No way …. And what ever is the final price … every 20 years the country has to pull down and rebuild …. Who was the dill that dreamt up this crazy plan.
Who dreamt it up? Those global assets management companies who have shares in companies involved in all aspects of this from manufacturing the equipment to owning the energy companies and will financially benefit from the yearly never-ending flow of billions of dollars in government grants milked from taxpayers and constantly rising cost of power bills.
Regardless, they will bill us to pay for their day dream.... dialing back the standard of living for all but the wealthiest Australians. as costs blow out like every other project Labor has committed us to. Appalling decisions !
I am a 59 yr old electrician. Solar won't power even 25 % of Australia. It can't handle the load and the switching of loads. Electrical load presents huge mechanical resistance to the power source. Renewables is a scam.
Sounds like you need to catch up with modern technology. 30 odd years in the industry is a lot of time for progress to happen when you are open to innovating.
33 years of the same failure is hard to ignore. RCD's , automation, electronics, match head IT'S, advancement of LED'S. None subsidised by the taxpayer. Not A Single One... Please, keep banging on about your investment...
So basically they will force home owners to pay for producing and storing energy then charge them for it as well :/ And even then it will still cost too much lol
@@vndk8r The critical heating point as you say cant be stopped.. Climate change is happening you cant stop it. The planet has roughly 7 billion years left, i would not want to be here in the later stages its gonna get very hot.
@@vndk8r The earth was 4C hotter a few thousand years ago, Civilization thrived. We are actually in an Ice Age atm, Warming is good for the planet and humanity.
They told us to put solar panels on the roof, buy energy efficient household appliances and EV’s. Yet the price of electricity is going up and up as my bank balance is going down.
I barely pay anything for electricity because of my solar panels and batteries. My parents have twice the solar panels I have without the battery and they make money each year.
Have Solar panels so don't pay for energy (provided we're smart and use the appliances when the sun shines). A battery is next, and this will remove our evening and morning usage. Got an EV so we don't pay for fuel, and charge it off the excess solar the house doesn't use - thanks to our Zappi smart charger, it does it automatically. So there are ways of making it work. People just need to stop digging up and burning stuff unnecessarily. This plan seems to highlight it is possible. The Liberals and their supporters are just butt hurt their Nuclear brain fart is stinking up the place with its insane cost.
@@peterking8564 while those who cannot afford solar subsidize those who can, you use the grid as your credit for solar excess then cash in when solar doesn't work, thus failing to contribute your fair share to grid maintenance. This cannot go on, this will require those with solar to pay some sort of connection fee to equal their contribution to using the grid as their credit and debit solar bank. Any one with solar battery back up, makes solar even more unaffordable for those who cannot afford solar. Anyone on solar without grid back up living a typical life of anyone on grid solar will pay tens of thousands for their system. Solar panels cradle to toxic grave and batteries that last even less time will all come along and is already a problem being ignored so far. Subsidies must be eliminated its a false future and why your energy costs keep going up. Hiding the true costs.
Utopia (sic) - have a govt regulated dept create an “independent “ expert report that govt officials can cite as “independent “ and as evidence supporting govt policy but that has as its core inputs, guidelines from govt’s own policies! This is true Orwellian genius !
There used to be a comedy show called the Goodies They would occasionally mock politics and various contemporary societal trends They once mocked pet food or used it as a metaphor to mock something else, in this comedy skit they had 9 out of ten veterinary scientists recommend bowchow for your dog The advertisement had a dog given the choice of eating Bowchow or a bowl of broken glass or burning coals . The dog first chose the broken glass before being pushed towards the Bowchow I get the feeling that Green Energy is a great steaming bowl of Bowchow.
@@infidel202 that’s what’s asked around the world in many. Countries and leaderships nasty game played by the so called supper powers using media with everything their power to justify themselves as correct selves as correct screw the people they are just a necessary pediment
Joan Kirner (Victorian Labor Premier) was the first to sell off 51% of the Loy Yang Power Station in 1992. The workforce of the SEC peaked at nearly 23,000 in the early 1980s, in the early years of the Cain/Kirner Labor government. It had been cut to around 13,000 by the time Jeff Kennett became Premier.
I joined a privately owned energy retailer near the start of deregulation. One of my first jobs was to assess which customers would be vulnerable to churn (getting a better offer from a competitor). I found masses of customers who had been getting so ripped off under the old SECV tariffs that we offered them up to 35% discounts and still made a reasonable margin on their account. When I enquired why historically these customers had not been advised to change tariffs the answer was the onus was on the customer to determine if they were on the cheapest available option. So much for government ownership being better for consumers than a competitive market!
Yep. Sitting pretty in WA with the cheapest power and gas due to government owned power and infrastructure. Short sightedness screwed the east coast big time.
We have more wind and solar than ever before ,,,if it really is the cheapest form of generation , our bills should be going down. But they are going up. Trying to run a grid using variable unreliable wind and solar is NOT cheap.
All very convenient how they define the approach so they don't have to face the awkward realities of a failing energy system. No hard decisions being made here...
Well we had the cheapest energy on the planet with coal for decade's... now we have the most expensive with less then 40% renewables... The thing is a RORT
Sure its cheap. That's cause no one wants it. People are realising that coal is just speeding up the process to making the planet uninhabitable. But you keep sitting in your slowly heating up saucepan like a good little frog.
Sure its cheap. That's cause no one wants it. People are realising that coal and nuclear is just speeding up the process to making the planet uninhabitable. But you keep sitting in your slowly heating up saucepan like a good little frog.
What the believers forget is that the windmills and solar panel will have to be replaced after 10 yrs for batteries 15 yrs for wind turbines and maybe 20 yrs for solar panels. TRIPPLE THEIR ESTIMATED COST
Why do I have to keep my fridge/freezer running in my caravan in case of “brown outs” and fuel in my generator in a first world country? Can anyone else remember the 1980-90’s when things were good.
Get a battery instead. Convert to electric motors. It's cheaper to run if you also put solar on the top of the caravan. Heaps of conversion sites if you look for them.
Umm. No. They are not renewable. Unless you are planning on another asteroid hitting to wipe us all out in a nuclear winter like the dinosaurs, then waiting a few millions years for sediment and tectonic movements to bury our corpses, then have some mutant cockroach mine and drill the earth for all our dead bodies to burn, then sure, that's renewable. But you do you mate.
Law of Diminishing Returns: each new 1% increment in renewables is more expensive than the previous increment. Law of Follow the Money: A more complex and expensive electricity system generates more money for AEMO. Law of Left Wing Virtue: Climate Virtue trumps everything, even blackouts and unaffordable electricity.
We must have low cost energy as a civilised, prosperous nation. That means nuclear, coal and gas, until cheaper sources such as fusion become available. Renewables will not meet the demand, and they all know it.
