Lights Out!

[medusala]

So glad privatisation works, especially on essential services.

You keep saying this with nothing to back it up. Private power generators have done a better job than state owned ones.

The Guardian article is just the typical fact free piffle you expect from them. Governments can demand service standards and cpi linked price hikes to private operators. Do they do that under public ownership? No of course not?

Why are unions so opposed to private ownership? Because they know they will be run more efficiently and that will remove their snouts from the trough.

 

[Maggie5]

You keep saying this with nothing to back it up. Private power generators have done a better job than state owned ones.

The Guardian article is just the typical fact free piffle you expect from them. Governments can demand service standards and cpi linked price hikes to private operators. Do they do that under public ownership? No of course not?

Why are unions so opposed to private ownership? Because they know they will be run more efficiently and that will remove their snouts from the trough.

Imagine if the CBA was still in government hands?
Can't think of one service where costs haven't gone up and customer service hasn't gone down, can you?

Living in Victoria, great service from the SEC (electricity), Gas & Fuel Corp and MMBW (water) even though everyone paid a deposit for connection, all were run very well.
Maybe you are too young and haven't a family to know how both cost and service impact them.

 

[medusala]

Imagine if the CBA was still in government hands?
.

It would be hopeless. Remember the state banks in Vic and SA? Oh my werent they well run? What about the landesbank in Germany? Oh yes run ever so well.

How anyone can call for state owned banks is beyond me. So many examples of them being run extremely badly and money directed for political purposes.

Victoria? Prices have gone up less than in NSW and Qld. Coincidence? I think not.

Again the facts dont fit your argument.

 

[Maggie5]

It would be hopeless. Remember the state banks in Vic and SA? Oh my werent they well run? What about the landesbank in Germany? Oh yes run ever so well.

How anyone can call for state owned banks is beyond me. So many examples of them being run extremely badly and money directed for political purposes.

Victoria? Prices have gone up less than in NSW and Qld. Coincidence? I think not.

Again the facts dont fit your argument.

Agree to disagree and you really didn't address all of my post but I know where you stand on so many things don't think we can be best buddies but still enjoy your posts.
I know all about the prices in the states you mentioned as was discussed in another thread and just received my gas account today $400 just keeps getting bigger and bigger every two months.

 

[medusala]

I know all about the prices in the states you mentioned as was discussed in another thread and just received my gas account today $400 just keeps getting bigger and bigger every two months.

See the prices the government got for loy yang (IIRC it was Kirner who started it). I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue they didnt get a good deal (not always the case with privatisation given investment bankers are typically far smarter than public servants).

There are a variety of reasons why electricity prices go up not just ownership eg the price of gas.

 

[Maggie5]

See the prices the government got for loy yang (IIRC it was Kirner who started it). I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue they didnt get a good deal (not always the case with privatisation given investment bankers are typically far smarter than public servants).

There are a variety of reasons why electricity prices go up not just ownership eg the price of gas.

Gas? Trade agreements?
Seriously I really don't know how low income families are coping or even pensioners without super.
Living in a small house, my power and gas for the year is about $4.5k, lucky my water accounts are quite low as I have two big water tanks that I had installed before restrictions (should have waited and rec'd subsidy from gov't) as I am an avid gardner.
Went to the butchers today and bought a side of rib eye cost $90. Never really asked the price per kilo as I have shopped there for over 25 years and asked him how much beef and lamb has increased this year. Told me over 30% this year alone and the good quality is harder to get as more is being exported.
I suppose I just miss the old days.

 

[Demosthenes]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...isation-increase-electricity-prices3f/6329316

Fact check: Does privatisation increase electricity bills?

...

The verdict
While the AER report Mr Foley's office cited found bills in South Australia were the highest among the eastern states, a report by the Australian Energy Market Commission and another commissioned by the Baird Government found NSW households paid the highest bills.

The AER report contains no consistent correlation between higher bills and privatisation.

It found South Australia, with privatised electricity, does have the highest bills. But Victoria, fully privatised, has slightly lower bills than NSW, Queensland and Tasmania, all of which have their electricity networks in government hands.

Comparing bills is problematic because of large variations in consumption, household composition and how people use electricity in different states.

