NOT regulating independently but seem to be feeding a ministerial department exactly what it wants to hear. That is alarming to say the least.
Australians used to be able to trust and pride ourselves on our high state capacity founded on sensible politicians who understood their place and powers and a competent civil service that understood a) serving a people is just that, and b) that policy (for better or worse) has a technical aspect AND a cultural effect that should be weighed seriously. Not anymore it seems.
No, you are missing the more important point: unless you have detailed and expert inside knowledge of this whole regulatory system - which you certainly don't and of which I have only a rudimentary understanding - you absolutely need to know whether or not those writing a polemic of this kind are themselves truly expert and, maybe even more importantly, even vaguely objective, impartial and evidence-backed. This post meets none of these criteria.
If the author had come to the conclusion that ‘big coal and gas’ were benefiting from this regulatory dysfunction instead of renewables would you be accusing him of the same thing? If your knowledge is “rudimentary” why should accept your judgment that the author is unworthy to work in this area? Pot meet kettle.
Frankly it doesn’t matter who benefits from the corruption, or how noble the cause seems, it’s still corruption and alarming and bloody unaustralian.
For what is worth, I do have a fair bit of expertise in policy, governance and politics (mostly in foreign policy and trade). I have family members who DO work in this the energy and I have had many a fascinating conversation over Sunday lunches. You can get this kind of capture in any government domain. And even then, you only need a nose to smell a rat.
Re the introductory paragraph "Breaking down how much of this investment is necessary regardless of generation type (e.g. coal, gas, renewables, or even nuclear) and how much is a cost premium for solar and wind is an important first step for understanding if these renewable energy sources are worth the cost."
Isn't this a very incomplete description of the ideal investment analysis. Shouldn't it be analysis based on investment necessary regardless of generation type, then the cost premium for each ofthe different generation type, not just a cost premium analysis of solar and wind?
The problem is that there's really not much that overlaps between the systems proposed. There's not a 'base' with 'add ons' for a different generation source. They're just entirely different.
Sure. What you said is more what I meant. We should rank order the total cost of all possible investment options that achieve the desired result
Hadn't realised Aidan Morrison was from the Centre for Independent Studies and is therefore taking dictation from the likes if the US Heritage Foundation and Koch...
I think you'll find that Aidan is one of the few people who actually read the AEMO and CSIRO analysis in enough detail to find serious flaws and omissions. He began this examination independently prior to working at CIS—in fact I linked to an article he wrote prior to being at CIS noting the omission of major transmission project costs from the method of costing renewables.
I need to add that, while I understand why your are now defensive about Aidan's involvement with the CIS, unless he was press-ganged into working for them, your claim that he researched and wrote this material before joining up is staggeringly limp and irrational, particularly as it may well have been this work that helped get him the position.
You are playing with fire and associating with dangerous extremists. If you care about your reputation, you need to do a bit of basic research of your own about exactly who you are backing. Or, are you a proud fellow-traveller with the Atlas Network?
The problem is he doesn't understand them so his conclusions are usually about 180 degrees wrong. For example lets say we need to spend $25bn on transmission, that works out at 3bn/y across the NEM in finance depreciation and operation or $250 per customer on the NEM. Wind and solar work out at about $70/MWh or about $100/MWh cheaper than new coal and $150/MWh cheaper than new gas. So replacing all but 5 TWh of 130 TWh of coal and gas across the NEM would save $10-12bn/y after paying the finance depreciation and operation costs of the wind/solar/battery farms.
How do you know new coal is $170/MWh?
1. Coal is currently selling for about $130-160/tonne at the mine. A supercritical coal plant uses about 0.4 tonnes of coal per MWh. $52-65/MWh for fuel + freight
2. A new coal plant with waste dam, cooling water supply, coal storage and is $4-5 m/MW, finance, depreciation and insurance about $500m/y
3. Average CF of black coal in Australia is around 62%. While the newest most efficient plants are higher, that only lasts until a more efficient source comes along, so using a lifetime CF of more than 65% would not be acceptable to a financier unless the plant had a secure exceptionally cheap source of coal or a really tight PPA. so at 65% that is $85/ MWh
4. While Supercritical plants have lower staffing requirements than old plants, the materials used in the hot path are more expensive so $30/MWh for operation and maintenance over the long term is quite optimistic.
