The Australian has published the regular Newspoll breakdowns by state, gender, age and capitals/non-capitals, aggregating all the polling the organisation has conducted since the election – a smaller than usual amount, since the pollster took the better part of two months to resume post-election. The results suggest a bit of slippage for the Coalition since the election in South Australia, but essentially no change in the other four mainland states. This is an opportune moment for me to apologise for not having reactivated BludgerTrack over the past week as promised, but the availability of this new data means the delay is probably for the best. It will positively definitely happen later this week.
I agree about the South Australian network.
There should be an investigation as to whether it should have fallen over. We know why it did, or think we do, but the question is: should it have been more bullet-proof?
At the moment there are many generation points – each windfarm, for example, and each solar farm – feeding into a grid that had been originally designed and built for fewer but more powerful generation points – a few big coal-fired generators.
On this basis it was the grid that failed by not taking advantage of the opportunities offered by having a multi-nodal generation capacity.
Local generation, or more localized generation should provide the chance to diversify the grid, make it more interconnectable, extra pathways through which power can flow if the path is blocked at one or even several points.
The solution isn’t less alternative energy in South Australia. IT’s in building a network that can take best advantage of the multiple generation nodes that are part and parcel of alternative energy production.
One thing is for sure, I don’t think the wind farms stopped turning in the greatest storm to hit SA in as long as anyone can remember. And synchronization of generation nodes with the grid is a science that has been over a century in the making. So Uhlmann saying differing wind speeds in different areas makes for chaos is blowing wind out his arse.
The problem is with the organization of the energy network and that is what should be investigated, not the source of the energy itself.
Shiftaling, I was once in the back of a supermarket where they had the back up generator. I was surprised it was powered by a grey motor (of Holden fame) and converted to run on mains gas. Every month the manager had to fire it up for half hour to make sure it worked. It was to kick when the power went down and was primarily installed to keep the freezers cold. I can’t recall if it was a requirement from the insurance company or something the company did as a risk mitigation for self insurance.
Gt
Nuclear power stations are proven technology. Some exploding ones due to faults by a manufacturer no more rules it out than any other product that has a fault.
TPOF
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/03/the-age-publishes-ad-commiserating-with-western-bulldogs-despite-grand-final-win
No big deal, really. Someone probably forgot to tell them that an umpie fix was on the cards.
BB – the wind generators are” turned off” when wind speeds get very high to avoid damage to the turbine infrastructure. Otherwise agree with your post.
BB. there are different types of Lithium battery technology, the LiFePO4 type do not blow up/catch fire.
CT
I actually agree with that. The difference is of course the cost in terms of the damage caused.
With nuclear explosions disaster is the only word that applies. With batteries its a disaster for the person affected and the company whose product the battery is part of.
See Samsung recall. Doing all the right things in the recall but the reputable damage is done.
Nuclear has an unproven technology associated with it however. Waste disposal.
The public objection to nuclear is the disaster that results from an explosion but one Europe Japan and US has accepted as a risk to be managed. Ignoring the waste problem is of course on a par with ignoring the polluting effects of coal.
All proven technology. So don’t think my saying its proven technology is an endorsement its just a fact.
I am happy to look at unproven technology because without it we would not have new technology and renewables would not have become viable.
What I don’t like is when someone says this technology has this flaw and is attacked as whiner ideological opponent.
Address the issue don’t attack the man instead of the ball.
Prettyone
Monday, October 3, 2016 at 10:47 am
Discuss.
You talk it over with yourself, PO.
Well, we don’t know whether they were all turned off, do we? Or any? They can obviously withstand some extremes of wind speed. That would be basic design engineering wouldn’t it?
Really, until there is an investigation into how it happened, we don’t know. The investigation might also wish to consider whether it’s worth it to urgently bullet proof a network against a “50 year” event, too. Many billions of dollars might be pissed up against a very big wall to solve a very infrequent problem that might be better solved by a gradual rejigging of the network infrastructure, as built and as necessary, not in a panic.
