NOTE: Nothing new I can report on the comments debacle, sadly. All I can do is reiterate that it’s not supposed to be this way, and the intention is that it will be fixed. If you use Google Chrome, as you should, this plug-in will get the blog looking more like it ought to (with thanks to AR).
UPDATE: We’re all good again. Thank you for your forbearance, where applicable.
Essential Research is now back in line with Newspoll, with the latest reading of its fortnight rolling average recording Labor with a lead of 53-47 after a one point gain for the Coalition. On the primary vote, the Coalition is up two to 37%, Labor is down one to 36%, the Greens are steady on 10% and One Nation is steady on 8%. Also featured:
• Questions on political donations, including from whom political parties should be allowed to accept them, which records a net positive only from “individual Australian voters”, and heavily negative results for unions, companies (especially foreign), property developers and casinos. Forty-one per cent support a ban on foreign donations to activist groups, with only 31% opposed.
• On the government’s proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, there is an all but perfect split between strongly support, strongly oppose and no strong opinion either way, following a question that explains the finer detail of the change.
• Fifty-one per cent support and 20% oppose “a carbon emissions trading scheme in the electricity sector to provide more incentive for investing in renewable energy and low-carbon electricity”, demonstrating how much difference including the rationale in the question makes when gauging such issues.
• A question on who should have tax deductibility for donations has churches and religious groups ranking second after “groups that campaign on social issues” at the bottom of the list.
• Respondents were asked which interests were represented by Labor, Liberal and the Greens, and received the responses you would expect, with little change recorded since the question was previously posed in September 2015.
wewantpaul @ #2149 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:00 pm
I tailor my arguments to my audience.
In breaking news, scientists have discovered a way to send information back in time.
In terms out infrasound is so dangerous, it is capable of going back in time and causing sickness before the wind turbine is even built.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/people-who-blame-sickness-on-windfarms-may-be-bypassing-doctor
**When did the State ever build any infrastructure?**
Since whenever your definition of ‘build’ isnt based on a cantankerous nature.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-27/grudnoff-facts-about-negative-gearing/7362012
Enter Tony Abbott being all friendly and understanding and helpful.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sppagl
“I tailor my arguments to my audience.”
You might try it isn’t working. But can you tailor an answer to the question that accepts the dubious premise of baseload you unquestioningly embrace, and tell me what power generation option wins where hydro isn’t an option, the country in question very sensibly excludes coal and nuclear, and is happy to burn gas but doesn’t have its own so is going to be buying LNG. Just for fun, if gas turbines are to win, what acquisition strategy have they got for the LNG price over what term? Do they fix in a long term (say 10 – 20 years) LNG supply now, or do they risk the spot market and the chance the big LNG producers are right in their projections of an LNG shortage in the medium term?
@P1
“Try pricing a renewable source of baseload power and you may begin to understand.”
Why do you keep repeating this? You are trying to solve a problem today, that may or may not exist at some unspecified point in the future.
Trump at work.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/congress-officially-made-it-legal-to-kill-hibernating-bears_us_58e93960e4b05413bfe36c1b
It is about time people stopped telling old people what they can live in. Bedroom tax?
And when has emulating the UK Tories ever led to anything than wasted money, misery and premature deaths?
wewantpaul @ #2156 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were serious about this question. I thought you must be joking, because the answer is of course ‘gas’ … by a large margin. Even when you have to ship it in using very large and very expensive bulk transports ships.
Just ask China, Japan, Korea and anyone else who imports our natural gas.
WeWantPaul @ #2156 Monday, April 10th, 2017 – 2:17 pm
I think they follow Trump’s lead, and declare that “Australian gas is for Australia first” and to hell with any contract provisions that would punish any gas producer for delivering to Australia first; those will be legislated into null and void status.
lizzie Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Trump at work.
“Hunters in Alaska can now track and kill hibernating bears thanks to a U.S. House and Senate resolution rolling back Obama-era regulations against the practice.”
***************************************
Trump could not spell the word ‘SHAME’ …… he is an insult to the human race let alone the US …
@ WWP
I’ll be pricing a renewables based baseload (solar & battery) over the next couple of months, so will have the answer to P1’s question.
I’ve got a pretty good idea where the number is going to come out at, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than it would be to build the otherwise required hundreds of km’s of HV transmissions lines.
Murdoch puts it this way (Oz headline):
‘Give us something to fight for’
RACHEL BAXENDALE
Tony Abbott steps in over NSW by-election results, reiterating call for Senate reform and defunding of renewable energy.
