Budget to deliver more electricity bill relief for all Australians

Not that I agree with govt returning surpluses if the money is spent sensibly but if your concern is deficit spending you’ll not be voting for Peter Dutton then I take it.

No it’s not.

I am unsurprised you have nothing to back that up with, meanwhile the Energy Generators & Retailers have already said. It’s not happening even if he wins.

As with everything you know zip about the energy market which does not actually run on culture wars and can therefore be ignored.

LOL
Cool rant. Nobody buys your evangelical nonsense and unhinged tantrum throwing.

A vote for Albanese and the Greens is a vote for more tent cities

@Ken as ever can’t argue a point because none of your opinions are based in evidence so you bravely resort to name calling from behind your keyboard. Pathetic really.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/13/agl-half-year-results-rejects-coalitions-nuclear-option-and-doubles-down-on-big-batteries

@Futureproof….making stuff up as usual. Also can be ignored.

Your devoid of fact initial dummy spit aside, using the guardian evidence for anything is just hilarious. That place makes Jack D seem impartial. Keep up your screeching though. It conveys the correct image.

… using the guardian evidence…” I stopped reading at this point, clearly it’s an idiotic reply when the article is merely a report of what the major players in the energy market have decided which is on the public record.

I’ve come to realise you can’t argue energy and really you can’t argue any position and hold your own so name calling is a you have. Pathetic.

@KenM – It’s you that dummy spits, throws tantrums and spouts evangelical crap without any evidence to support your arguments. Mostly other readers disregard your comments, having learned they are not informative. I’m guessing that you just like to sh.t-stir and if we all ignore you, you’ll go silent as you’ll have lost your access to fun at other people’s expense.

Yet again Penfold, prove your not an evidence free zone? Citation is needed for your claim of $1200 increases in three years….

Geez JS9, don’t you ever do your own research ? 49% higher prices now than when Labor was elected. They really treat us like mugs don’t they.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-18/household-electricity-prices-gas-exports-nuclear-renewable-power/105060854

Why don’t you claim that electricity prices went up $12,000,000 under Albo? If you’re going to make stuff up the go the whole hog champ.

To many business Seano they did go up over $12 million. But that’s in the real world

Penfold,
Great link outlining the reasons why renewables are cheaper and how Nuclear power is far more expensive and wouldn’t work in Australia.

Well done.

So where’s your made up number in there then Penfold?

Nowhere did I say prices hadn’t gone up, simply asking for credible evidence to support your claim of $1200 increases. Something you still haven’t provided, because you know as well as everyone else, its just something you pulled out of your backside.

Your posts continue to be evidence free zones.

The fact free ‘real world’ you live in.

Prove it then Penfold, we both no you won’t.

Also from the article you didn’t read and would fail to comprehend if you did:

“Even so, the cost of nuclear power is far and away the most expensive, according to global electricity cost specialist, investment bank Lazard.

… nuclear power is the most expensive at $US182 ($287) per megawatt hour.

The cheapest is onshore wind at $US50 a megawatt hour, beating solar at $US61.

Coal comes in at $US118 a megawatt hour, while gas peaking — the plants designed to cut in when power runs short — is the second-most expensive at $US169 a megawatt hour.”

lol You can’t beat the economics here with fantasy I’m afraid.

* know

Wait til you discover what Dutton’s nuclear plans do for the ‘national credit card’… although of course in the real world you speak of, the national budget is not in any way analogous with consumer credit. Although since we’re on the subject when did a Liberal govt last deliver a surplus eh?

LOL
Look at the “renewables” cult here, carrying on like a pack of rabid dogs.

Yes JS9, I wondered if that might be your lazy response. So despite all the evidence provided to you, the only thing you can write is “evidence free”. Very lazy commentary indeed. Are you Seano’s offsider ?

chewy, one wouldn’t expect anything less from the ABC, but that wasn’t the topic of discussion.

Once again you haven’t provided evidence Penfold, attempting to cast multiple people poking holes in your ridiculous claims is kinda weak…I note you’ve got nothing to say about the article YOU linked but apparently didn’t read highlighting how ridiculously expensive nuclear is and therefore why it won’t happen in Australia…you really need to stop commenting on energy mate, like Dutton you’re out of your depth.

“LOL
Look at the “renewables” cult here, carrying on like a pack of rabid dogs.”

Ken mate, adults are talking. If you can’t argue a point sensibly and it’s clear from your increasingly attention seeking, vacuous and nasty comments on just about everything that you can’t, then maybe log off and go for a walk and touch some grass before you blow a gasket.

LOL, Penfold discredits his own arguments then tries to backtrack.

Too funny.

Ken M – yes it’s quite a sight, nothing more to offer than “no evidence” or “you haven’t got a clue”. What’s become quite hilarious is that despite years of more renewables and higher power prices, the penny hasn’t dropped. 32 countries building nuclear power plants yet “they’re more expensive” based on dodgy political CSIRO reports. Record number of businesses shutting down or moving offshore due to energy prices – “where’s the evidence”. Canberra is such a sheltered bubble for some.

Seano, speaking of adults, any thoughts on comments like “GST should be removed from fruit and vegetables”. (there is no GST on them). And “the teals voted with Scomo often (there were no teals then). Is that the adults talking ?

LOL
Seano continuing to have an absolute meltdown, accusing others of doing what he has in that very post. This episode is hilarious.

Penfold, it’s not my fault you’re not smart enough to get jokes any more than it’s my fault that you have to resort to personal attacks when your arguments on energy get shot down because you don’t understand the energy market beyond coalition talking points.

So nothing to contribute to the discussion on energy Ken, because you can’t, sad. lol

Thanks Seano, will treat all your commentary as humour. Speaking of jokes, have you fallen for Jimmy’s one about him lowering power prices ?

Well I understand how the energy market works and that the best and quickest way to lower proper prices is to encourage investment in renewables…but then I know what I’m talking about and you clearly don’t.

Of course Seano, no doubt your energy market expertise is on par with your economic and political knowledge. You might even kid yourself that the 80% drop in renewable energy investment is the reason prices keep sky-rocketing under Labor, lol. How’s that 82% 2030 RET going ?

Gibberish.

You can read the Gencost report here:
https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2024-25ConsultDraft_20241205.pdf

It helps to be informed before commenting.

Many long lols at the idea that CSIRO are producing ‘dodgy’ reports about nuclear costings, but that Debtmaker Dutton’s super secret nuclear costings will be so reliable. Nuclear is by far the most expensive option for Australia. I don’t want my kids paying off Duttons Debts.

Thanks Seano, as I’ve previously pointed out you don’t need to go past page ix to see the problem. Nukes run at over 90% capacity and for over 80 years. The updated gencost report even points out their errors, perhaps you should read it

Penfold,
How’s your knowledge on capacity factors or the economic life of assets going?

No wonder you don’t like talking about details or providing evidence, every time you’ve attempted it, you’ve shot your own arguments down.

“You might even kid yourself that the 80% drop in renewable energy investment is the reason prices keep sky high”

This is too funny, I know some people describe the anti-renewable crowd as backwards or living in the past, but Penfold exemplifies it by consistently posting out of date material.

2023 was a particularly bad year for infrastructure investment pipelines which also hit the renewable energy sector, with a reduction in investment of 80% that one year.

The only problem for Penfold being that 2024 investment in renewable energy boomed, with $7.2 billion invested, the biggest year since 2018

https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/quarterly-investment-report-q4-2024#:~:text=Renewable%20energy%20investment%20reached%20new,along%20with%2010%2C000%20new%20jobs.

These debates are like shooting fish in a barrel but easier.

“Nukes run at over 90% capacity and for over 80 years.”…LMAO no they don’t. Absolute drivel. Fantasy level best case scenarios requiring massive on going investment, there’s no magical thinking getting around this fact:

“nuclear power is the most expensive at $US182 ($287) per megawatt hour.”

That’s not CSIRO analysis of Australia (where it’s more expensive because we’re starting from scratch), that’s what it costs in America, massively more expensive than renewables.

Meanwhile in Australia we don’t have a nuclear industry or decades of investment and experience. So even if we accepted your fantasy level best case scenario and ignore the massive ongoing investment to achieve your “80 years” fantasy (*snigger*) because you clearly think that plants designed for 30-40 years can magically just plow on for double that life cycle without massive ongoing investment (because you’re clueless) that’s not going to happen in the real world.

Dutton’s nuclear plan is a house of cards based on best case fantasy and magical thinking…Dutton’s plan literally assumes Australia will build nuclear plants faster than any country in history…it’s misdirection for the uniformed and the terminally dim.

BUT all this is moot because (and I get that facts don’t inform your opinions) the Energy Generators & Retailers have looked at Dud Dutton’s dodgy figures and rejected them…why? because successful for profit companies don’t make investments based on magical thinking and culture wars talking points.

