Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor

The public evenly divided on dual citizens and One Nation Senators in burqas in federal parliament, with little change on voting behaviour.

No change to Labor’s 53-47 lead on two-party preferred from Essential Research this week, with the Coalition steady at 37% on the primary vote, Labor down one to 36%, Greens up one to 10% and One Nation steady on 8%. Other questions find an even split of opinion on whether dual citizens should be allowed to serve in parliament, with 41% for yes and 40% for no, and identical results for a question on whether the affected ministers should stand down. Fifty-nine per cent support a “citizenship audit” of parliamentarians, with 25% opposed. Pauline Hanson’s burqa stunt drew 39% approval and 38% disapproval. Forty per cent deemed the tax system fair compared with 51% for not fair, with majorities agreeing that corporations and “some wealthy people” don’t pay their fair share. Respondents were hard pressed to separate the last four prime ministerships as best/least bad, but with the order of preference running Rudd, Turnbull, Gillard, Abbott. This week’s survey was conducted Thursday to Monday from a sample of 1027, with the voting intention numbers being a combined result including last week’s survey.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

1,196 comments on “Essential Research: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 2 of 24
1 2 3 24
  1. I see Danny Lim at Bondi Junction Interchange on a regular basis. Glad he won. I remember smirking at that sign.

    Did anyone else catch the small business spokesthingy on Ten news blaming industry super funds for businesses not paying employee superannuation contributions?

  2. P1

    This is meaningless drivel.

    Like gas will save the planet?
    To spell it out in simple terms.
    A pumped hydro facility, or any storage, can be “behind the meter” e.g. if you have the pumped hydro co-located with a solar or wind farm, or, of course, domestic battery storage. The economics of storing your own energy are clear, once you have invested in the capacity, because you don’t have to pay transmission costs, or buy power on the market with retail margin.
    If I owned a Whyalla smelter, with a solar/wind farm and pumped hydro nearby, I am going to prefer this over buying power from Snowy 2.0.
    Also, as I have mentioned before, Snowy 2.0, if it is going to make a profit, has to have a business model base on arbitrage. This means buying cheap at night, and selling during the day during peak times. One reason why power has been so cheap at night has been the need for coal fired power stations to keep generating, but these will eventually be retired. On the other hand cheap solar power will become abundant during the day, pushing prices down.
    Poof goes the Snowy 2.0 business model.

  3. Trog Sorrenson @ #56 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 7:47 am

    The cost of energy is somewhat irrelevant for pumped hydro, as it’s value is dependent on the business model. Snowy 2.0 will have to compete with local storage -including other pumped hydro-located behind the meter.

    That’s a remarkably stupid statement. It’s ignorant of both how capital markets work in general and the relative costs of competing technologies in this specific case.

    FWIW, I’m in Porto right now, talking with the Portuguese TSO about their recent development of new wind, pumped hydro and transmission infrastructure, and plans for PV. Interesting to hear that they forced all of their older wind farms to reconfigure their fault rid-through capacity 5 years ago (this made a large contribution to taking down SA last year),, how they prepare for large Atlantic storms, and the development of pumped hydro on Madeira.

    Across the country, they have week-long periods where renewables generate all of their electricity. They also have week-long periods where gas and coal generate 60% of their electricity. Of course, their system is stabilised by strong interconnections with Spain.

  4. bemused @ #29 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 5:30 pm

    C@tmomma @ #16 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 4:37 pm

    Bemused will see this poll as some sort of justification I suppose.

    Justification for what?

    Wilfully obtuse, Bemused? The poll question which placed the Rudd government ahead of the Gillard government.

    Justification for your opinion, too oft stated and ever at the ready, that Rudd was the better PM than Julia Gillard.

    Jeez, even when people are trying to say something to you that might give you the opportunity to cite proof positive for your opinion, you just don’t get it. Or don’t want to. Preferring, it seems, the belligerent response.

  5. Trog
    Also, as I have mentioned before, Snowy 2.0, if it is going to make a profit, has to have a business model base on arbitrage. This means buying cheap at night, and selling during the day during peak times. One reason why power has been so cheap at night has been the need for coal fired power stations to keep generating, but these will eventually be retired. On the other hand cheap solar power will become abundant during the day, pushing prices down.
    Poof goes the Snowy 2.0 business model.

    That doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s a lot of demand during nighttime as well, so if cheap “baseload” coal is phased out, nighttime electricity will become more expensive (probably considerably more), and unlike daytime electricity use, nighttime electricity demand is highly inelastic. While this would definitely drive up demand for home and grid battery, cheap daytime solar would mean pumped hydro could buy cheap power during the day to meet nighttime demand.