How do you incentivise rooftop solar and batteries? Easy Drive up electricity prices so that the economics suddenly work. Voila - you have consumers forced into buying and providing CES
AEMO isn’t building in the delays to projects due to environmental state approvals nor the cumulative cost to communities of the massive land area required for the generation and transmission infrastructure. Residential solar and battery solutions are quicker to implement as they aren’t hamstrung but environmental approvals. We have a plan to build houses but no policy to mandate solar and battery installation in new builds.
“No matter how un achievable, un necessary or expensive they may be” That’s how you know you’re dealing with fanatics. There is no logic to this. It’s like a religious cult.
It's very obvious that these targets are simply un obtainable. Sky news did a good doco on Australia's energy. Individuals who are super rich are struggling to imagine how hard it is at scale.
Wow this place is an echo chamber. CSIRO modelled nuclear many times, it doesn’t stack up. Media can withhold information to influence your opinion, and this channel is literally a think tank!
That’s incorrect - the cost of renewables have not been correctly added up, the CSRIO treated transmission as a sunk cost - nothing to do with politics.
Thank you for explaining the bureaucratic mess. Policy based on government parameters restricting policy outcomes, not most efficient result which may include nuclear
This whole piece is about using big words to pretend something is going wrong and it's probably effective on people who have no idea about the topic. The piece dismisses the opinions of experts as if these media spin doctors somehow know better. They don't.
The quickest way to net zero is to allow the TRUTH about energy to be placed on the public agenda. I know dreaming again, but if enough of we the people stand up and demand the truth then maybe common sense will be allowed back into the debate instead of corporate greed.
Artificially narrowing scope of an examination has been much used in the past. For example, when it came to using the corridor earmarked for the M2 in Sydney, the best use of that was to build a road. There was not an examination of what would be the best use of a bucket money with a flexible look at alternative routes for things like rail lines in contrast to roadways.
Current Australian policy will have no effect whatsoever on what is happening in Africa, South America, India or East Asia. Countries like Australia will be impoverished and all of our "sacrifices" will be for naught.
So how much are they saying it will cost us to reduce global temps? Will it cost us the complete decimation of our economy? Will it cost us our quality of life? Will it cost us our homes? Will energy be a luxury only the very rich can afford?
A good little point is made about how the houseowner pays (possibly with gov subsidies) for small solar. It is cast as a cheat, and the centre says it is less cost efficient. But actually, perhaps it is brilliant, people gladly putting their own money into the sytem and not feeling ripped off. That is a great trick. As for efficiency - well in the case of coal plants and nuclear plants - yes, size matters. But for household solar? If the home owner is buying, there is no land that the government has to buy. There is no approval process and consultation that the government has to do. There is no compensation for the government to pay to people who complain. This is not a trick, it is a feature. These are massive cost savings! So in this case (NOT small modular nuclear) small might well be more efficent.
Sounds completely logical that Nuclear is not an option when considering the lowest cost solution when coal is obviously not on the table. Gas shouldn't be an option either. Australia has ample solar, wind and hydro options that are not utilised effectively. We need to stop burning stuff and start harnessing the regenerative options we have. If we tax the multinational gas and mining companies currently plundering our sovereign wealth correctly, we can pay for everything from those royalties. Just like Norway, and the Qatar does. But no, we instead pay them subsidies, so they pay no tax, and they make us pay through the nose for our own gas.
However as part of ISP it does state. GenCost finds nuclear generation to be a lot more expensive than other options to generate electricity. Also, the time it would take to design and build nuclear generation, may be too slow to replace retiring coal fired generation
What Kean is doing is trying to trick us and the gullible fall for it. He states that the cheapest pathway to replace the *current system* is wind and solar. However, what he surreptitiously avoided admitting was that it is like for like ie: 1GW of coal generation for an equivalent 1GW of renewable generation, the clue is in his words, "replace the current system", all the while lying by convenient omission that you need *at least* 4 times the renewables for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Then there is the battery backup which will cost 100's of Billion of $, the cost of having gas as a back up and the cost or replacing the wind and solar factories every 20 years and the cost of the estimated 28000kms of grid network to connect it all up. That also doesn't cover the cost of the carbon offsets required when they do need to use gas (or coal) which will also cost billions. This is even if we can get the raw materials to build these fairy story batteries, there will be a shortage of these materials.
Don't look now, but this is the same dynamic that led to the formalization of a 2° target as the 'scientific consensus' What happened is that the politicians asked the scientists what level of warming would result in significant costs if exceeded. The reasonable answer is 2°. That's not the level of warming where policy costs and policy benefits are likely to balance however. Politicians didn't understand or consider that to be a relevant question. Scientists don't want to interfere with the messaging or stick their neck out by contradicting it due to very serious social pressure and groupthink William Nordhaus won a Nobel specifically for climate economics and estimated 3° to the the cost-benefit balancing point. Another author using the same method, but with warming costs 10x as high, found 2.1° as the balance point. This level of cost is not supported by mainstream science and it only just gets to that 2° level. The method also assumes ideal efficient policy, which tends to be half the cost of actual policy - something that the ISP saga demonstrates clearly is not realistic Not only is the ISP least cost rhetoric a house of cards, the entire net zero by 2050 target is as well, via the same set of dynamics where political choices are wrapped up in scientific modeling based on those choices
Coal at international prices isn't cheap either. I would like CIS to do a cashflow analysis where you calculate the return on investment for an average electricity price. Do it for AEMO mix, large nuclear, and black and brown coal. I learned this type of analysis at UTS graduate business school, in subject called finance for business. Investors have a return they expect based on the risk.
Thank you for this summary. Is this something we can change as Australian voters? Are liberals better on this than labour? What are our action options here?
By 2030 most miles will be electric. Solar today is the cheapest source of energy on the planet. Solar PV price has gone down by 80 percent in the last 10 years. Solar PVs will keep dropping in price. Batteries keep dropping in price. The electric cars are cheaper to maintain and cleaner than ice vehicles. It costs $11 to charge an electric car versus $90 for a petrol car for 100 kms. This transition is going ahead in the future as the markets, car industry and investors like Tesla have clean energy goals. Oil and gas will be obsolete by 2030. Australia has a solar advantage. Nuclear is a doom day plan for Australia as it will be an expensive option, nuclear makes sense only in cold frozen areas like Russia. Furthermore a nuclear disaster due to bushfires will fry a lot of people.Its time to think wisely as nuclear is NOT the best option. For further information listen to Tony Seba.
She gets a bit illogical herself. Grid expansion costs are ignored. Private rooftop, because grid electricity is too expensive, should not be included in the costs. But must be taken into account as grid electricity demand changes. EV privately owned and trading electricity on the grid is a cost not to be included. But the effect on the grid demand must be included. So, the grid will be protected AND unloaded. Grid owners will want dirt cheap rooftop electricity and EV, big battery parked 23hrs every day, electricity. Grid owners will partner with their old customers as their backup and supplier of dirt cheap electricity to the grid. The grid can then supply the industrial users moving away from fossil fuels. The grid is protected and retains the maximum number of connections.