Give it up mate, you’re embarrassingly out of your depth.

Thanks chewy – see above ! As for the Clean Energy Council, thanks for the laugh. Renewables investment in Australia is coming from a desperate Chris Bowen, meaning my taxes. If you pay tax then from yours too. Private investment is dwindling.

And here’s a tip – if your favourite renewable information sources tell you that we’re on track to achieve the 82% 2030 RET, they’re telling porkies. You sound gullible enough to believe them though. Maybe read more broadly.

Tubbsy do you ever ask yourself why nuclear is economically viable around the world yet apparently not, even though we have the raw materials and are going to be maintaining nuclear submarines as well ? There’s a bit of a logic void there.

The rest of the world doesn’t have the CFMEU?

Ahh Seano, your comedy act is something to behold. If you repeat something enough times it must be true, right. It’s the foundation and guiding premise of the entire climate change hoax.

“The rest of the world doesn’t have the CFMEU?”

Even if I accepted this very dumb statement, definitionally Capital you’ve just admitted that Dud Dutton’s nuclear plan fantasy can’t happen here.

Lol ….not a genius.

“Tubbsy do you ever ask yourself why nuclear is economically viable around the world yet”

….because of the massively taxpayer subsidised investment decades ago….you really are clueless Penfold….unless Dutton invents a time machine nuclear is not economically viable in Australia.

PS. Here’s an example of your “economically viable” furphy in action in recent times:
“UK’s nuclear plant will cost nearly three times what was estimated”.

“Britain’s Hinkley C generator in Somerset is on track to cost about three times its original budget.

It was initially due to be operational in 2017 and to cost about $35 billion, but it is now not expected to open before 2031″
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/uk-s-nuclear-plant-will-cost-nearly-three-times-what-was-estimated-20240620-p5jna1

Thanks for playing…..*Game Over*

Penfold,
It’s factual investment information collected from industry.

If you’ve got different information, happy to see it.

Hilariously, if you weren’t showing your lack of comprehension again, its actually the exact same source where your 80% reduction figure came from.

As for investment sources, the vast majority is from private investment, so once again you are wrong.

“Nukes run at over 90% capacity and for over 80 years. The updated gencost report even points out their errors, perhaps you should read it”

Not sure what report you’re reading but the errors in your statements have been pointed out repeatedly to you and the actual Gencost report actually responds to these points showing why they are wrong.

Your ignorance is astounding.

“And here’s a tip – if your favourite renewable information sources tell you that we’re on track to achieve the 82% 2030 RET, they’re telling porkies. “

Here’s a tip, I’ve never claimed the government’s target will be met, so your strawman is as irrelevant as the rest of your evidence free comments.

Truly embarrassing for you.

So chewy you’re quoting the evidence i’ve provided and describing the post as “evidence free”. That’s quite some deduction.

I’m wondering if you and Seano sit together. Apparently it’s “game over” if some UK nuclear plant is over budget. Ever looked at Australia’s renewables rollout ? There’s dozens more nukes being developed around the world. France has some of the cheapest power in Europe with 75% nuclear. You two do provide a level of hilarity, more please. Young Labor members ?

“Ahh Seano, your comedy act is something to behold. If you repeat something enough times it must be true, right. It’s the foundation and guiding premise of the entire climate change hoax.”

You mean if I keep shooting down your meme level culture wars arguments and coalition talking points with referenced facts you’ll look comical…well yes, that’s the point.

Is satire verboten in the Marxist doctrine you live by, Seano?

Penfold,
You haven’t provided any “evidence” for your arguments, you’ve misused source data in an attempt to create a point.

A point that is incorrect and not actually supported by that source data. Which I’ve pointed out. The irony of your own links disproving your arguments is quite amusing.

“Apparently it’s “game over” if some UK nuclear plant is over budget”

I’ve never said anything like this.

But it isn’t one plant over budget, the actual global data shows cost blow-outs are the norm for new nuclear plants.

But regardless, the Gencost data has used the cost of real builds as comparisons to what could be expected in Australia. They are direct comparisons.

“Ever looked at Australia’s renewables rollout ?

Yes, massive year on year growth in line with global trends.

There’s dozens more nukes being developed around the world.”

Ah, no there isn’t. Not remotely.