  6. Abbott’s Massive Backfire will cost the Libs dearly for years (Jeff Sparrow)

    (language warning)

    Now, the man’s rhetoric was far less offensive than that employed by the young Tony Abbott – but Sandilands (in a clip shared a million times) still denounced him as a “fuckwit”, “cunthead” and “wanker.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/29/abbotts-opposition-to-marriage-equality-will-cost-the-liberals-for-years-to-come

  7. It’s bizarre that the Turmoil government ranks better than the Abbott one. Surely there is little difference between the two, other than the shonky salesman fronting it.

  8. JimmyDoyle @ #217 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 9:28 am

    Trog
    Also, as I have mentioned before, Snowy 2.0, if it is going to make a profit, has to have a business model base on arbitrage. This means buying cheap at night, and selling during the day during peak times. One reason why power has been so cheap at night has been the need for coal fired power stations to keep generating, but these will eventually be retired. On the other hand cheap solar power will become abundant during the day, pushing prices down.
    Poof goes the Snowy 2.0 business model.

    That doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s a lot of demand during nighttime as well, so if cheap “baseload” coal is phased out, nighttime electricity will become more expensive, and unlike daytime electricity use, nighttime electricity demand is highly inelastic. While this would definitely drive up demand for home and grid battery, cheap daytime solar would mean pumped hydro could buy cheap power during the day to meet nighttime demand.

    It makes no sense to you because it makes no sense.

  9. C@tmomma @ #54 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 6:21 pm

    bemused @ #29 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 5:30 pm

    C@tmomma @ #16 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 4:37 pm

    Bemused will see this poll as some sort of justification I suppose.

    Justification for what?

    Wilfully obtuse, Bemused? The poll question which placed the Rudd government ahead of the Gillard government.

    Justification for your opinion, too oft stated and ever at the ready, that Rudd was the better PM than Julia Gillard.

    Jeez, even when people are trying to say something to you that might give you the opportunity to cite proof positive for your opinion, you just don’t get it. Or don’t want to. Preferring, it seems, the belligerent response.

    A statement of the bleeding obvious and hardly deserving comment. I couldn’t be bothered, but obviously it agitates you.

  10. Mr Newbie – Turnbull doesn’t embarrass the punters on the global stage like Abbott did. That alone makes Turnbull (very slightly) better than Abbott.

    Briefly and Steve777 – please don’t read my comment re Ecuador on the previous thread as criticism. I was simply confused.

  11. LU
    I was not referring to the desirability of pumped hydro. Clearly it is an excellent way of providing energy storage. I was comparing the future of centralised hydro with distributed storage. Solar PV penetration is currently minimal, but is in exponential growth which will cut into the cost of electricity during the day, and into an arbitrage business model.
    I don’t know much about the Madeira grid, but with a population of 200,000, it is a very small grid, has bugger all solar pv by the sounds of things, and energy requirements with about as much relationship to Snowy 2.0 as Birdsville has to Sydney.
    You the current centralised model of power generation and storage will prevail, or gradually be displaced. Your beliefs are incorrect.
    I will not use the term stupid.

  12. Simon Katich @ #9 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 4:13 pm

    **What a false headline!**

    If you accumulate 1st and 2nd Gillard comes out ahead of Turnbull.

    By a whole point, but Gillard has four points fewer #1 votes and four points more #4s, so that’s ignoring variation within each half. If you do it by average rankings Turnbull comes out ahead of Gillard and if you do it as a preferential election Turnbull would surely come out ahead of Gillard. However as a head to head Gillard comes out ahead of Turnbull (just: 51-49).

    The ranking given by William is the better one based on the responses as the indicators supporting it conserve more information.

  13. Jimmy Doyle

    That doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s a lot of demand during nighttime as well, so if cheap “baseload” coal is phased out,
    nighttime electricity will become more expensive, and unlike daytime electricity use, nighttime electricity demand is highly inelastic.

    There is wind power and there is also battery storage and local pumped hydro etc. If you take out water heating, nighttime usage drops considerably.

    While this would definitely drive up demand for home and grid battery, cheap daytime solar would mean pumped hydro could buy cheap power during the day to meet nighttime demand.

    This is a complete reversal of the current business model. You could hardly take that to the bank.

  14. KB
    my post was a comment on the misleading headline given to the poll by Sky News.

    Regardless of the lies, damn lies and statistics behind it all; I personally think the question is just a little silly.

  15. I am not contesting the usefulness and cost effectiveness of pumped hydro. Just the possible competition from distributed storage which will intensify. It may make more sense to build a larger number of smaller pumped hydro sites in combination with wind and solar farms around the country, rather than extend the Snowy.

  16. Craig Emerson‏
    @DrCraigEmerson

    Bill Shorten needs to buy a bigger bed. It’s become a Crowded House with East Germans, Cubans, Kiwis, unionists, boats & refugees under it.