So grid owners want to utilise consumer purchased expensive EVs and batteries to maximise their profits and further drive up electricity prices. Stuff and nonsense Ian. Rooftop solar is a scam… forcing responsibility for generating electricity onto consumers whiles energy providers skim off the top. Rooftop solar is only cheap because grid electricity has been made expensive. With ample supplies of dirt cheap electricity on the grid that is also high reliability, then the true costs of solar and wind become apparent. Batteries are an expensive waste of time, money and resources. The answer to ample, clean and cheap electricity on the grid, utilising existing infrastructure is nuclear. People like you are scared because nuclear will drive renewables out of business… and so you should be. The renewables scam is up… they make everything expensive. There must be a better solution to the clean energy problem… there is: it’s nuclear energy and it always has been. Nuclear energy in Australia is inevitable: you cannot stop it. What’s even funnier is that you renewables zealots have brought all this on yourselves.
@polarbear7255 Distant renewables need the grid, and so have the grid costs. Nuclear needs the grid, and so has grid costs. Robert Parker and Aidan Morrison both say that the grid itself costs up to $10 million per km. Both are strong nuclear promoters. And that is my point. Australia has 1 million km of national electrical grid to millions and millions of customers. The grid is an investment valued at over $TRILLIONS. The grid owners and investors must have a return on investment of about $100billion per year. They do that by buying cheap electricity and selling it as expensive electricity. $kWh. Pay 5cents kWh and sell 50cents kWh. Nuclear promoters say 4 or 5cents kWh at the plant. Distant renewables say 3cents kWh at the renewables farm gate. Even Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro grid connection as exploding its budget into $billions. Grid owners charge by useage and not by distance from the generators. Muswellbrook consumers should be paying farm gate electricity prices at 5 or 6cents kWh. But they pay the grid avg full rate. As consumers leave the grid electricity, then the slower adopters of new technology like you and I are hit with higher $kWh supply prices. Just to put a bigger wire from my street pole 10m to my house is quoted $3,000. If I went 3phase, then $5,000 or more if the grid has the capacity. They are covering their costs all the way back to the generators plant. Transformers and switch yards and bigger conductors. As more demand for electricity capacity. They have to be able to supply me if I went to max demand. My neighbour's have 3phase and rooftop PV and street gas. You need to understand that the grid is extremely expensive infrastructure. The Royal Commission into electricity prices and the rise found that too much capacity was built into the grid. The grid owners were still able to charge more to cover more investment into their grid. The grid is also fragile and lightweight because it covers huge distances. Grid upgrades in city streets is extremely expensive because it is often dangerous work on live power lines out of hours and in busy streets and traffic I have worked in both environments. Contractors prices are heavy per pole or km or connection or switch room or switch yards. Rooftop PV savings are TAX-FREE savings. No grid costs. Imported Petroleum savings $3,600 per vehicle per year Grid electricity savings $4,000 per year Gas heating $ ????? Another neighbour has never rapid charged his Tesla in 5 years. Just home trickle top ups. Other neighbours have home batteries, many in the household and so they save. Grid costs are very big part if you want to understand. Both LNP and ALP are bs.
@@stephenbrickwood1602 Excuses and anecdotes. If there was ample stable energy on the grid then operators can make a profit and keep prices low. Clearly you fail to understand nuclear economics.
@polarbear7255 don't talk backwards. Customer's are paying for rooftop PV and governments are trying to stop grid over load and blackouts. Governments do not want to build more grid capacity. Dead simple thing to understand.
ENGINEER HERE: The problem with all these discussions is that NONE OF THEM INVOLVE ENGINEERS and we are the people who have to build these things. It doesn't matter if its Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Gas or even coal. These are all engineering tasks and I can tell you as an engineer I am fed up with all the MISINFORMATION that's being pumped out by the Think Tanks like CIS the Australia Institute, and the Institute of Public Affairs. ITS ALL COMING from *ECONOMISTS and Public Relations (PR) people but mostly ECONOMISTS.* That's why none of these plans make sense. *People like ZOE Hilton and a couple of people at the Australia Institute ARE THE PROBLEM because all they do is add to the noise and confusion.* I can tell you straight up that ALL SIDES of these energy debates LIE and they all tell things that are basically UNTRUE. I want to have a sensible discussion on Australia's energy but like all the other engineers we get put to one side while the ECONOMISTS and PR people suck up all the oxygen. I just watched the recent debate between Aidan Morrison vs. Simon Holmes à Court and that was a joke. BOTH SIDES continuously lied. They all know the costs. I modelled a slab of it over 8 years ago with NO FUNDING. The recent CSIRO Report on nuclear was COMPILED by ECONOMISTS. There weren't engineers involved and THEY LIED. The most obvious lie was their modelling. It was based on 30 year life and 50% utilisation (how much of the available electrical output power gets used). Calder Hall the Worlds first commercial nuclear power plant worked for 47 years (1956-2003) and had a Utilisation of 79% (listed as capacity factor on Wikipedia). They basically claimed that current Generation III and Generation III+ reactors can't perform as well as the Generation I reactors did. For the long term I do believe Australia will need to SERIOUSLY consider 2 or 3 large nuclear plants feeding into the main East Coast Energy Grid. Its not simply a matter of supporting the base load. Large energy grids also need the frequency of the AC wave stabilised. Because of how we use energy there are little spikes back-feeding onto the grid continuously. The DC to AC inverters used in Wind and Solar and large Battery installations add to that noise. The UA-cam Channel Real Engineering did an excellent video explaining this. This is one of the major advantages of large power stations with large turbines. IT DOES NOT MATTER what type of turbine. It can be steam, gas, water or a combination BECAUSE its the actual rotating mass of the rubine that provides the waveform stability. In a way these large turbines act like the shock absorbers in a car and smooth out the AC wave form. Why the pro-nuclear and pro-gas people don't talk about this is PROOF THEY are clowns and noise makers who don;t know what they are talking about.
This is better than I was expecting. I really thought this was going to be a right wing think tank hand waving exercise with holes you could drive a bus through. But no.
@@totalsceptic the reason Nuclear power isn’t an option is because it’s Illegal in Australia. The LNP can waste their political energy and money at that pipe dream.
Hi CIS, please can you tie all interested parties together in these analyses? We had Labor ministers, AEMO, Keane, et al but there's a lose end here in the role CSIRO GenCost plays. Thanks.
So where is the Centre for Independent Studies own analysis demonstrating a cheaper pathway to a decarbonised future. The video makes a number of criticisms of the government's current plan, but offers no costed alternative path for Australia's energy future. Like Dutton's "energy policy", it's a nothing-burger marked radioactive, the main purpose of which is probably to extend the life of the coal mining industry,
Love my solar panels and batteries and by going with Amber I have access to the wholesale energy market, l can make money! So going Nuclear could be the most expensive dumbest thing to do. For those say it’s expensive and what’s the ROI, I would say what’s the ROI on your car, fridge or washing machine?
This sounds very much like a party political broadcast. I wonder who there representing energy companies the liberals or conspiracy theories. I would treat this clip with a large bit of scepticism!
Stuck in the location the current coal generation sits, being transmitted everywhere on the existing transmission network that the coal plants are currently using. Not building a second transmission corridor to take power 30% of the time from previous farm or bushland to join up to said existing network.
Wind and solar is often located in regions where there are few people . These installations need new transmission lines to be built to connect them to the existing grid which takes power to the people in the cities . Nuclear takes up very small land areas , and requires no additional transmission lines to be built because the grid already exists. Trying to use wind and solar , and storage and back up , and additional transmission is crazy expensive.
If a bureaucracy could eliminate capitalism's competition metric/ property rights, ALL rights would be eliminated because every right is derived LOGICALLY from the right to life. Rights are derived from being human, having an intelligence greater than other life. A collection of humans forms "the collective", the common good starts with good of the individual. If you violate the sovereignty of one, you violate the sovereignty of everyone, in principle. If this is too esoteric, too deep, too complicated, too philosophical, too political for you, research the record of socialism versus capitalism. Socialism requires deadly threat, violent force, fraud, propaganda to exist. Capitalism allows choice, experimentation, a "live & let live" life style. The only "rule" is you may not be a hypocrite and use violence against others that you would not allow to be used against yourself. You can choose, IF you let others chose their lifestyle. The politics that allows only voluntary interaction is and has always been non-existent publicly. How does that happen? The majority won't allow it. All are forced to conform to the initiation of violence, that a majority has chosen. The minority is not allowed to chose for themselves. Why? The claim is that rules must be enforced by violence or they will be non-existent, and no public order is possible. What about the private sector's non-violent order? How is that possible? Before government, private society existed with order/rules. How? It still exists now, in the semi-capitalist system. A completely capitalist system is not allowed. But, in this mixed system, a trend can be found. The more capitalist a society, the freer, happier, more prosperous. This is said to be immoral by those who want to live in an authoritarian system. They want to FORCE sacrifice of prosperity and freedom to achieve a moral utopia.
No way …. And what ever is the final price … every 20 years the country has to pull down and rebuild …. Who was the dill that dreamt up this crazy plan.
@@terryhines-e8s sooner than that for wind!
WEF agenda.
Thats why the Charmer treasurer & Albo want to get their hands on the future fund
15 to 20 yrs those windturbines will be fucked
Who dreamt it up? Those global assets management companies who have shares in companies involved in all aspects of this from manufacturing the equipment to owning the energy companies and will financially benefit from the yearly never-ending flow of billions of dollars in government grants milked from taxpayers and constantly rising cost of power bills.
No way …
But we do have the dumbest energy minister on the planet
Well said mate 👏 👍
@@batmanlives6456 not sure but got to be a strong contender.
Oh no we're way ahead of you in Denmark when in comes to low IQ energy ministers and Government officials.
you bet dumb is a complement for this guy
Watch Sky News much?
When the Federal Energy Minister can't even pronounce the word nuclear, we have a problem.
Noo-clear
We should have gone Nuclear 40 years ago.
net zero is a dream and will never be more than a dream. It is incredulous we have such things being seriously considered.
Its almost a reality every day in SA
Regardless, they will bill us to pay for their day dream.... dialing back the standard of living for all but the wealthiest Australians. as costs blow out like every other project Labor has committed us to.
Appalling decisions !
If it’s cheap energy why is electricity so expensive?
Wind and solar are cheap to build but produce very expensive electricity
And the corollary is that nuclear is expensive to build, but produces very cheap electricity.
The poles and wires (network) accounts for 40-66% according to who you listen to.
I am a 59 yr old electrician. Solar won't power even 25 % of Australia. It can't handle the load and the switching of loads. Electrical load presents huge mechanical resistance to the power source.
Renewables is a scam.
SPOT ON BROTHER ALOT OF BRAIN DEAD PEOPLE OUT THERE BELIEVE THIS CRAP,, I LIKE RENEWABLES THERE A GOOD SMALL CONTRIBUTER NOTHING MORE
Sounds like you need to catch up with modern technology. 30 odd years in the industry is a lot of time for progress to happen when you are open to innovating.
33 years of the same failure is hard to ignore.
RCD's , automation, electronics, match head IT'S, advancement of LED'S.
None subsidised by the taxpayer.
Not
A
Single
One...
Please, keep banging on about your investment...
We are already at 40% for renewables.
@@TheOzzieRob
No where near that fool
This mad idiocracy is ongoing all over the western world these days. 😢😢
Chris Bowen is a BoneHead.
So basically they will force home owners to pay for producing and storing energy then charge them for it as well :/
And even then it will still cost too much lol
Every politician and beaurucrat in Australia needs to have their bank accounts audited.
Depleted?
Especially those of the Teals.
Keep coal power stations open 😊
Bown has no back up plan look what happen din Broken Hill
They don’t really know how to manage Solar 😂power companies making 7x selling our solar and threatening feedin charges now 🤷♂️
Yeah great idea. Do you have a spare planet in mind we can all move too when the world passes the critical heating point?
@@vndk8r The critical heating point as you say cant be stopped.. Climate change is happening you cant stop it. The planet has roughly 7 billion years left, i would not want to be here in the later stages its gonna get very hot.
@@vndk8r The earth was 4C hotter a few thousand years ago, Civilization thrived. We are actually in an Ice Age atm, Warming is good for the planet and humanity.
Surely these ministers are lying. No one in their position could be so stupid. Ideology certainly does make politicians do stupid things.
Money.
Money money money money.
Money.
@@gregoryellsmore2095 absolutely Bowen and his communist cronies are lying!
Treason.
Ideology or owned by the globalists agenda
it's frustrating Is there a class of stupidity the Greens seem to love it
They told us to put solar panels on the roof, buy energy efficient household appliances and EV’s. Yet the price of electricity is going up and up as my bank balance is going down.
I purchased solar panels, and they have repaid me many times over. I have not paid an electricity bill in years. My bank balance goes up!
I barely pay anything for electricity because of my solar panels and batteries. My parents have twice the solar panels I have without the battery and they make money each year.
@@buddhikawmake sure your house and contents insurance is up to date!