In NSW we paid billions (and are still paying them) to bullet-proof our network. And yet we still get blackouts. It was mostly a political decision, because it’s bad form for government to have to explain bloackouts, especially big ones. But it was also a financial one. It fattened the networks for privatization, and where the gold-plating hadn’t been completed we gave the buyers licence to build whatever they felt like building and get a 20% premium on top of costs for it – guaranteed.
All of this far outweighed the puny efforts of the Carbon Tax, but it was Abbott’s brilliant strategy in blaming everything on the Carbon Tax that set the scene. It was an easy story to write for the journalists- “Carbon Tax = Bad Joke” – and Labor did little to counter it. Julia Gillard’s biggest political mistake was in believing that the voters were rational, and would listen to reason and facts about Carbon Pricing, when they are actually a barely controlled reactionary mob on permanent lookout for blood and blame.
When you make wide, unsupported statements like “Hydrogen fuel is unproven technology”, but expect anyone disagreeing with you to write a detailed scientific treatise on why it isn’t, or be guilty of ad hominem attacks, then I reckon “You’re a whinger” is a good enough reply. It uses one bald statement to reply to another.
At least my evidence for this is on the same blog page as the accusation itself, and no-one has to look up any research papers to corroborate it.
I agree with your 12:43 post.
The problem was not the voters as much as the press though. Gillard was wrong to think the media would do reporting instead of propaganda.
Thats what we got. The media letting $100 lamb roasts going with no real calling to account when if Trump said it the Canberra Press Gallery would be all over it.
The double standard has been appalling and continues to be. Thankfully newspoll is telling us country and over 50’s voters are starting to wake up now.
Gt
So the disposal of tens of thousands of batteries is proven? I think not.
Also your –
WTF. I have not ‘attacked you. You claim this time and time again when people disagree with you.
You don’t like facts so you attack the man not the ball.
Thats your argument. Its fact like it or not Hydrogen as a fuel source is unproven technology. Stating this fact is not an ideologial attack or whining. Its stating a fact.
Prove me wrong by showing how its a proven technology in use today and I will accept I am wrong on this fact and apologise.
I thought Turnbull was at NRL GF?
Vic,
I watched the whole thing, from the pretend to be Bon Jovi band with Richie Sambora but not Jon Bon Jovi, all the way through to the presentation of the Premiership rings to the winning players, and I didn’t see him. No one from any government, State or Federal, was on the dias, or shown enjoying the match.
CT
Sorry I was not referring to you using attack the man not the ball.
I was referring to the argument used.
I never said nuclear was an unproven technology. Just hydrogen as a fuel source.
c@t
Thanks. dont know what made me think he was there.
CT
I thought battery disposal was an issue being addressed today. Mainly because there are so many we can’t afford to ignore disposal options.
I know there are problems and yes if batteries are not being disposed of its also an unproven technology we are ignoring just like the nuclear power countries do with nuclear waste
You had it right the first time. You can’t run away from an idea because of what might happen if something goes wrong. And in fairness to nuclear, only two power plants have ever exploded. One because of a risky experiment that was being carried out (so don’t use nuclear plants to run science experiments) and one because of a massive earthquake (so don’t build nuclear plants in tectonically active areas).
“Petrol engines are proven technology. Some exploding Ford Pinto’s due to faults by a manufacturer no more rules petrol out than any other product that has a fault.”
That’s as correct about petrol as it is about batteries, as it is about nuclear.
I found the technical discussions in the attached link accessible to my non-engineering self.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design#Efficiency_and_wind_speed
Boerwar,
Please change your name to ‘Borewar’, it’s more appropriate atm.
KThnxBai. : )
Sorry my 15:53 post was directed at BB
You can chuck the used batteries into the sea. There is plenty of room down there.
Thanks. don’t know what made me think he was there.
Because every other PM before him has turned up?
C@tm
A threadbare personal insult which does not address the 4:1 disparity in free kicks. The fact that newspaper ads were already prepared on the basis of a Dogs defeat is just more grist to the Tainted Flag mill.
The fact that newspaper ads were already prepared on the basis of a Dogs defeat is just more grist to the Tainted Flag mill.
Proves nothing. Just BS.
The real disparity was the 22 points the Swans lost by. No amount of whineing can overcome that little bit of reality.