5. NOx/SOx/PM2.5 scrubbers are not fitted to existing Australian power stations but they would be required on new ones, these cost $5-10/MWh to operate not including capital cost
6. Waste disposal at $20/tonne and water at $200-2,000/ML adds another $3-5/MWh.
Net result $170-200/MWh
I think we’ll all find your numbers are way off.
Please provide alternatives
I think you'll find that is an assertion unbacked by evidence.
This article claims that the data relied on (i.e. CSIRO Gencost) didn't account for the full costs of renewables, yet they clearly stated when releasing the 2023-24 Gencost Report that "...updated modelling found that renewables - including costs associated with additional storage and transmission - remain the lowest cost, new build technology."
I believe this matches the findings of international experts like Lazard.
So, who should I believe and why?
GenCost claims to provide developer costs, not consumer costs.
GenCost uses unrealistically positive figures for renewables, and unrealistically negative figures for coal.
These are facts.
maybe some state capture analysis on the systematic problems in the market might help the overall understanding.
blaming politicians for engaging in politics would be naive for someone born yesterday but coming from this corner of the world just looks like cherry picking
The reason why the real cost of unreliable energy is larger than the authorities claim is explained by Schernikau and Smith in The Unpopular Truth About Electricity and the Future of Energy. In brief, wind and solar power can only survive as parasites on more efficient generators and the authorities don’t count the full cost of RE, as Aidan and others have shown. See this video for the Schernikau story in 20 minutes. https://youtu.be/j3d4348UxvY
They wrote that the recent period when the progressive West embraced “carbon mitigation” policies will be seen as a potentially catastrophic aberration in the history of the Western world. Look out for my next book “How wind droughts almost destroyed western civilization as we know it.”
The centrepiece of The Unpopular Truth is the analysis of the full cost of electricity to explain that the so-called renewables are a drain on the net energy balance of the industrialized world. They are energy stealers, incapable of making an independent living, leaning on more efficient providers like spoiled children who never leave home. They borrow your car without asking and they never clean up after themselves.
The author’s unpopular story can be summed up in three statements.
1. Present and future energy requirements far outstrip Net Zero pathways and possible “renewable” generation.
2. There is a disconnect between the installed capacity of unreliable energy and generated electricity due to the ten factors that account for the full cost of energy (FCOE.)
3. The lack of viable long-term grid-scale storage.
Finally they look at the way governments are treating the three main objectives of energy policy: security of supply, affordability and environmental protection. They conclude that net zero programs focus simplistically on reducing CO2 emissions, blind to the harm inflicted by “climate mitigation” policies, while the two primary objectives are undermined at the same time. A veritable trifecta of failure.
Clearly the transition to unreliable energy is not going to happen, it is just a matter of how many more trillions will be spent making power more expensive and less reliable before the Wind and Solar Titanic does a U-turn.
Schernikau and Smith, you have to do a lot better, because about 90% of their claims are demonstrably untrue.
a) Currently the world uses about 12 PWh/y of primary energy of which about 3.5 PWh is transformed into useful work i.e. sensible, heat cold or mechanical work. By 2033 Germany and the UK will be generating about 2 GWh/square km/y from renewables. There is about 150-160m square km of land and coastal waters suitable for renewable generation almost all of it with higher renewable energy availability per square km that the Germany or the UK, thus there is potential for at least 300 PWh from renewables or about 100 times current useful demand or 20-30 times the demand needed to bring the world to Western European standards.
b) Almost all thermal grids have enough capacity to supply 30-60% more energy per year than they actually did, eg in 2010 before wind and solar were relevant, the US had 770 GW of Fossil fuels, 95GW of nuclear and just over 100 GW of hydro/pumped hydro to supply a peak of 610 GW and an average of 480 GW. Fossil fuels and nuclear supplied an average of of 400 GW at 90% for nuclear, 85% for coal and 50% for gas it could have averaged 600 GW from thermal capacity.