Have Solar panels so don't pay for energy (provided we're smart and use the appliances when the sun shines). A battery is next, and this will remove our evening and morning usage. Got an EV so we don't pay for fuel, and charge it off the excess solar the house doesn't use - thanks to our Zappi smart charger, it does it automatically. So there are ways of making it work. People just need to stop digging up and burning stuff unnecessarily. This plan seems to highlight it is possible. The Liberals and their supporters are just butt hurt their Nuclear brain fart is stinking up the place with its insane cost.
@@peterking8564 while those who cannot afford solar subsidize those who can, you use the grid as your credit for solar excess then cash in when solar doesn't work, thus failing to contribute your fair share to grid maintenance. This cannot go on, this will require those with solar to pay some sort of connection fee to equal their contribution to using the grid as their credit and debit solar bank. Any one with solar battery back up, makes solar even more unaffordable for those who cannot afford solar. Anyone on solar without grid back up living a typical life of anyone on grid solar will pay tens of thousands for their system. Solar panels cradle to toxic grave and batteries that last even less time will all come along and is already a problem being ignored so far. Subsidies must be eliminated its a false future and why your energy costs keep going up. Hiding the true costs.
Sorry haven't watched! But we all know that time we get rid of career politicians!
Utopia (sic) - have a govt regulated dept create an “independent “ expert report that govt officials can cite as “independent “ and as evidence supporting govt policy but that has as its core inputs, guidelines from govt’s own policies! This is true Orwellian genius !
There used to be a comedy show called the Goodies
They would occasionally mock politics and various contemporary societal trends
They once mocked pet food or used it as a metaphor to mock something else, in this comedy skit they had 9 out of ten veterinary scientists recommend bowchow for your dog
The advertisement had a dog given the choice of eating Bowchow or a bowl of broken glass or burning coals . The dog first chose the broken glass before being pushed towards the Bowchow
I get the feeling that Green Energy is a great steaming bowl of Bowchow.
Matt bowen or Chris keen 🤔
How much in kickbacks are they getting from china for this rubbish
In Bowen's case, I think he'd talk dumb for free as it just comes so easy to him.
@@infidel202 that’s what’s asked around the world in many. Countries and leaderships nasty game played by the so called supper powers using media with everything their power to justify themselves as correct selves as correct screw the people they are just a necessary pediment
$0
Matt just purchased a $5million mansion so he must be getting a fortune in kickbacks.
The day governments privatised power station was last nail in the coffin for fair power prices
Joan Kirner (Victorian Labor Premier) was the first to sell off 51% of the Loy Yang Power Station in 1992.
The workforce of the SEC peaked at nearly 23,000 in the early 1980s, in the early years of the Cain/Kirner Labor government. It had been cut to around 13,000 by the time Jeff Kennett became Premier.
I joined a privately owned energy retailer near the start of deregulation. One of my first jobs was to assess which customers would be vulnerable to churn (getting a better offer from a competitor). I found masses of customers who had been getting so ripped off under the old SECV tariffs that we offered them up to 35% discounts and still made a reasonable margin on their account. When I enquired why historically these customers had not been advised to change tariffs the answer was the onus was on the customer to determine if they were on the cheapest available option. So much for government ownership being better for consumers than a competitive market!
Yep. Sitting pretty in WA with the cheapest power and gas due to government owned power and infrastructure. Short sightedness screwed the east coast big time.
We have more wind and solar than ever before ,,,if it really is the cheapest form of generation , our bills should be going down.
But they are going up.
Trying to run a grid using variable unreliable wind and solar is NOT cheap.
All very convenient how they define the approach so they don't have to face the awkward realities of a failing energy system. No hard decisions being made here...
😂😂😂😂😂 No...but that's Labor...destroying the country
how cheap would coal be?
Very cheap.
a heck of a lot cheaper than windmills and solar panels, for the amount of energy they produce 24/7.
Well we had the cheapest energy on the planet with coal for decade's... now we have the most expensive with less then 40% renewables...
The thing is a RORT
Sure its cheap. That's cause no one wants it. People are realising that coal is just speeding up the process to making the planet uninhabitable. But you keep sitting in your slowly heating up saucepan like a good little frog.
@ you are delusional
Nuclear is cheap and so is coal and Australia is full of them 🤷♂️
Like all ways we sell it to the world that uses it, but we are not allowed to
We seek to be poor lol 😂
@ I don’t I’ve experienced poor & seen poor it’s not present nor necessary only leaders. Raving power and control love poor
Nuclear is the best but isn't cheap
Sure its cheap. That's cause no one wants it. People are realising that coal and nuclear is just speeding up the process to making the planet uninhabitable. But you keep sitting in your slowly heating up saucepan like a good little frog.
Such bollocks and Labor does not even have to give justification.
What the believers forget is that the windmills and solar panel will have to be replaced after 10 yrs for batteries 15 yrs for wind turbines and maybe 20 yrs for solar panels. TRIPPLE THEIR ESTIMATED COST
That's quite an exageration you've made there.
Thank you to the Centre for independant studies for enabling you to inform this country of how stupid and usless our energy ministers are.
They're not independent & they're not correct.
@@damiandormer7868 that is correct. They are pushing an agenda for the LNP, its disengenuous.
Why do I have to keep my fridge/freezer running in my caravan in case of “brown outs” and fuel in my generator in a first world country? Can anyone else remember the 1980-90’s when things were good.
Get a battery instead. Convert to electric motors. It's cheaper to run if you also put solar on the top of the caravan. Heaps of conversion sites if you look for them.
@ I already have batteries and solar, but that’s not the point I’m making.
You're asking the right questions, but unfortunately you won't get the correct answer here in this echo chamber.
Im selling 5 kva generators cheap they work in all kinds of weàther.
Coal, oil and gas is the only renewables Australia has...
We send a good amount of yellow cake offshore, better than the one you quoted!
Correct sold to foreign countries to use but we are not allowed
Umm. No. They are not renewable. Unless you are planning on another asteroid hitting to wipe us all out in a nuclear winter like the dinosaurs, then waiting a few millions years for sediment and tectonic movements to bury our corpses, then have some mutant cockroach mine and drill the earth for all our dead bodies to burn, then sure, that's renewable. But you do you mate.
no net zero promise we owe the world nothing, i thinkl clean is worthwhile but we dont need to rush in the world wont actually end
Kean was a dope in NSW ... and now Federally he doesnt even understand the ISP and whats not in the ISP ...
Still waiting for the $275
Who funds the CIS?
Law of Diminishing Returns: each new 1% increment in renewables is more expensive than the previous increment. Law of Follow the Money: A more complex and expensive electricity system generates more money for AEMO. Law of Left Wing Virtue: Climate Virtue trumps everything, even blackouts and unaffordable electricity.
Source?
They don't care if it's low cost, it's not their money they're spending.
Bowen was absent on the day his primary school teacher was explaining the meaning of “cost”. That is why he is costing us so much!