You seem to possess truly minimal self-awareness Guytaur.
You make a bland statement saying hydrogen power is unproven, without any evidence to back it up, or even a definitionof “unproven” or any other context for your use of the word.
Then you demand that someone who disagrees with you shows you how you are wrong. Oresumably with evidence and some kind of context, when you have not provided the same thing.
It’s a very arrogant, self-centered “Bring Me A Rock” position for you to take, having – no requiring – others running around collecting proofs for their statements, while you refuse to provide evidence for your own statements.
Let me try one: “Jesus died and rose from the dead, and then he ascended into heaven. Along the way he healed lots of people from incurable illnesses and turned water into wine. Jesus truly was the son of God.”
Prove me wrong.
The fact is The Age were given two scenarios with the same heading. Someone at The Age stuffed up. Nothing to do with the game.
gary,
Reminds me of those famous early headlines that were wrong in claiming a victory for one or the other side. Truman v Dewey in 1948 is the benchmark. Locally, the HS claimed a great Kennett victory in 1999 in the early editions.
BB,
I believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows!
GG exactly. They proclaimed Dewey the winner. Oops. Apparently the Herald Sun did the same with Keating’s win. They had Hewson the winner.
GG
18 of those 22 points were the direct outcome of individual bad umpiring decisions.
The other four points could have been erased easily had the Swans had the benefit of a 4:1 scoring ratio in their favour and had the Dogs not been allowed to use sliding tackles to first threaten and finally cripple a Swans player in contested possession clinches.
You are correct that the record books will show the Dogs winning.
But this cannot erase the tainted nature of the win.
Watch out on ABC TV for BK to appear in an interview from Mount Torrens CFS where townsfolk have been out in force to prepare sandbags. Rebekah Sharkie turned up and she reckons Nick Xenophon will be coming. I told her that he’d better not blame the rain on renewable energy!
Newspoll captial/non-capital figures have no credibility.
They where about even prior to the election, and again now. Yet the last two at least have a clear divide with Coalition more favorable in the country and ALP in city.
Its common sense that shouldnt be equal, not sure why newspoll cant fix it.
Thus Spake Mungo: PM’s plebiscite on the nose
By Mungo MacCallum
So much for Malcolm Turnbull’s great fortnight in parliament, followed by his triumphant march through the marbled halls of New York and Washington.
His claque of supporters raved, of course, but the paying customers – the voters – remained resolutely unimpressed.
Newspoll, the bible on which our Prime Minister relied on when he made his grab for power, put his government behind on preferences, and the primary vote fell below 40 per cent – where The Australian’s Liberal spruiker Dennis Shanahan used to gleefully describe as ‘the death zone’ when it involved Labor. Now he is more reticent, as is just about every other conservative.
And the sludge on the toilet brush was another Newspoll, which revealed that the public had switched on the plebiscite – there was now a clear majority for a parliamentary vote on same sex marriage, and even Liberal voters now wanted to dump the coalition’s unbreakable mandate
It had finally dawned upon them that the plebiscite would indeed be a $200 million opinion poll in which they would have to vote but the politicians would not have to take any notice of them, and would still have to do their day job – to vote in both houses of parliament – to reach a decision. All the hype, spin and ballyhoo about giving the people a say on this vital issue was, in fact, bullshit.
At this stage a prime minister of courage and conviction would have confronted his party room, telling them that it was time to cut their losses and ordering them to take a conscience vote to the parliament and get rid of the distraction which was dividing the country and his government.
But if Malcolm Turnbull ever possessed such qualities, he does so no longer. Instead, as soon as he returned to Australia he took the low road: his response to the extreme weather that blacked out South Australia was a tirade against state Labor governments who took an aggressive approach to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.
He knew perfectly well that this had nothing to do with the power failure: it was sheer opportunism and cynicism and, in the wake of a natural disaster, almost indecent
MORE : http://www.echo.net.au/2016/10/thus-spake-mungo-pms-plebiscite-nose/
@ Boerwar – I do agree that the refs made a couple of bad calls. The best of which was a WB player being given a free kick after being tackled high. The replay shows that the Swans player was too slow to even reach the WB player, much less tackle him high, the person who tackled him high was another WB player.
However, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome. I think a completely accurate ref would have decreased the WB margin by 13 points. Not enough to make a difference. WB were the better side, as much as it pains me to admit.
BB
I have pointed to proven technology. Its in use every day. You can prove your point easily. IF hydrogen technology is a proven technology where is it in use?
Another example 3D printing is a proven technology. Its use so far is limited due to manufacturing materials but where it can be used like at the local dentists its a great success.
We have theory about how hydrogen will work but I have not seen anything that comes to the point of proven technology.
I don’t have to prove the negative for you. You want to slag me off for being ideological prove that its technology in use today.
No instead you want to attack someone for daring to point out that discussing flaws of any technology before its adopted is ideological whining and are just using this attack on me as a vehicle to do it.
You are attacking the man not the ball its that simple. You are the one painting a broad brush that one or two posters represent the way every self identified Green thinks using the bring me a stone metaphor.
News for you not every self identified Green person thinks alike anymore than any Labor person thinks alike.
When a person points out a flaw and how it impacts the environment you take the Newscorpse line of its a greenie whining because they are ideologically opposed.
A flaw in a techology is a flaw no matter who brings it up.
I call Hydrogen unproven because thats how I see it. I think this is a fact. I said to you I am willing to admit I am wrong if you tell me how with an example.
But no just more attacks and how you don’t have to prove anything. Thats up to you but don’t expect me to change my mind without a practical example of how its proven technology.
Just keep up your attacks without making an argument because its beneath you to prove anything.
BW,
So you think Swans were cheated?
I certainly hope that’s true.
c@tmomma @ #120 Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:59 pm
William long ago stopped me from using that form of address.
Shame. It is well earned.
BW,
So you think Swans were cheated?
I certainly hope that’s true.
LOL.
Boerwar,
A threadbare personal insult
Thin-skinned much?
which does not address the 4:1 disparity in free kicks.
And your point is? It doesn’t prove a damn thing. You’re just using at as an extremely weak hook to hang your ‘We wuz robbed!’ hat on.
The fact that newspaper ads were already prepared on the basis of a Dogs defeat is just more grist to the Tainted Flag mill.
No it isn’t. It’s just fodder for your increasingly silly conspiracy theory.
GG – I believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows!
That is so pretty, I’m so going to use that!
Incorrect. You are confusing the use of CNC routers with 3D printers
SB
Three umpires could only find four free kicks for the Swans in three and a half quarters of footie.
By the middle of the last quarter the ratio of free kicks was 4:1.
Not credible at all.
It was not that the umpires put the whistle away. It was that they put the whistle away when the Dogs were in possession (c 90 tackles for one free kick in the tackle during three and a half quarters of footie) and popped the whistle back in when the ball was contested or a swans player was being tackled.
It was chalk and cheese.
18 points to the Dogs were the direct result of individual bad umpiring calls.
We will never know just how much damage the umpires did to the Swan’s morale, either.
One thing is absolutely certain: we do not know who would have won had the umpires behaved properly because they did not behave properly.
That is why the Flag is tainted.
c@tmomma
This is not about me. It is about football justice. Nice try at a unicorn, but.
Gary
LOL. Honesty is as honesty does.
BW,
Football justice is “Winners are Grinners”.
There is a significant difference between the dangers of nuclear energy and other energy technologies. It’s not just a case of “if something goes wrong.” We don’t have a satisfactory method of storing the waste AND the waste is significant. Now if we were in some dire situation where there were no alternatives, then perhaps nuclear should be a consideration, but I don’t think we are. Do you?
Boerwar,
I see you make no mention of the egregious refusal to grant Johan Johanisson a goal, even when it clearly was.
Btw, the ratio of free kicks proves nothing. What must be remembered though is who started the ball disposal while on the ground move. The Sydney Swans. I don’t remember you complaining about the fact the sides playing against them weren’t awarded enough free kicks. As it seems that only when your side is on the losing end of such play do you get exercised. Or should that be, over-exercised?
Don’t worry Boerwar, you’ll get over the loss. It hurts for a while but you’ll feel happiness again in the not so distant future.