|
Post by acidohm on Dec 8, 2017 20:51:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 19, 2018 20:07:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 19, 2018 23:16:17 GMT
I don't think so. There may be several changes in Govt in Germany pretty soon. Each time a few thousand old farts like me die, and our children and grandkids don't take kindly to Grandpa and Grandma becoming stiff a few decades early.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 19, 2018 23:33:19 GMT
I don't think so. There may be several changes in Govt in Germany pretty soon. Each time a few thousand old farts like me die, and our children and grandkids don't take kindly to Grandpa and Grandma becoming stiff a few decades early. You forget the inheritance aspect Sig.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 20, 2018 0:32:39 GMT
inheritance? You think my kids are going to get an inheritance? ??
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2018 13:11:45 GMT
inheritance? You think my kids are going to get an inheritance? ?? Surely you aren't going to be that unremembered Sig; at least leave them some bills to pay in your memory
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 20, 2018 15:28:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 21, 2018 21:22:50 GMT
I am not sure this is the right place to post this extract from The Australian.
However, all one needs to remember is that there is no defense against stupidity.
[[Labor risks family budgets in rash energy experiment The Australian12:00AM February 22, 2018
Less than 18 months ago the entire state of South Australia went dark because its interconnector to Victorian power failed after a storm caused wind farms to trip and brought down a regional powerline. SA’s electricity vulnerability was made plain: its own generation, skewed to renewables, is inadequate. The blackout cost was estimated at $367 million and it has led to a $500m state government response including diesel generators, the world’s largest battery, a “virtual” power station, paying companies to cut demand and a new publicly funded gas power plant. Yet SA still is lumbered with the nation’s — and possibly the world’s — most expensive electricity. It remains heavily reliant on the interconnector to power the state when the wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining as well as to sell its renewable energy interstate.
After this costly chaos it seems inconceivable that Labor Premier Jay Weatherill has doubled down on his renewable energy push. He has lifted the state’s renewable target from 50 per cent to 75 per cent by 2025. Less than four weeks from a state election, this target crystallises the choice for voters. Having experienced the supply crisis and high prices of meeting Labor’s 50 per cent renewable target, do voters believe a new pledge to guarantee supplies and reduce prices by opting for even more green energy? The answer is obvious. If SA voters have learned from recent events they will baulk at this leap into the energy unknown. Amazingly, SA-Best leader Nick Xenophon has backed the plan, saying it can work if “there is a proper transition” but if it is not well managed it will be bad for the state. Where has Mr Xenophon been? If the transition were going well the state would not have a $500m crisis plan to bolster power supplies.
Mr Xenophon’s weak response clarifies the choice for SA voters. If they want to call time on household and state budgets being used to fund the world’s largest renewable energy experiment, they will have to vote for the Liberal Party’s Steven Marshall. He has labelled Mr Weatherill an “energy fraud” whose policy madness will lead to even higher prices. Mr Marshall has pledged to scrap the state’s renewable energy targets, which still will leave it by far the most reliant on non-baseload power. But at least this would provide a chance to pause and catch up on energy security and affordability.
This high-risk policy has dramatic federal implications as evidenced by Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg likening Mr Weatherill to a problem gambler chasing his losses and making the situation even worse after giving his state the highest prices and least stable electricity in the nation. The paradox in this heated debate is that SA’s renewables push is funded by the federal government’s renewable energy target. It sees cross-subsidies flow to wind and solar projects, an investment guarantee that lines the pockets of energy companies but hits consumers. The Turnbull government also backs other renewable projects in SA, including solar thermal and pumped hydro storage. But Bill Shorten and Labor are promising to more than double the national target to 50 per cent, exposing the rest of the nation to SA’s energy security problems and demanding $50 billion in extra investment. Energy economist Alan Moran details the folly of all this in our pages today. “To get the equivalent energy from a standard 500MW coal generation unit requires 300 wind generators or 900,000 solar panels, and storage or back-up capacity is required to offset the inherent unreliability of energy sources dependent on the vagaries of the weather,” he explains.]]