The ABS index of electricity prices across Australia, showing movement of electricity prices over time, also doesn't demonstrate a link between privatisation and price rises.

Whether comparing electricity bills, prices or the relative price index of electricity in each state, there is no consistent link between privatisation and what consumers pay for their electricity.

Experts say the biggest influences on what people pay for electricity are costs of transmission and distribution. They say these costs have risen in recent years irrespective of whether the owners of the transmission and distribution networks are privatised.

Mr Foley's claim is spin.

 

[Elroo]

You keep saying this with nothing to back it up. Private power generators have done a better job than state owned ones.

The Guardian article is just the typical fact free piffle you expect from them. Governments can demand service standards and cpi linked price hikes to private operators. Do they do that under public ownership? No of course not?

Why are unions so opposed to private ownership? Because they know they will be run more efficiently and that will remove their snouts from the trough.

On what metric have private generators done a better job than state owned ones?

 

[Pie eyed]

South Australia is now the epicentre of what happens when ideology is confronted by reality. Where energy security is lost at the altar of renewables, where one of the countries most leftist states finally gets found out for its folly. The welfare it relies on to shield it from the reality of cause vs effect can't restore the lights, keep food cool, maintain electronic banking systems and thus the normal everyday things most of us take for granted. This is the logical result if you sabotage your own power system!

As a colleague of mine negotiated the pitch darkness while escaping the carnage her Bangladeshi driver remarked that even in his own country a storm wouldn't shut down an entire state.... lol

Look like a goose right now?

 

[Sainteric]

agree

but here is the circular error that some will chose to ignore......there is no such thing as on demand gas fired power stations. Yes they are quicker than coal to respond but we are talking hours not minutes or seconds. Thus we are paying for gas to be operating in the background waiting ever so patiently for renewables to fail to deliver and then be called upon.

it's like going to the alter with a women but calling upon the mistress when things go dry and then expect everyone to be happy.


I believe renewables have there place but we are decades away from having renewables that can deliver what some think they can do today. At the same time, many of these people are the same that squawk about jobs disappearing.


I'd still like to wait for the report.

The gas ones do have to be on correct but unlike the coal generators that more or less are on full burn all the time making renewables pretty much useless on the east coast. Gas on demand can be on idle and pretty much ramp up quickly. Anyway if the state, like in this case knew a once in 50 year storm was coming they could off mandated no renewables as Standard OP.

 

[Sainteric]

How was renewable energy responsible for the power going out in SA?

The design of the network to facilitate renewables and exclude gas/coal generation was responsible for the power going out.

 

[Xsess]

Look like a goose right now?

What are you talking about?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

The design of the network to facilitate renewables and exclude gas/coal generation was responsible for the power going out.

really? a huge storm takes down 22 high voltage transmission towers and 5 high voltage capacitors causing cascading power fluctuations which results in a number of cascading errors, the system then deliberately shut itself down in order to protect the rest of the infrastructure.

it had nothing to do with renewables. If anything the grid was more reliable and more robust as a result of the recent shifts into renewables had the system been running on coal it still would have had the emergency shutdown and it would have taken far longer to bring a coal fired power plant back online after an emergency shutdown, instead 50% of homes had power restored within 24 hours all of which had to rely exclusively on renewable power because the overland lines connecting to victorian power were physically severed.

additionally the network is not designed to exclude gas and coal generation, in fact gas and coal account for more then 60% of power supplied in SA, the only special infrastructure renewables require is load handling assets ALL OF WHICH WERE UNAFFECTED BY THE STORM.

the system fell over because the overland transmission towers were not designed to withstand the storm, the reason for this is because such devastating storms are extremely rare in south australia. those towers that fell over have stood for decades long before renewable were part of the system.

everything you've claimed is a lie. in fact seeing your so full of shit: http://www.ausgrid.com.au/~/media/Files/Network/Documents/NS and NUS/NS220.pdf

whilst its all important the part you need to read and understand the most is section 5.5. which outlines how powerlines are rated and why they are only designed upto a certain standard.

never mind all the engineers involved in power supply including the biggest purchaser of coal generated power in the country saying it was the ****ing wind, you simply know "better" your either a liar a ****wit or combination of both.

hurr durr renewables!

 

[Sainteric]

really? a huge storm takes down 22 high voltage transmission towers and 5 high voltage capacitors causing cascading power fluctuations which results in a number of cascading errors, the system then deliberately shut itself down in order to protect the rest of the infrastructure.

it had nothing to do with renewables. If anything the grid was more reliable and more robust as a result of the recent shifts into renewables had the system been running on coal it still would have had the emergency shutdown and it would have taken far longer to bring a coal fired power plant back online after an emergency shutdown, instead 50% of homes had power restored within 24 hours all of which had to rely exclusively on renewable power because the overland lines connecting to victorian power were physically severed.

additionally the network is not designed to exclude gas and coal generation, in fact gas and coal account for more then 60% of power supplied in SA, the only special infrastructure renewables require is load handling assets ALL OF WHICH WERE UNAFFECTED BY THE STORM.

the system fell over because the overland transmission towers were not designed to withstand the storm, the reason for this is because such devastating storms are extremely rare in south australia. those towers that fell over have stood for decades long before renewable were part of the system.

everything you've claimed is a lie. in fact seeing your so full of shit: http://www.ausgrid.com.au/~/media/Files/Network/Documents/NS and NUS/NS220.pdf

whilst its all important the part you need to read and understand the most is section 5.5. which outlines how powerlines are rated and why they are only designed upto a certain standard.

never mind all the engineers involved in power supply including the biggest purchaser of coal generated power in the country saying it was the ******* wind, you simply know "better" your either a liar a ******* or combination of both.

hurr durr renewables!

So obviously you disagree with the national energy market regulator. It has been mentioned here multiple times the benefits of having a large baseload power station has on stabilising a local network.

There is as far as i know no coal powered generators in sa, there is also bugger all gas generation as well. The only decent gas power plant is pelican point which was almost switch off until recently after the storms it was requested it be put back on line.

Nearly all the non renewable energy came throught the interconector with victoria to power SA in the peak and overnight. It was stupid not to protect the energy security of SA.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

So obviously you disagree with the national energy market regulator. It has been mentioned here multiple times the benefits of having a large baseload power station has on stabilising a local network.

There is as far as i know no coal powered generators in sa, there is also bugger all gas generation as well. The only decent gas power plant is pelican point which was almost switch off until recently after the storms it was requested it be put back on line.

Nearly all the non renewable energy came throught the interconector with victoria to power SA in the peak and overnight. It was stupid not to protect the energy security of SA.

no base load power station can stabilize a network which is has suffered critical failure of overhead lines, taking the regulators comments out of context doesn't help your case. a coal fired plant provides stability in terms of a constant supply of power, where as renewables have peaks and troughs. the stablizing effect of coal plants is not referring to incidents involving storms, or massive damage its referring to market prices which is the job of market regulator to monitor and comment on.

also the inter connector was not damaged at all, the power from victoria was being supplied the problem was were not enough lines standing in SA to physically feed that power into the network. the interconnector shutdown because of the fact there was nowhere for the power to go to.

explain how a coal fired plant in south australia would have kept the lines up?

do you understand this yet?

when these things fall over there is nowhere for the power to go, this causes errors in the network which can damage infrastructure so when they fall down you shut down the power.

even if there were coal fired plants in SA the damage around Port Augusta would have still caused the system to shutdown because the same amount of cascading errors would have flooded through the system, triggering the safety protocols and turning off the system.

your argument continues to be bullshit.

 

[Sainteric]

no base load power station can stabilize a network which is has suffered critical failure of overhead lines, taking the regulators comments out of context doesn't help your case. a coal fired plant provides stability in terms of a constant supply of power, where as renewables have peaks and troughs. the stablizing effect of coal plants is not referring to incidents involving storms, or massive damage its referring to market prices which is the job of market regulator to monitor and comment on.

also the inter connector was not damaged at all, the power from victoria was being supplied the problem was were not enough lines standing in SA to physically feed that power into the network. the interconnector shutdown because of the fact there was nowhere for the power to go to.

explain how a coal fired plant in south australia would have kept the lines up?

do you understand this yet?

when these things fall over there is nowhere for the power to go, this causes errors in the network which can damage infrastructure so when they fall down you shut down the power.

even if there were coal fired plants in SA the damage around Port Augusta would have still caused the system to shutdown because the same amount of cascading errors would have flooded through the system, triggering the safety protocols and turning off the system.

your argument continues to be bullshit.