Bowen went to primary school ?
We must have low cost energy as a civilised, prosperous nation. That means nuclear, coal and gas, until cheaper sources such as fusion become available. Renewables will not meet the demand, and they all know it.
We never should have gone away from coal ,oil,gas
Net zero is not a realistic or necessary target iñ the first place.
It is if you are trying to avoid having to search for another planet to live on.
It is mate. For the stewardship of this earth.
What is replacement in 20 years
none of these clowns have are electrical degree nor there advisors vthere as
How do you incentivise rooftop solar and batteries? Easy
Drive up electricity prices so that the economics suddenly work.
Voila - you have consumers forced into buying and providing CES
AEMO isn’t building in the delays to projects due to environmental state approvals nor the cumulative cost to communities of the massive land area required for the generation and transmission infrastructure.
Residential solar and battery solutions are quicker to implement as they aren’t hamstrung but environmental approvals.
We have a plan to build houses but no policy to mandate solar and battery installation in new builds.
the whole thing is stupid why can't we have a mixture to support the renewables it makes too much good sense
Watched a little now. We all have clever friends that we wouldnt trust to look after a pot plant!
Oz govt is a great example.
The Centre for Independent Studies is a right-wing think tank - not very independent ?
If these drongos' were used car salesmen they would go broke.
I wouldn't expect parrothead bowen to have any idea!!
Obviously power prices will continue to rise under labor’s and Matt Keen is a nut case that’s probably why braindead Bowen wanted him on the team
“No matter how un achievable, un necessary or expensive they may be”
That’s how you know you’re dealing with fanatics. There is no logic to this. It’s like a religious cult.
Corrupt much 🤦♂️
So.
When we restrict ourselves to 9nly those options that have 82% renewables, we find that the cheapest option has 82% renewables.
It's very obvious that these targets are simply un obtainable. Sky news did a good doco on Australia's energy. Individuals who are super rich are struggling to imagine how hard it is at scale.
Wow this place is an echo chamber. CSIRO modelled nuclear many times, it doesn’t stack up. Media can withhold information to influence your opinion, and this channel is literally a think tank!
That’s incorrect - the cost of renewables have not been correctly added up, the CSRIO treated transmission as a sunk cost - nothing to do with politics.
Thank you for explaining the bureaucratic mess. Policy based on government parameters restricting policy outcomes, not most efficient result which may include nuclear
‘Counterfactual’…wtf….does that really mean fiction….like net zero? This was like listening to Gobbledeguke 101…
This whole piece is about using big words to pretend something is going wrong and it's probably effective on people who have no idea about the topic.
The piece dismisses the opinions of experts as if these media spin doctors somehow know better. They don't.
Gobeldeduk... Has 2 many syllables... for these politicians
@@damiandormer7868 don't need your selected and curated experts to tell us something is going very wrong with our power bills!!
The quickest way to net zero is to allow the TRUTH about energy to be placed on the public agenda. I know dreaming again, but if enough of we the people stand up and demand the truth then maybe common sense will be allowed back into the debate instead of corporate greed.
Artificially narrowing scope of an examination has been much used in the past. For example, when it came to using the corridor earmarked for the M2 in Sydney, the best use of that was to build a road. There was not an examination of what would be the best use of a bucket money with a flexible look at alternative routes for things like rail lines in contrast to roadways.
Current Australian policy will have no effect whatsoever on what is happening in Africa, South America, India or East Asia. Countries like Australia will be impoverished and all of our "sacrifices" will be for naught.
Chris Blowing and all his experience and qualifications in engineering, science, maths heck anything related
And yet he is a Muppet
He is just following WEF orders, doesn’t really know anything and doesn’t really care, it’s just a pay packet, forever.
So how much are they saying it will cost us to reduce global temps? Will it cost us the complete decimation of our economy? Will it cost us our quality of life? Will it cost us our homes? Will energy be a luxury only the very rich can afford?
Implement gas reservation. Build renewables and gas generator firming power. Done. Cheap and low emissions.
82% or close to by 2030 with renewables sounds better than 4% for 7 uncosted Nuclear plants
A good little point is made about how the houseowner pays (possibly with gov subsidies) for small solar. It is cast as a cheat, and the centre says it is less cost efficient. But actually, perhaps it is brilliant, people gladly putting their own money into the sytem and not feeling ripped off. That is a great trick. As for efficiency - well in the case of coal plants and nuclear plants - yes, size matters. But for household solar? If the home owner is buying, there is no land that the government has to buy. There is no approval process and consultation that the government has to do. There is no compensation for the government to pay to people who complain. This is not a trick, it is a feature. These are massive cost savings! So in this case (NOT small modular nuclear) small might well be more efficent.
Sounds completely logical that Nuclear is not an option when considering the lowest cost solution when coal is obviously not on the table. Gas shouldn't be an option either. Australia has ample solar, wind and hydro options that are not utilised effectively. We need to stop burning stuff and start harnessing the regenerative options we have. If we tax the multinational gas and mining companies currently plundering our sovereign wealth correctly, we can pay for everything from those royalties. Just like Norway, and the Qatar does. But no, we instead pay them subsidies, so they pay no tax, and they make us pay through the nose for our own gas.
I would say the most expensive.These morons couldn't organise a chook raffle it's a disgrace
This great work well done
Of course the politics of net zero outweighs actual economic sense 😊
However as part of ISP it does state.
GenCost finds nuclear generation to be a lot more expensive than other options to generate electricity.
Also, the time it would take to design and build nuclear generation, may be too slow to replace retiring coal fired generation
All part of the agenda. It started in the late 80s early 90s when the government gave away our Powerstations for free / cheap
What Kean is doing is trying to trick us and the gullible fall for it. He states that the cheapest pathway to replace the *current system* is wind and solar. However, what he surreptitiously avoided admitting was that it is like for like ie: 1GW of coal generation for an equivalent 1GW of renewable generation, the clue is in his words, "replace the current system", all the while lying by convenient omission that you need *at least* 4 times the renewables for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. Then there is the battery backup which will cost 100's of Billion of $, the cost of having gas as a back up and the cost or replacing the wind and solar factories every 20 years and the cost of the estimated 28000kms of grid network to connect it all up. That also doesn't cover the cost of the carbon offsets required when they do need to use gas (or coal) which will also cost billions. This is even if we can get the raw materials to build these fairy story batteries, there will be a shortage of these materials.
Turns out renewable energy is the cheapest path to renewable energy. Who would have thought lol
It is hard to think logically with all those biases pulling us in all directions.