Global reliance on nuclear is only predicted to increase slightly in coming decades, even under best case nuclear forecasts. Nuclear is currently just over 9% and predicted to get to a maximum of 12% of global electricity production by 2050. Even under favourable assumptions.

Whereas renewable energy production and reliance, is going to more than double in the next 10 years, with around half of global electricity production from renewables by then.

Which isn’t actually surprising considering that in the early to mid 2000’s nuclear and renewables were similar in global production and since then nuclear has gone backwards, whereas renewables have more than doubled their global share.

I know it must be tough for you when the facts don’t align with your ideology.

Which is the obvious reason you’re so averse to reading and being presented with the actual data. The cognitive dissonance you exhibit must be painful.

You two are funny. Always telling us what’s going to happen in the future as if it is fact and unable to look at historical evidence which is called fact. More renewables means higher prices. Fact. More renewables means less reliability. Fact. $1,200 price increases for households. Fact. 32 countries developing nuclear plants. Fact. $275 lower prices. Lie.

Forecasts aren’t “actual data”. They’re forecasts. And in the case of gencost, very poor ones based on assumptions proven wrong time and time again. Are you even aware the CSIRO have released the silly thing twice ? Pretty unprecedented, why would they do that ? As for the constant personal attacks on people who disagree with you, well that says way more about you than others. Sad really. Teenagers ?

“France has some of the cheapest power in Europe with 75% nuclear.”

Oh, I also missed this swing and a miss.

France’s nuclear plants are run by the government owned electricity company.

A company that is ten’s of billions in debt but prevented from raising electricity prices due to government restrictions on price increases.

Which really means that taxpayer’s are directly subsidising those lower prices. Prices which would be far higher if they actually reflected the wholesale cost of energy in France.

And this is what you want for Australia?

Government expenditure and subsidy of the massive debts from more expensive nuclear power.

Quite funny when you’ve been constantly complaining about debt and wasteful government spending in Australia.

Is there any topic that you don’t have a contradictory position on?

“Is satire verboten in the Marxist doctrine you live by, Seano?”

That’s your contribution to the energy debate is it Capital? Calling someone who wants a government that will encourage and support more private investment in renewables to reduce power prices and emissions a Marxist as if that’s some huge slur that upsetting…lol

You do realise that with the Energy Generators and Retailers out the only way Dutton’s nuclear con actually happens is if he nationalises energy.

lol…not a genius.

It’s funny when they use activists and vested interests musings as “evidence”.

Penfold,
Are you still continuing with outing your ignorance?

“look at historical evidence which is called fact. More renewables means higher prices. Fact. More renewables means less reliability. Fact”

I didn’t know you were so keen on providing further examples of your woeful level of knowledge and insight on the issue but you keep outdoing yourself.

You do realise that correlation doesn’t equal causation right?

There are more shark attacks in Summer months, therefore hot weather causes shark attacks.

This is your level of insight.

It’s the same reason you didn’t understand why the French government’s subsidy of nuclear power is what leads to their lower electricity prices.

You simply don’t understand the issue you are commenting on.

“Forecasts aren’t “actual data”. They’re forecasts. And in the case of gencost, very poor ones based on assumptions proven wrong time and time again”

Gencost uses historic data to provide current figures along with forecasts. If you’d ever bothered to read it. Both show Nuclear is currently more expensive and continues to be so in the future.

And you still haven’t been able to provide one example of an assumption used that is wrong.

“Are you even aware the CSIRO have released the silly thing twice ? Pretty unprecedented, why would they do that ?”

No one is this dense.

They release it every year and continually update the assessments based on new data. Why would you think the industry is static?

And you’ve got to laugh at complaining about personal attacks then literally following the sentence with personal attacks.

Once again, the lack of insight you display is breathtaking.

It’s nothing to do with “disagreeing”, it’s your lack of logical thought, woeful comprehension and your inability to provide any evidence to support your points.

“You two are funny. Always telling us what’s going to happen in the future as if it is fact and unable to look at historical evidence which is called fact. More renewables means higher prices. Fact. More renewables means less reliability. Fact. $1,200 price increases for households. Fact. 32 countries developing nuclear plants. Fact. $275 lower prices. Lie.”

None of that is true. You could read this article but I know you won’t because ranting from ignorance is all you’ve got.
https://theconversation.com/renewables-are-cheap-so-why-isnt-your-power-bill-falling-252391

“Forecasts aren’t “actual data”. They’re forecasts.”
This is the statement of an idiot. The forecasts are built on actual data which is available in the Gencost report.