I wont go into the technical detail as its clearly beyond on you, but i think even though you have no understanding of networks you may understand this. Single Point of Failure.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I wont go into the technical detail as its clearly beyond on you, but i think even though you have no understanding of networks you may understand this. Single Point of Failure.

single point of failure has nothing to do with renewables, in fact no assets from renewable were damaged at all.
your continuing attempts to claim renewable were responsible is a laughable.

But by all means tell us what this single point of failure was and how having a coal plant in the region would have prevented it.

really educate me, i'm all ears.

 

[rodney hoo]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...ys-after-gale-force-winds/7920792?section=vic

Maybe some of you guys can explain this, don't Victoria only run coal fire power.

 

[pazza]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...ys-after-gale-force-winds/7920792?section=vic

Maybe some of you guys can explain this, don't Victoria only run coal fire power.

Am not surprised.

There are wind farms in the South-West (with more in the pipeline) and solar is going in residential use as well. Snowy hydro has a small percentage into the State as well.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing is the lack of funding in the transmission infrastructure is the key reason why the power goes out.

 

[Admiral Byng]

it seems there are two high voltage lines that make up the backbone of the SA electricity grid. But one of them was closed down for upgrade/maintenance at the time, so the whole state was hanging off the one remaining one. the the storm hit and took out that one. The "perfect storm" and all that, a one if fifty year storm which hit just when there was no backup available.

 

[Ripper]

no base load power station can stabilize a network which is has suffered critical failure of overhead lines, taking the regulators comments out of context doesn't help your case. a coal fired plant provides stability in terms of a constant supply of power, where as renewables have peaks and troughs. the stablizing effect of coal plants is not referring to incidents involving storms, or massive damage its referring to market prices which is the job of market regulator to monitor and comment on.

also the inter connector was not damaged at all, the power from victoria was being supplied the problem was were not enough lines standing in SA to physically feed that power into the network. the interconnector shutdown because of the fact there was nowhere for the power to go to.

explain how a coal fired plant in south australia would have kept the lines up?

do you understand this yet?

when these things fall over there is nowhere for the power to go, this causes errors in the network which can damage infrastructure so when they fall down you shut down the power.

even if there were coal fired plants in SA the damage around Port Augusta would have still caused the system to shutdown because the same amount of cascading errors would have flooded through the system, triggering the safety protocols and turning off the system.

your argument continues to be bullshit.

That would be a good argument if the power hadn't have gone off before the towers fell down.

The towers were at Melrose, way north of Adelaide.

 

[Ripper]

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/10/06/requiem-for-a-failed-electricity-system/

The preliminary report of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) on the south Australian blackout was published October 5. It summarized the position as

Generation initially rode through the (weather induced) faults, but .. 315 MW of wind generation (then) disconnected .. result(ing) in … the Heywood Interconnector overloading,, tripping the interconnector. In this event, this resulted in the remaining customer load and electricity generation in SA being lost (referred to as a Black System)

 

[Pie eyed]

Anyone blaming renewable s for the recent power outages, especially those who jumped to the "convenient" yet idiotic conclusion the day after the SA blackouts, looks like a total effing goose right now.

Turnbull however looks a total ****ing moron though given he alleges he has some form of intellect higher than plant.
No doubt his brainless acolytes will find some "diversion" to yet again excuse his and his Governments total ineptitude.

I really had a good laugh at the Libs performance in the house this week.

Keystone idiots.

 

[Maggie5]

Some four days later more than 8500 homes still not connected and without power due to storms in Victoria.
Is this the fault of renewables too?

 

[Pie eyed]

The primary cause of the outages, apart from the poor weather is privatisation and the accompanying, zero redundancy, budget infrastructure and crap maintenance.
The towers which came down in SA would have to be the lightest framed I have ever seen.
Add to the current issues the massive cost of the three most recent bushfires through Victoria due to either the failure of power industry infrastructure actually directly causing the fires or the refusal of the private operators to cut power on catastrophic risk, extreme high winds days actually causing the fires you would think one of the brain surgeons in Government would work out that privatising major state infrastructure conglomerates is a lose/lose to everyone but the Treasurer at the time.