I see Player One is still clinging to obsolete ‘facts’. The reason I called her an idiot is not that she is in error. Its that she refuses to self question.
“I’ve got a pretty good idea where the number is going to come out at, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than it would be to build the otherwise required hundreds of km’s of HV transmissions lines.”
Excellent point, I was just thinking the same thing, if you are building new generation capacity to fit the ‘baseload’ or old coal story, surely you factor in the brand new network and network losses into the equation, and compare that to more localised renewable network you will need.
Easter speculation (Oz headline):
Don’t rule out Easter decision
JOHN FERGUSON
It’s not out of the question Victoria Police will declare their hand one way or another on the George Pell case.
Puff, the Magic Dragon. @ #2159 Monday, April 10th, 2017 – 2:22 pm
Can a reduction in a benefit accurately be described as a tax? I think that kind of depiction entrenches the sort of stalemate that leads to the systemic problems we’re stuck trying to fix. Nobody can touch anything because if they do it’ll be shouted down as a new tax and result in political annihilation.
See also: Gillard’s “carbon tax”
“I think they follow Trump’s lead, and declare that “Australian gas is for Australia first” and to hell with any contract provisions that would punish any gas producer for delivering to Australia first; those will be legislated into null and void status.”
Making contracts null and void could cost the country quite a lot. The US is in a fundamentally different position. They have lots and lots of unconventional oil and gas and situation where landholders actually benefit from their land being used for gas (so you largely avoid the ridiculous and unnecessary war they have on the east coast between gas companies and farmers). I haven’t studied it in detail but the impression I get is that they have, and have had at all times, a total domestic reservation policy but can grant export licences. They also have a fabulous pipeline network. Makes the insane position on the east coast where you clowns are sticking with and stuck with a NO dom gas reservation policy the global laughing stock it is.
Grimace. Does pumped hydro figure in your scenario?
Citizen
I hope so!
voice endeavour @ #2157 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Because you (and others) keep claiming it can be done, and then get all nasty and upset when I point out it cannot.
Good point. If you have your way, and we continue to emit C02 at “business as usual” levels then the whole problem just goes away. Of course, we do too … but at least you’d win the argument, which seems to be more important to you.
Is any journalist going to call Morrison on his obvious bullsh** that “negative gearing has been around for a 100 years”?
The ability to offset investment property losses against other forms of income was introduced by Hawke in 1985 at the same time CGT was introduced to capture the resulting taxpayer-subsidised capital gains.
Naturally Howard in the 90’s did what the Coalition does best – they kept the juicy (NG) deductions while gutting the (CGT) revenues.
As many have pointed out, Morrison has previously admitted that these tax concessions have impacted affordability – that alone should also be a red flag to journalists (if there are any actual journalists left out there!)
“Can a reduction in a benefit accurately be described as a tax? I think that kind of depiction entrenches the sort of stalemate that leads to the systemic problems we’re stuck trying to fix. ”
Given the massive inequality that is stifling economic growth and causing significant social issues, you’d need to be able to establish that a benefit is excessive in the total context. You are looking for brexit, Trump and riots if you stick with the inane take from the quite poorly off to give to the super poorly off, while not being game to actually try and have those that have benefited most from the last 40 years and contributed least, put their hands in their pockets. You know the take stuff from the poor to give to the very poor stuff that seems so popular with the right wing and the greens in Australia.
“The ability to offset investment property losses against other forms of income was introduced by Hawke in 1985 at the same time CGT was introduced to capture the resulting taxpayer-subsidised capital gains. ”
Could you elaborate, one tax lover to another?
http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/us-military-taking-climate-change-into-account-in-food-and-energy-security-20170409-gvh8o8
Wonder if Trump has heard of this yet on the golf course???
No P1. You ASSERT it cannot. You’re a very slippery troll.
**You’re a very slippery troll.**
A slippery little sucker?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzYP4McN7eA
You may knowledgably “point out” that the moon is made of cheese P1, but that doesn’t make it so.
Simply face up to the fact that virtually all current Australian investment is going into renewables plus storage, not into fossil fuels such as gas. If solar or wind plus batteries weren’t bankable then the current avalanche – 90 or so EOI’s for SA and 100 or more in Vic- would not be happening.
@ P1 – since when have I proposed BAU?
I have always proposed a market based solution such as an EIS. This removes the taxpayer subsidies given to coal and gas power. I know that, if an EIS is introduced, it will still be renewables that provide the new energy, not gas or ‘clean’ coal. The advantage of the EIS is that it speeds up the whole process, it doesn’t significantly change what the process looks like overall.
I believe the market can and will handle be able to handle problems that may arise from renewables, such an intermittency and baseload, as long as the market is designed efficiently (5 minute settlement, Demand Response etc). While gas no doubt has some role to play here for a time, I don’t see significant new build of gas generation as likely, particularly not if the AEMO and AEMC do their jobs properly.
Simon. More like P1 wallows in shit.
CC,
If all you’ve got to offer the discussion is unceasing personal abuse, then please piss off!
Ah yes personal abuse like ‘piss off’ Now I feel empowered to repeat..
GG GFY
Baseload power is becoming irrelevant. You don’t need baseload when you have a suitable mix of power sources and storage:
e.g. in the intermediate term:
solar, wind, batteries, pumped hydro, gas peaker plants
longer term:
solar, wind, batteries, pumped hydro in conjunction with wind or solar
or whatever.
It didn’t long …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-10/abbot-point-coal-terminal-released-into-wetlands/8430934
Trog, P1 has never bothered to try to understand that a mix of renewables is best described as variable and not intermittent.
It would either require P1 to think about something that is complex or worse challenge her own assumptiond.
CTar1
Thanks. I was looking for the original of a twitter comment. 🙂
voice endeavour @ #2180 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 2:51 pm
I’m ok with this as the outcome, even if I disagree with your belief as to the likely pathway via which it is achieved. Modelling by Frontier Economics indicates that an EIS is the fastest and cheapest way to decrease C02 emissions. It also happens to shows that gas will be the mechanism used, but that is secondary. If it turns out to that we go straight to renewables then I will tip my hat to you. If it turns out to be via gas as a transitional fuel, then you can do the same to me.
Unlike others here, do not promote one particular fuel source over another.
CC,
You had me thinking you were pretending to be a silly, angry troll.
But, you fooled me. You are a silly, angry troll.
Cud Chewer
P1 is the Malcolm Roberts of PB.
Didn’t this fellow’s parents tell him to never go swimming straight after a meal?
CTar1
I worked at Abbott Pt for a few weeks many years ago. Beautiful area ripe for destruction.
It sucks we only hear about this thanks to satellite imagery. Locals and employees must have know. Either nobody complained or complaints were ignored.
GG and you’re a miserable old religiously driven homophobe. We all have our faults, right? 😉
“If it turns out to be via gas as a transitional fuel, then you can do the same to me.”
Gas’ cost and attractiveness is going to be different in different places. Australia has, for whatever reasons, largely skipped the gas step and you’ve got almost zero chance of having a gas step on the east coast. WA should have a significant gas step, but we are leaving it very late, renewables are already outbidding non renewables in auctions. The USA has already largely taken the gas step in fact significant uptake of gas over the last decade or so (can’t remember which energy industry publication but graph that showed source of energy generation in the US and Australia).
@ P1 – if we are lucky enough to get an EIS, then I will take that bet. That it will be renewables, supported by batteries and demand response, that take up the majority of the new CO2e reduction under any of the following situations.
RET+EIS.
EIS with no RET.
RET with no EIS.
Note that I am not saying no new gas would be built – just that it will not be the main source of emissions reduction.
I am making no predictions as to what would happen under, lets call it the Dutton scenario, where the renewables subsidy (RET) is killed off but the coal/gas subsidy (not having to pay for your carbon emissions) remains in place.
If you want the “right” advice, get one of your sympathisers to head the advisory body:
trog sorrenson @ #2190 Monday, April 10, 2017 at 3:10 pm
It amazes me how often you people resort to insults when you can’t win the argument on facts.
CC,
Once again, you refuse to discuss issues without resorting to personal abuse. Traducing others might make you feel important. I’m not surprised. But, I am disappointed that you think your abusive trolling is in any way assisting you to make your points.
“It amazes me how often you people resort to insults when you can’t win the argument on facts.”
They are not mutually exclusive one can win an argument on merits and insult people. Obviously insulting people is never cool.
Not wanting to insult you, you seem, um VERY selective in which posts you respond to, it doesn’t feel like a discussion it feels like you are ignoring pages of stuff and then jumping on something you think is weak and self declaring victory, having not even engaged in much of the relevant discussion.
I am having the same problem with coal-fired power stations yet to be built. We obviously need another commissioner for power stations!
In February last year, Dyer said half the complaints his office had received pertained to windfarms that had yet to be built.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/10/people-who-blame-sickness-on-windfarms-may-be-bypassing-doctor