If it installed enough wind and solar to average 600 GW over the year, in the worst week last year with existing hydro and nuclear the US would have generated an average of 600-620 GW from renewables, hydro and nuclear. Over its worst week, demand averaged around 580 GW so there would have been little or no net change in storage levels. To average 600 GW over the year the US would need to install about 1,900 GW of wind and solar or about 230 MW/square km. Germany and the UK are aiming fro 1,000 MW per square km in far more denselly populated land.
I like to get complete and balanced evidence and arguments by (a) relying on impartial and expert opinion and (b) sampling a broad range of such opinions, rather than just a small, narrow and politically situated set.
And, just by the way, that "I like to focus on the evidence and arguments..." line is as limp as it is clicked. Almost all of us lack sufficient expertise to know what constitutes the full, necessary and reliable quantum of evidence needed to make an intelligent judgement, nor yet sufficient expertise to weigh and balance all that evidence to form a sound judgement. Therefore we have little choice but to rely on expert opinion, which is precisely why it bloody well does matter that we get a good sample of genuinely expert opinion, rather than second-tier commentators and political operatives.
You actually offered no real evidence at all, just a few predetermined arguments, so your "defence" is an abject failure as well as a cloche.
This was posted as a response to Cameron's comment, but the system misplaced it here.
Also, bloody auto correct refuses to recognise the word 'cliche'
Your "experts" are The Wall Street Journal, the Atlas-network-aligned Centre for Independent Studies and Senators Canavan and Van...
How stupid do you actually think we are?
I like to focus on the evidence and arguments regardless of who is making them.
But sometimes you need to check your sources for either bias (who funds them) or relevant skills and knowledge both in terms of a) do they understand energy or health or housing and b) is their knowledge up to date.
For example Ben Beattie does have a very good understanding of MW, Volts, Amps etc so that is a start and his understanding of the some of the real world issues with grid stability, reactive power, matching instantaneous supply with demand is excellent, straight out of the text book. But his long experience in the gas industry makes him, like all of us biased toward the familiar and his lack of understanding of the interaction of wind, solar, hydro, storage and demand response shows he has not kept up with the latest knowledge.
Aidan on the other hand has no relevant knowledge and is from an extremely biased source, so I don't see why you let yourself be persuaded by his arguments, which anyone with more than a modicum of knowledge can easily debunk
Go on, debunk them then.
I have many times. I think many of your arguments have a grain of truth. Aidan is just unbelievable
Don't get me started:)
PS https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
Okay, don't start. There's enough nonsense in the world already.
Actually the privatisation of roads, poles and wires, water and gas pipelines and their writing up in value to justify higher prices charged to industry and consumers resembles the fiscal system of pre-Revolutionary France whereby the whole country was impoverished invisibly - we are now rediscovering a cost of living crisis. Don't worry, it can be made worse!
A classic is the ACT where water that cost cents oer kl years ago now costs up to $5.15 per kl.
I checked out your posted "refutation" of Mark Diesendorf. Apart from the fact that it is paranoid, coal-supporting not-even-faintly-peer-reviewed ranting, it is also from Ben Beattie, whose main fame is the he writes for The Spectator, who, just for one example, defames Professor Andrew Blakers - one of our most respected and eminent scientists - and does so without a shred of evidence.
So, mister "I prefer to focus on the evidence" all the so-called evidence you have provided is from utterly dodgy far-right grey "literature".
Considering where you are posting and all the grief and damage being caused in the US by a regime pretty much run by the Christo-fascist Heritage Foundation, which is a key member of the genuinely sinister Atlas Network, whose Australian affiliates include the Centre for Independent Studies (itself lead, inter alia, by the insane Maurice Newman) you have two choices, Cameron:
1. do the due diligence you should have done before posting this garbage and apologise and withdraw it, or
2. admit that you are part of this ugly and dangerous madness and hang your head in shame.
I debunked Diesendorf’s claims using facts and logic.
Feel free to make an argument against any of the 63 points.
As well as your sources, your supporters here say a lot about the quality of this article.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/slowing-the-rise-of-power-prices
This is evidence-free ranting.