But you seem pretty ok with Dutton’s “Forecasts” such as Australia with no energy industry building reactors faster than any country in history and Australia having six or so Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in our energy mix despite only two commercialised SMRs existing in the world (China/Russia), both of which are massively government subsidised because it turns our building an SMR is not much cheaper than building a full
scale reactor and they just don’t produce enough energy to justify the costs. But you’re ok those “forecasts” that aren’t built on a solid foundation of data but rather a pile of ridiculous assumptions in Dutton’s nuclear “plan”. Of course the uniformed and idiots are OK with Dutton’s fantasy but the energy companies who sign the cheques have looked at Dud Dutton’s “forecasts” and roundly rejected them.

“And in the case of gencost, very poor ones based on assumptions proven wrong time and time again.”

You’ve claimed this constantly and yet not done this once…presumably because your “information” is coming from memes and coalition talking points which aren’t a basis for a rational debate on energy with any sensible person who has done any reading on the topic. Culture warriors not caring about the truth doesn’t make the truth go away, I’m afraid.

“Are you even aware the CSIRO have released the silly thing twice ? Pretty unprecedented, why would they do that ? As for the constant personal attacks on people who disagree with you, well that says way more about you than others. Sad really. Teenagers ?”

Are you seriously suggesting that amending the report after feedback makes it less reliable? Even for your meme level understanding of this issue that’s embarrassing.

Log off Penfold, you’re lost this debate because you’re arguments are as puerile as your name calling when they get shot down with facts.

Seano, as heavy industry shuts down in Australia energy consumption will fall commensurately so we are not going to need nuclear base load power anyway.
Basket weaving will become our main industry supplemented by hand made tools for the community vegetable gardens.
We will become the new boat people looking for asylum and security in the Asian sub-continent.

Capital, “Base load” just further demonstrates you know nothing about this topic and really should stop beclowning yourself with such comments.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336

“It’s funny when they use activists and vested interests musings as “evidence”.”

It’s funnier when you can’t meaningfully contribute to the conversation on energy at all and you’re left with primary school level retorts.

Chewy, love that shark attack analogy. The logic gap in it has clearly gone over your head. Perhaps you should get your comments peer reviewed

CR – one suspects we’re already dealing with basket weavers.

Penfold,
Clearly the logic has gone over your head when it’s perfectly analogous to your comments.

Once again, no response from Penfold to any of the substantive points made.

Unsurprising when every time you attempt it, you just embarrass yourself further.

Isn’t it time for your usual disappearing trick, only to pop up with the same discredited talking points on the next thread.

CR – how dare you introduce the concept of reliable base load power, it doesn’t sit well with the ideology that renewables are available 24 x 7. It’s hard to imagine why Microsoft would be reopening Three Mile Island again, they must want reliable and cheap power. Bill Gates must be beclowning himself too.

That’s amusing seano, when your ability to discuss the topic is “read the gencost report”, which is garbage as I have previously outlined. It blatantly ignores additional infrastructure requirements, and grossly undercuts even the most fancifully low cost estimates of firming.

I wouldn’t wipe with the gencost report slapped together by vested interests and activists at the CSIRO.

Penfold doesn’t know that 3 mile Island shut down literally because it was uneconomical to run due to the increasing prevalence of cheaper renewables in the grid.

LOL, thanks for another “good” example.

Ken, you don’t get to dismiss the Gencost report because you’re not smart enough to put forward a rational criticism backed with evidence, you’re embarrassing yourself.

Thanks for playing though.

The first comment in that 8 year old article Seano, says:
“Battery storage may form part of a renewable system that can cover base load power”
That simply hasn’t happened and it never will.
That’s why the qualification “may” was included.

Hate to shatter your glass house there chewy but it seems you’re unaware Three Mile Island is reopening in 2028. Maybe read a little more broadly.

Err, no, chewy. Three mile island shut down because it was struggling to compete with natural gas. Amusingly, reactor 1 is being restarted.

Ken you’re banging your head against a brick wall. Seano and chewy can’t bring themselves to read page ix of the gencost exec summary where they CSIRO even admits its nuclear assumptions are flawed.

‘“Battery storage may form part of a renewable system that can cover base load power”
That simply hasn’t happened and it never will.’

Wow Capital. You just refuse to stop beclowning yourself these nonsensical statements:

“One false but persistent myth about the energy transition is that we’ll always need to keep burning some coal, oil, or gas for something called ‘baseload power’.

In reality, the term ‘baseload’ refers to an outdated historical mechanism for dealing with the inherent inefficiency of burning coal.

Coal-fired power stations are inflexible: it’s hard to reduce their output when people need less energy, such as overnight. Baseload isn’t about energy supply, it’s the minimum energy demand you need to continuously run a coal plant.’

https://atse.org.au/news/six-facts-myths-about-energy-decarbonisation/

Meanwhile South Australia sits at 75% renewable energy and is aim at 85% by as early as 2026:
https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/consumers/energy-grid-and-supply/our-electricity-supply-and-market

Log off and go for a walk Capital.

“Maybe you should read a little more broadly”.

That’s a bit rich coming from you Penfold.

When is Hinckley C opening Penfold? It was supposed to open in 2017 at a cost of $35bn…it’s already 3 times the cost and won’t open before 2031.

And that’s in a country with a nuclear energy industry.

It really is time to give it a rest mate, nuclear isn’t magical and it isn’t easy and certainly it isn’t cheap and more importantly it isn’t happening in Australia because of those things and because we’d be starting from scratch.

PS. I like the way your example of “success” is the yet to be reopened Three Mile Island because the Australian public certainly isn’t concerned about a meltdown…oh noes….*snort*

lol…not a genius.

Penfold,
Can’t see where I said i wasn’t aware of a proposal to recommission it?

Something that happened hasn’t yet, or as this guy above put it:

“Always telling us what’s going to happen in the future as if it is fact”.

Penfold. Foot. Shoot. Repeat.

Doesn’t actually change the historical fact that the plant was shut due to being uneconomical in the face of cheaper renewable options.

And that the only reason it may reopen is because a company has a specific need for a far higher level of electrical supply reliability than is typically required.

And is also willing to pay significantly higher guaranteed prices to single source that supply for their own use, rather than have it connected to a shared grid.

Maybe you should read more broadly? Or not, seems you have an innate ability to provide great examples proving the opposite of the point you were trying to make. Hilariously stuff.

Well, seano, I’d wager I’m far more qualified than you to put forward any commentary on the report. But I don’t actually have to do much here. The report entirely relies on LCOE, which has been thoroughly discredited as a method of calculating energy system costs. But you’d know that if you weren’t simply parroting smarter peoples opinions.

“Well, seano, I’d wager I’m far more qualified than you…”…lmao Ken you had plenty of time to be a contender but you didn’t and I wager it’s because you’re neither qualified nor smart enough.

Your claimed qualifications are as valid as your out of hand dismissal of the Gencost report, ie. not at all.

I had a nice walk thank you Seano. I’m back now and have a couple of questions.
Why isn’t we didn’t have any of the baseload problems you cling to when all we had was un-subsidised, cheaper coal fired electricity?
Does Australia have any pumped hydro plants working yet?
I think we are still having about 60% of our electricity being generated by coal too.

You never fail to disappoint with your constant and predictable contributions to this site Ken M. Not to mention your silly emojis. Wasn’t it you in an earlier post claiming that it is funny when activists and vested interests use musings as “evidence”? The Gencost report, which you claim was slapped together by vested interests and activists, was thoroughly discredited by the right wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.

The IPA, which you proudly parrot, is an advocacy group promoting various right-wing causes which includes discrediting climate change science, abolition of the minimum wage, repeal of s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and many other conservative causes.

The IPA’s most avid and well-known supporters and financiers include Gina Rinehart, John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Andrew Bolt, Michael Kroger, Mitch Fifield, Robert Doyle and Denis Napthine. Tony Abbott is a distinguished Fellow of the IPA. Business donors include ExxonMobil, Philip Morris Tobacco, Murray Irrigation Limited, Visy, Caltex, Shell, Esso and British American Tobacco.

The current director and chairman of the IPA is Rod Kemp who served in the Howard government. Janet Albrechtsen, a good friend of Walter Sofronoff, is its current Director. Both, you may have noticed, have been prominent in the news lately!

chewy – you made it quite clear you weren’t aware, which is becoming a consistent theme !

Captial, read the article. Baseload is problem or coal power because it takes several hours to fire up a coal plant. In a mixed grid like ours with gas and dispatchable renewables with firming tech it’s not a problem, the real concern is having the capacity to meet peak load. South Australia is already at 70% renewable energy with plans to go much higher and doesn’t have any significant issues.