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 21, 2018 22:52:01 GMT
I am not sure this is the right place to post this extract from The Australian. However, all one needs to remember is that there is no defense against stupidity. [[Labor risks family budgets in rash energy experiment The Australian12:00AM February 22, 2018 Less than 18 months ago the entire state of South Australia went dark because its interconnector to Victorian power failed after a storm caused wind farms to trip and brought down a regional powerline. SA’s electricity vulnerability was made plain: its own generation, skewed to renewables, is inadequate. The blackout cost was estimated at $367 million and it has led to a $500m state government response including diesel generators, the world’s largest battery, a “virtual” power station, paying companies to cut demand and a new publicly funded gas power plant. Yet SA still is lumbered with the nation’s — and possibly the world’s — most expensive electricity. It remains heavily reliant on the interconnector to power the state when the wind isn’t blowing and sun isn’t shining as well as to sell its renewable energy interstate. After this costly chaos it seems inconceivable that Labor Premier Jay Weatherill has doubled down on his renewable energy push. He has lifted the state’s renewable target from 50 per cent to 75 per cent by 2025. Less than four weeks from a state election, this target crystallises the choice for voters. Having experienced the supply crisis and high prices of meeting Labor’s 50 per cent renewable target, do voters believe a new pledge to guarantee supplies and reduce prices by opting for even more green energy? The answer is obvious. If SA voters have learned from recent events they will baulk at this leap into the energy unknown. Amazingly, SA-Best leader Nick Xenophon has backed the plan, saying it can work if “there is a proper transition” but if it is not well managed it will be bad for the state. Where has Mr Xenophon been? If the transition were going well the state would not have a $500m crisis plan to bolster power supplies. Mr Xenophon’s weak response clarifies the choice for SA voters. If they want to call time on household and state budgets being used to fund the world’s largest renewable energy experiment, they will have to vote for the Liberal Party’s Steven Marshall. He has labelled Mr Weatherill an “energy fraud” whose policy madness will lead to even higher prices. Mr Marshall has pledged to scrap the state’s renewable energy targets, which still will leave it by far the most reliant on non-baseload power. But at least this would provide a chance to pause and catch up on energy security and affordability. This high-risk policy has dramatic federal implications as evidenced by Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg likening Mr Weatherill to a problem gambler chasing his losses and making the situation even worse after giving his state the highest prices and least stable electricity in the nation. The paradox in this heated debate is that SA’s renewables push is funded by the federal government’s renewable energy target. It sees cross-subsidies flow to wind and solar projects, an investment guarantee that lines the pockets of energy companies but hits consumers. The Turnbull government also backs other renewable projects in SA, including solar thermal and pumped hydro storage. But Bill Shorten and Labor are promising to more than double the national target to 50 per cent, exposing the rest of the nation to SA’s energy security problems and demanding $50 billion in extra investment. Energy economist Alan Moran details the folly of all this in our pages today. “To get the equivalent energy from a standard 500MW coal generation unit requires 300 wind generators or 900,000 solar panels, and storage or back-up capacity is required to offset the inherent unreliability of energy sources dependent on the vagaries of the weather,” he explains.]] Seems like responsible citizenry might want to give serious thought to where they place their vote. If lunacy runs in packs, it might be time to step away from the crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 21, 2018 23:32:12 GMT
[ Snip ] Seems like responsible citizenry might want to give serious thought to where they place their vote. If lunacy runs in packs, it might be time to step away from the crowd. SA Labor has a massive advantage with the way the seats are gerrymandered; at the last last election, Labor gained power on these figures: Total votes: Labor Party 478,361 47.0 -1.4 Liberal Party 539,495 53.0 +1.4 I expect Labor and Jay Weatherill to be the SA government after the next election.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 22, 2018 4:09:40 GMT
Ratty
I think a High Court challenge succeeded, and the Electoral Commission was forced to amend the boundaries.
However, I think the entry of Xenophon - whose preferences will flow to the ALP - will lead to ALP re-election. I believe that more than 50% of South Australians are now on welfare, and the party of welfare is the ALP. This is a terrible problem for the democratic concept.
Pity the average SA resident, but that is democracy for you.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 5, 2018 0:56:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 5, 2018 1:40:51 GMT
Do we know who the author is?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 5, 2018 1:49:31 GMT
Do we know who the author is? Whoever it is posts as "CO2islife" and has the blog under that name It may be possible to find out
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 5, 2018 2:48:32 GMT
Do we know who the author is? Whoever it is posts as "CO2islife" and has the blog under that name It may be possible to find out I've left a message on the blog.
|
|