New cheap technologies have been suppressed for a long time but not anymore
Don't look now, but this is the same dynamic that led to the formalization of a 2° target as the 'scientific consensus'
What happened is that the politicians asked the scientists what level of warming would result in significant costs if exceeded. The reasonable answer is 2°. That's not the level of warming where policy costs and policy benefits are likely to balance however. Politicians didn't understand or consider that to be a relevant question. Scientists don't want to interfere with the messaging or stick their neck out by contradicting it due to very serious social pressure and groupthink
William Nordhaus won a Nobel specifically for climate economics and estimated 3° to the the cost-benefit balancing point. Another author using the same method, but with warming costs 10x as high, found 2.1° as the balance point. This level of cost is not supported by mainstream science and it only just gets to that 2° level. The method also assumes ideal efficient policy, which tends to be half the cost of actual policy - something that the ISP saga demonstrates clearly is not realistic
Not only is the ISP least cost rhetoric a house of cards, the entire net zero by 2050 target is as well, via the same set of dynamics where political choices are wrapped up in scientific modeling based on those choices
Coal at international prices isn't cheap either. I would like CIS to do a cashflow analysis where you calculate the return on investment for an average electricity price. Do it for AEMO mix, large nuclear, and black and brown coal. I learned this type of analysis at UTS graduate business school, in subject called finance for business. Investors have a return they expect based on the risk.
Thank you for this summary. Is this something we can change as Australian voters? Are liberals better on this than labour? What are our action options here?
It is PS that is in his office and department.
Are to blame too.
Excellent truth telling on Bowen’s nonsense.
By 2030 most miles will be electric. Solar today is the cheapest source of energy on the planet. Solar PV price has gone down by 80 percent in the last 10 years. Solar PVs will keep dropping in price.
Batteries keep dropping in price. The electric cars are cheaper to maintain and cleaner than ice vehicles.
It costs $11 to charge an electric car versus $90 for a petrol car for 100 kms.
This transition is going ahead in the future as the markets, car industry and investors like Tesla have clean energy goals. Oil and gas will be obsolete by 2030. Australia has a solar advantage.
Nuclear is a doom day plan for Australia as it will be an expensive option, nuclear makes sense only in cold frozen areas like Russia.
Furthermore a nuclear disaster due to bushfires will fry a lot of people.Its time to think wisely as nuclear is NOT the best option.
For further information listen to Tony Seba.
She gets a bit illogical herself.
Grid expansion costs are ignored.
Private rooftop, because grid electricity is too expensive, should not be included in the costs.
But must be taken into account as grid electricity demand changes.
EV privately owned and trading electricity on the grid is a cost not to be included.
But the effect on the grid demand must be included.
So, the grid will be protected AND unloaded.
Grid owners will want dirt cheap rooftop electricity and EV, big battery parked 23hrs every day, electricity.
Grid owners will partner with their old customers as their backup and supplier of dirt cheap electricity to the grid.
The grid can then supply the industrial users moving away from fossil fuels.
The grid is protected and retains the maximum number of connections.
So grid owners want to utilise consumer purchased expensive EVs and batteries to maximise their profits and further drive up electricity prices.
Stuff and nonsense Ian.
Rooftop solar is a scam… forcing responsibility for generating electricity onto consumers whiles energy providers skim off the top.
Rooftop solar is only cheap because grid electricity has been made expensive.
With ample supplies of dirt cheap electricity on the grid that is also high reliability, then the true costs of solar and wind become apparent.
Batteries are an expensive waste of time, money and resources.
The answer to ample, clean and cheap electricity on the grid, utilising existing infrastructure is nuclear.
People like you are scared because nuclear will drive renewables out of business… and so you should be.
The renewables scam is up… they make everything expensive. There must be a better solution to the clean energy problem… there is: it’s nuclear energy and it always has been.
Nuclear energy in Australia is inevitable: you cannot stop it.
What’s even funnier is that you renewables zealots have brought all this on yourselves.
@polarbear7255 Distant renewables need the grid, and so have the grid costs.
Nuclear needs the grid, and so has grid costs.
Robert Parker and Aidan Morrison both say that the grid itself costs up to
$10 million per km.
Both are strong nuclear promoters.
And that is my point.
Australia has 1 million km of national electrical grid to millions and millions of customers.
The grid is an investment valued at over $TRILLIONS.
The grid owners and investors must have a return on investment of about $100billion per year.
They do that by buying cheap electricity and selling it as expensive electricity.
$kWh.
Pay 5cents kWh and sell 50cents kWh.
Nuclear promoters say 4 or 5cents kWh at the plant.
Distant renewables say 3cents kWh at the renewables farm gate.
Even Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro grid connection as exploding its budget into $billions.
Grid owners charge by useage and not by distance from the generators.
Muswellbrook consumers should be paying farm gate electricity prices at 5 or 6cents kWh.
But they pay the grid avg full rate.
As consumers leave the grid electricity, then the slower adopters of new technology like you and I are hit with higher $kWh supply prices.
Just to put a bigger wire from my street pole 10m to my house is quoted $3,000.
If I went 3phase, then $5,000 or more if the grid has the capacity.
They are covering their costs all the way back to the generators plant.
Transformers and switch yards and bigger conductors.
As more demand for electricity capacity.
They have to be able to supply me if I went to max demand.
My neighbour's have 3phase and rooftop PV and street gas.
You need to understand that the grid is extremely expensive infrastructure.
The Royal Commission into electricity prices and the rise found that too much capacity was built into the grid.
The grid owners were still able to charge more to cover more investment into their grid.
The grid is also fragile and lightweight because it covers huge distances.
Grid upgrades in city streets is extremely expensive because it is often dangerous work on live power lines out of hours and in busy streets and traffic
I have worked in both environments.
Contractors prices are heavy per pole or km or connection or switch room or switch yards.
Rooftop PV savings are TAX-FREE savings. No grid costs.
Imported Petroleum savings $3,600 per vehicle per year
Grid electricity savings $4,000 per year
Gas heating $ ?????
Another neighbour has never rapid charged his Tesla in 5 years.
Just home trickle top ups.
Other neighbours have home batteries, many in the household and so they save.
Grid costs are very big part if you want to understand.
Both LNP and ALP are bs.
@@stephenbrickwood1602
Excuses and anecdotes.
If there was ample stable energy on the grid then operators can make a profit and keep prices low. Clearly you fail to understand nuclear economics.
@polarbear7255 don't talk backwards.
Customer's are paying for rooftop PV and governments are trying to stop grid over load and blackouts.
Governments do not want to build more grid capacity.
Dead simple thing to understand.
ENGINEER HERE: The problem with all these discussions is that NONE OF THEM INVOLVE ENGINEERS and we are the people who have to build these things. It doesn't matter if its Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Gas or even coal. These are all engineering tasks and I can tell you as an engineer I am fed up with all the MISINFORMATION that's being pumped out by the Think Tanks like CIS the Australia Institute, and the Institute of Public Affairs.
ITS ALL COMING from *ECONOMISTS and Public Relations (PR) people but mostly ECONOMISTS.*
That's why none of these plans make sense.
*People like ZOE Hilton and a couple of people at the Australia Institute ARE THE PROBLEM because all they do is add to the noise and confusion.*
I can tell you straight up that ALL SIDES of these energy debates LIE and they all tell things that are basically UNTRUE. I want to have a sensible discussion on Australia's energy but like all the other engineers we get put to one side while the ECONOMISTS and PR people suck up all the oxygen. I just watched the recent debate between Aidan Morrison vs. Simon Holmes à Court and that was a joke. BOTH SIDES continuously lied. They all know the costs. I modelled a slab of it over 8 years ago with NO FUNDING.
The recent CSIRO Report on nuclear was COMPILED by ECONOMISTS. There weren't engineers involved and THEY LIED. The most obvious lie was their modelling. It was based on 30 year life and 50% utilisation (how much of the available electrical output power gets used). Calder Hall the Worlds first commercial nuclear power plant worked for 47 years (1956-2003) and had a Utilisation of 79% (listed as capacity factor on Wikipedia). They basically claimed that current Generation III and Generation III+ reactors can't perform as well as the Generation I reactors did.
For the long term I do believe Australia will need to SERIOUSLY consider 2 or 3 large nuclear plants feeding into the main East Coast Energy Grid. Its not simply a matter of supporting the base load. Large energy grids also need the frequency of the AC wave stabilised. Because of how we use energy there are little spikes back-feeding onto the grid continuously. The DC to AC inverters used in Wind and Solar and large Battery installations add to that noise. The UA-cam Channel Real Engineering did an excellent video explaining this.
This is one of the major advantages of large power stations with large turbines. IT DOES NOT MATTER what type of turbine. It can be steam, gas, water or a combination BECAUSE its the actual rotating mass of the rubine that provides the waveform stability. In a way these large turbines act like the shock absorbers in a car and smooth out the AC wave form.
Why the pro-nuclear and pro-gas people don't talk about this is PROOF THEY are clowns and noise makers who don;t know what they are talking about.
Worth noting that Calder Hall was the first nuclear reactor integrated into an electricity grid, and it only took three years to build.
💯yet i watch 20 two 50 trains full of coal going pasty place going to newie ship boud too China 🤣😶🙊🙈🙉
We can sell it just not use it
What a coincidence the "cheapest" electricity generation happens to magically align with what has the "least" carbon dioxide emissions. Lol
This is better than I was expecting. I really thought this was going to be a right wing think tank hand waving exercise with holes you could drive a bus through. But no.
CIS is effectively ALDI Sky News. Where is the modelling for Nuclear? Still waiting…
Modelling junk in junk out same as the climate hoax... Let's see the science behind the models... There's nothing
well it sure wasn't included in the reports they claimed have analysed all the options to come up with the cheapest path for our country!!🤣
France for one
@@totalsceptic the reason Nuclear power isn’t an option is because it’s Illegal in Australia. The LNP can waste their political energy and money at that pipe dream.
The whole world uses nuclear, what your excuse for being dumb
Hi CIS, please can you tie all interested parties together in these analyses? We had Labor ministers, AEMO, Keane, et al but there's a lose end here in the role CSIRO GenCost plays. Thanks.
Don't they just hate we have access to none mainstream media 😂
So where is the Centre for Independent Studies own analysis demonstrating a cheaper pathway to a decarbonised future.
The video makes a number of criticisms of the government's current plan, but offers no costed alternative path for Australia's energy future.
Like Dutton's "energy policy", it's a nothing-burger marked radioactive, the main purpose of which is probably to extend the life of the coal mining industry,
Phase out coal, and sell it overseas, the carbon emissions are the same just someone else is doing it.
AEMO Energy market incentivises power generators to produce as little as possible to keep prices High. How ridiculous is that?
Love my solar panels and batteries and by going with Amber I have access to the wholesale energy market, l can make money! So going Nuclear could be the most expensive dumbest thing to do. For those say it’s expensive and what’s the ROI, I would say what’s the ROI on your car, fridge or washing machine?
Thankyou CIS, you're doing important work.
This sounds very much like a party political broadcast. I wonder who there representing energy companies the liberals or conspiracy theories. I would treat this clip with a large bit of scepticism!
My understanding is that nuclear is crazy expensive and stuck in one location requiring transmission everywhere.
The grid has already been built,,, it took 100 years
Stuck in the location the current coal generation sits, being transmitted everywhere on the existing transmission network that the coal plants are currently using.
Not building a second transmission corridor to take power 30% of the time from previous farm or bushland to join up to said existing network.
Your understanding is right!
It is renewables that require crazy expensive transmission, a new set of cables and electronics for each generator.
Wind and solar is often located in regions where there are few people . These installations need new transmission lines to be built to connect them to the existing grid which takes power to the people in the cities .
Nuclear takes up very small land areas , and requires no additional transmission lines to be built because the grid already exists.
Trying to use wind and solar , and storage and back up , and additional transmission is crazy expensive.
If a bureaucracy could eliminate capitalism's competition metric/ property rights, ALL rights would be eliminated because every right is derived LOGICALLY from the right to life. Rights are derived from being human, having an intelligence greater than other life. A collection of humans forms "the collective", the common good starts with good of the individual. If you violate the sovereignty of one, you violate the sovereignty of everyone, in principle. If this is too esoteric, too deep, too complicated, too philosophical, too political for you, research the record of socialism versus capitalism. Socialism requires deadly threat, violent force, fraud, propaganda to exist. Capitalism allows choice, experimentation, a "live & let live" life style. The only "rule" is you may not be a hypocrite and use violence against others that you would not allow to be used against yourself. You can choose, IF you let others chose their lifestyle.
The politics that allows only voluntary interaction is and has always been non-existent publicly. How does that happen? The majority won't allow it. All are forced to conform to the initiation of violence, that a majority has chosen. The minority is not allowed to chose for themselves. Why? The claim is that rules must be enforced by violence or they will be non-existent, and no public order is possible. What about the private sector's non-violent order? How is that possible? Before government, private society existed with order/rules. How? It still exists now, in the semi-capitalist system. A completely capitalist system is not allowed. But, in this mixed system, a trend can be found. The more capitalist a society, the freer, happier, more prosperous. This is said to be immoral by those who want to live in an authoritarian system. They want to FORCE sacrifice of prosperity and freedom to achieve a moral utopia.
Gas fired backup......Victoria....ban gas cooking......!
Yeah let's gamble on nuclear, continue to use fossil fuels, and ignore cheap renewables. Perfect plan for continuing the fossil fuel age.
Could we get wind energy from the CIS blowing fossil fuel oligarchs?
a fully funded MURDOC production for the liberal party
Using that photo of Bowen shows bias.
I may comment on the video later.
@@logicsconscience blackout bowen has caused balckouts
It’s warped.