Australia currently has about 1.6GW of pumped hyro with about 13GW being built.

I’ve already linked articles you haven’t read explain why Australia’s energy prices are high, hint it’s not renewables which have helped keep a lid on our energy prices which would be much higher without them. Another period of the coalition deliberately stifling investment in renewables will only leave us with higher energy prices.

Penfold,
Ah no i didn’t, not remotely. Your lack of comprehension being the permanent theme. Otherwise I’d love you to outline the exact part of my comment that supports your claim.

I was simply pointing out the reason that it had closed initially, if you could actually read and understand the implications for grid connected Nuclear in Australia.

Although I did make one mistake, in that I gave you too much credit in thinking you understood the reason it “might” be coming back on line to supply directly to a major data centre, rather than the grid.

I also see you once again avoided any of the points raised. Standard.

Ken M,
Ah no, the expanding prevalence of cheaper renewable power made 3 mile island uneconomical to run although yes, gas plays a similar role in that specific case. Also hilariously they wanted the state to bail them out but it was refused.

Although amusingly you think admitting that it was uneconomical in your own comment, makes it better for Nuclear?

And I’ve already addressed the specific reasons why it “might” come back on line, which has little to do with normal grid supply.

Penfold,
“Seano and chewy can’t bring themselves to read page ix of the gencost exec summary where they CSIRO even admits its nuclear assumptions are flawed.”

Why do you keep freely admitting your are completely ignorant to the topic? The outline of the assumptions and analysis in those pages don’t remotely say what you are claiming.

If you think they do, outline with direct quotes, where these “admitions” exist and your analysis of their implications to the wider research and future electricity grid.

LOL
Oh seano, the closest thing to BSc you could put to your name is Bronze Swimming Certificate. You’re not qualified to make analysis of anything. You simply parrot the opinions of people who you agree with. I have outlined several reasons the gencost report is rubbish, and you can address none of them. Being a luddite throwing tantrums doesn’t make you right, it just makes you not worthy of serious engagement.

@chewy14 doing some reading last night I realised that Penfold and Ken are getting these claims unfiltered from the IPA…which is why won’t get a response to:

“If you think they do, outline with direct quotes, where these “admitions” exist and your analysis of their implications to the wider research and future electricity grid.”

There’s no analysis here, they’re just parroting anti-renewables talking points.

Ken you haven’t outlined anything Ken, all you’ve done is post weak insults because that’s all you’ve got.

When you can highlight an issue in the Gencost report that’s not already dealt with in the report you haven’t read let us know…until then sssssh….grow ups are talking.

Ken – yes there’s not a lot of desire to address the issues we’ve both raised about the ridiculed gencost report but at least our leftist friends have learned that nuclear energy is alive and well in the real world.

Neither of you have raised any issues Penfold.

Indeed YOU linked an article that you clearly had not read that showed nuclear as 5 times more expensive than renewables in the US. That’s what the actual cost ratio is in a country with a nuclear energy industry. We would be starting from scratch.

You lose mate, as culture warriors all ways do when they try to apply their cooked views to real issues of economics, technology and science.

I love that Seano has previously called me a Liberal booster and Penfold thinks I’m a “leftist”.

LOL.

“yes there’s not a lot of desire to address the issues we’ve both raised about the ridiculed gencost report”

Happy to address any of them in detail, which is why I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide some specific ouline of your concerns, including quotes you claim exist above.

*crickets chirping*

Not holding my breath though, considering what you have provided previously was easily responded to multiple times before you (as usual) disappear.

As luck would have it Seano my original post raised the issues of the explosion of power prices under Albanese, the government’s policy and the national debt. To date you haven’t addressed a single one. So it’s hard to work out what I’ve “lost”.

Well perhaps chewy if you chose to address the issues we’ve both raised with intellect rather than invective you might avoid the imaginary crickets.

You’re still not qualified to do anything but regurgitate things said by people you agree with, seano. Shhh, people with an education and qualifications are talking. Have your dummy spit elsewhere.

And chewy, I have very clearly outlined an issue, so you must have missed it. The use of LCOE, and complete reliance on it in the report, completely discredits the gencost report, because the method is deeply flawed. It ignores the real world costs and value of power generation, and just throws a guesswork “average” together to make a dodgy projection. You might as well just make up the figures in that case. They are essentially made up at that point anyway.

Oh dear Penfold, nice red herring logical fallacy, we were talking about the cost of nuclear in Australia.

But this dumb question, which doesn’t make nuclear any cheaper in Australia has already been answered…btw…it’s coal and gas that’s the main culprit…a lack of investment under Liberals didn’t help.

“reliance on fossil fuels, aging infrastructure, network costs, and global market fluctuations, particularly in gas and coal prices”
https://theconversation.com/renewables-are-cheap-so-why-isnt-your-power-bill-falling-252391

Seano, you’re still here. Thought it was “game over”.

“You’re still not qualified to do anything’….Ken, stopped reading at this point, your personal attacks based on your personal prejudices and fantasies are as irrelevant and tedious as your insults.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, and Dutton’s plan has been rejected by the Energy Generators and Retailers and is therefore is already a lame duck.

Your personal nastiness does not change that or excuse your ignorance.

“Seano, you’re still here. Thought it was “game over””

It’s easy, but dunking on dumb culture wars takes on energy is still fun.

Thanks for playing.

Penfold,
Thats 5+ comments without answering some relatively simple questions. If you’ve got some “intellect”, happy to address your specific points. No more hiding with weak avoidance.

Ken,
The Gencost work doesn’t solely rely on LCOE, it is used as a way of presenting the some of the findings to give a picture of the likely ranges of generation costs using different assumptions. I agree that in some ways its a crude presentation that doesn’t cover all issues but then again, its not meant to.

Traditional LCOE calculations do have limitations and individual generator calculations can be problematic if they don’t include system integration costs.

Which is why the Gencost work is far more reliable than you’re claiming because they do consider alternative assumptions and system integration costs which typically aren’t looked at in usual LCOE analysis.

“It ignores the real world costs and value of power generation, and just throws a guesswork “average” together to make a dodgy projection”

I’m also unsure what you are talking about here, you’ll need to be specific around what factors or assumptions you think from the “real world” are ignored? And as above, they don’t just give an average, they provide ranges.

This is also then further incorporated into the wider and more detailed systems level planning in the ISP that incorporates significantly more than just these costs to work out the optimised generation mix and future requirements.

Once again, finding a renewables dominated grid is the cheapest.

Ahh, seano, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Every single time you enter a discussion, it is to name call and throw around personal attacks. Now when you are on the receiving end, you want to have a cry about it and use it to deflect and scuttle off. Pathetic. Grow up.

And chewy, I have clearly outlined several issues with the gencost report. I’ll assume you missed them, but lets look at the LCOE issue. The report relies entirely on LCOE to make its projections, and considering how deeply flawed LCOE is, it discredits the entire gencost report. Using guesses on the cost to generate while ignoring huge costs to integrate renewables into the grid at scale, ignoring their intermittent nature and the cost to shore that up, etc etc. With how much it ignores, it is pretty much just making things up. It’s not even close to accurate. While you may be happy using guesswork and made up nonsense to determine the nations future energy policy because it paints the picture you like, I and many other people are not. Accuracy on this is important.

“Ahh, seano, your hypocrisy….”…ah Ken, coming from you that’s hilarious. I stopped reading at this point.

However from my scan, I’ll point out to you I’m not interested in your mindless regurgitation of the IPA’s talking points which have already be addressed in the report haven’t read and would struggle to understand if you did.

Thanks for playing.

Ken,
You haven’t outlined several issues, list them here if you think you have. Happy to respond, same as to Penfold.

And you’re just repeating yourself on LCOE when I asked for specifics. Simply saying “it’s deeply flawed” isn’t a response. You’ve complained about others doing that, don’t then rely on it yourself.

And what specific integration costs are you talking about? I’ve already responded to it above that Gencost doesn’t ignore them, they are included in the assessments which explain some of the additional costs in different scenarios.

“ignoring their intermittent nature and the cost to shore that up, etc”

Intermittency and firming requirements are included, what exactly are you referring to?

“With how much it ignores, it is pretty much just making things up”

I’m beginning to think there is some “making things up” occurring, definitely.

“While you may be happy using guesswork and made up nonsense to determine the nations future energy policy because it paints the picture you like, I and many other people are not. Accuracy on this is important.”

It’s both current and future modelling forecasts with different scenarios, it isn’t “guesswork”. It’s well defined, reviewed and updated assessments using detailed industry data from real world comparisons.

And what picture do you think “i like”?

If it’s the one that delivers us the cheapest most efficient electricity grid, we’ll then yes, you’ve got me.