  17. Trog Sorrenson @ #1280 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 9:44 am

    I am not contesting the usefulness and cost effectiveness of pumped hydro. Just the possible competition from distributed storage which will intensify. It may make more sense to build a larger number of smaller pumped hydro sites in combination with wind and solar farms around the country, rather than extend the Snowy.

    Yes, maybe it will, but investors won’t be making that decision based on the sort of assessments that you’ve been putting up.

  18. nighttime electricity will become more expensive, and unlike daytime electricity use, nighttime electricity demand is highly inelastic

    There’s an awful lot of night time electricity use that reflects either inefficient usage or unecessary usage, and which was created artificially by the off peak tariffs that come with coal fired power.

  19. Houston is just a precursor of things to come. I’ve been following the Grauniad’s coverage, and it’s just really sad that we’re starting to see the consequences of ignoring what the scientists have been telling us for decades.
    I really fear for our grandchildren.

  20. cud chewer @ #2883 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 10:06 am

    nighttime electricity will become more expensive, and unlike daytime electricity use, nighttime electricity demand is highly inelastic

    There’s an awful lot of night time electricity use that reflects either inefficient usage or unecessary usage, but was encouraged by the off peak tariffs that come with coal fired power.

    That depends. It’s pretty wasteful and inefficient to turn off a thermal generator for 6 hours overnight; much more efficient in both energy and pollution terms to keep it running at its minimum technical level, regardless of if it is a coal plant or a CCGT.

  21. @GuardianAus
    ·
    1m
    Letters threatening acid attack threats sent to Muslims in Bradford

    Where is LNP and ACL to defend against terrorism of Muslims?

  22. That depends. It’s pretty wasteful and inefficient to turn off a thermal generator for 6 hours overnight; much more efficient in both energy and pollution terms to keep it running at its minimum technical level, regardless of if it is a coal plant or a CCGT.

    LU, I’m talking about loads not generators. In commercial/industrial land there is a lot of stuff that just gets left running, or is just plain inefficient (poor insulation, lack of suitable controls etc).

  23. CC, my mistake – Yes I completely agree.

    At least lighting is less of a load than it was. OTOH, if electric vehicles take off, then nighttime loads could be massive.

  24. Voice Endeavour @ #1246 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 1:20 pm

    @ grimace – your calculations are off.

    This is being used to commence a hostile takeover of the existing snowy. The more Turnbull spends, the more of the existing scheme he steals from NSW + Vic.

    Lets imagine the existing snowy is owned 50% by the Feds and 50% by NSW. it is worth $10 B and generates $1B per year, with that annual income split in proportion to ownership.

    If the feds do nothing for ten years, they earn $5B in revenue, and then sell their part of the snowy for $5B, giving them $10 B in cash.

    Or, if the feds build snowy 2.0, which involves building a giant golden statue of Turnbull in the control room as the only change.

    This costs $10B, and the feds now own 15/20 of the Snowy scheme, up from 5/10 before.

    It runs for ten years, generating $7.5 B in revenue for the feds and $2.5 for NSW.

    The feds then sell their part of it for $15 Billion

    The total amount of cash the Feds have is $7.5 from revenue, $15 B from the sale, and negative $10 B that they spent on building the statue.

    Their net position? $12.5 B – So building a useless statue generated $2.5 B in revenue for the Commonwealth.

    Snowy 2.0 finances make sense, from a certain point of view.

    Its been a bad day for me, so I may not have made the point I thought I was making, or I may have misunderstood your point.

    My intention was to say the cost price to the Snowy Hydro to produce the pumped electricity was very high.

    It does not surprise me that the former Goldman Sachs spiv Trumble has tried on a scam to screw money out of the states.

  25. Libertarian Unionist @ #84 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 7:23 pm

    CC, my mistake – Yes I completely agree.

    At least lighting is less of a load than it was. OTOH, if electric vehicles take off, then nighttime loads could be massive.

    That depends on how those vehciles will be used. If they are only used for parking and spend the day idle in a carpark then they could be charged at that time when solar PV is firing. That would at least halve their load on nighttime energy supply.

  26. a r @ #1247 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 1:23 pm

    grimace @ #1742 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 3:07 pm

    Snowy 2.0 is going to have to buy power from the grid, which I’ll assume will be done off peak, so they’ll be paying $0.15 per kWh, best case scenario and likely a lot more (at 80% round trip efficiency that’s $0.1875 per kWh for the stored energy). Then there is recovering the several billion dollar capital cost of Snowy 2.0, which is going to be difficult if the pumped hydro system is only used for peaking purposes, then we add running costs like maintenance and overhead.

    There needs to be a philosophical shift, maybe, to recognize that surplus renewable energy doesn’t actually cost anything?

    As in, if you’ve got a 100Mw solar farm, and demand is only at 80Mw, then it’s not like the solar farm operator saves any money or otherwise benefits by switching off 20Mw of panels. The panels are there and they’re going to generate electricity as long as the sun is shining on them. The solar operator loses nothing by gifting their unused output to Snowy (or a Tesla battery farm, or whatever), and gains even if they sell the surplus at $0.01 per kWh.

    Though I’d treat it more like a bank; generators “deposit” energy into Snowy (or batteries, or whatever other storage solutions are available) and no money changes hands when this happens. They’ve just moved their energy, and haven’t used or sold it yet. Then when the storage is tapped the generated energy is sold to consumers at the standard retail rate, and the generator and the storage operator split the proceeds 50/50 or along whatever lines are fair.

    I’d agree 100% that it makes zero economic sense to burn extra coal, gas, or any other nonrenewable energy source for the purposes of storing energy. There’s no such thing as a surplus of nonrenewable energy. But I think renewables are a completely different ball-game, and need different and better rules.

    I take your point about surplus renewable energy, and the potential for it to be very cheap when Snowy 2.0 is purchasing it. Pumped hydro is an enormous consumer of electricity and that in itself is going to create a market for energy where one otherwise didn’t exist and that will create a price where generators were otherwise bidding into the market at zero, or increase the current very low price.

    Even where the electricity is extremely cheap, the Snowy is still drawing electricity from the grid and will have to pay network, capacity an ancillary charges, which currently represent about 75% of the retail price of electricity, so regardless of the wholesale price of electricity, and I imagine they would enter into some sort of PPA to guarantee the price and its availability, there is still an immense cost associated with the electricity.

  27. Mr Newbie @ #58 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 6:30 pm

    It’s bizarre that the Turmoil government ranks better than the Abbott one. Surely there is little difference between the two, other than the shonky salesman fronting it.

    At least Abbott actually believed in some of the crap he was pushing. It was stupid and appealed to a small cohort of loons, but at least he represented something slightly larger than his own ambition. I rank him over Trumble for that alone.

  28. OTOH, if electric vehicles take off, then nighttime loads could be massive.

    That depends on how the market responds and what charging options are available during the day.

  29. grimace,

    One of the things I’m working on is landfill mining and reclamation. That’s a process that requires a lot of energy. And at this stage I’m actually contemplating having a dedicated solar farm rather than buying in surplus energy.

  30. Trog Sorrenson @ #88 Tuesday, August 29th, 2017 – 7:39 pm

    LU
    When electric vehicles really take off they also represent a huge network battery reserve.

    I don’t really see this working in practice. The battery reserve would be most needed late afternoon/early evening when electricity demand peaks and solar supply drops off. But this is when many of those electric vehicles would be commuting and therefore off the grid or arrived at home with diminished capacity.

    Would the vehicle owners be happy to sell off their remaining stored capacity and have to buy back later at night so they can use the vehicle the next morning? Do the vehicle owners buy vehicles with much larger storage capacity than they really need so they can supply into the grid after they get home but at the additional initial cost of those extra batteries and reduced fuel efficiency driving around all that extra battery weight?

  31. At least Abbott actually believed in some of the crap he was pushing.

    At least on social issues, this has been the biggest let down to voters from the failed Turnbull experiment. People know he supports marriage equality and serious, genuine action on climate change. He started losing his appeal to the public when he became leader and turned his back on those things in the name of keeping the leadership.

    I’m not sure I’d give Abbott a pass on representing something bigger than his own leadership – after all he hid his true agenda from voters in the name of becoming PM. But I do agree that Turnbull’s leadership has been more intellectually dishonest.

  32. cudchewer, A goodly chunk of the night time power load is from industrial processes that cannot be turned off, such as aluminium smelting, steel plants, many chemical processes, fertilizer production, galvanizing, etc etc. It takes days to shut these down safely, and days to get them going again. Many other processes operate overnight to make effective use of capital intensive plant, like food production facilities, (bread, milk products, canneries) and, of course, mines. I have worked in, and as a consultant to, many of these industries. Their demand for overnight power will continue, always dependent on their being viable, given the cost of energy.

  33. Its Time..

    Most electric vehicles will only get used to a fraction of their battery capacity. They’ll either get plugged in when the owner gets home after work, or get plugged in at work. So it all depends on the market. If you have enough charging going on during the day then some people might actually take their energy supply for the evening home with them.

    One possible outcome is that we end up with an oversupply of solar relative to afternoon demand and that cars are the main backup system.

Comments Page 2 of 24
1 2 3 24

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *