IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,091
- Reactions
- 5,394
Note China's contribution to the worlds CO2 emissions... still catching up to us...eh.
Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,868
- Reactions
- 26,671
Spot on, considering the amount of the worlds manufacturing China does, they are actually doing a hell of a job mitigating their emissions.
China installed the most renewable energy capacity in 2023, adding almost 350 GW, which is two-thirds of the global total. This is according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
List of countries by renewable electricity production - Wikipedia
China produced 32% of global renewable electricity, followed by the United States (11%),
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,091
- Reactions
- 5,394
This happened in May buried a town expect more of these.
The video footage is pretty good.
Glaciers in Switzerland have lost almost 40% of their volume since 2000, and the loss is accelerating, according to the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. Record-high summer temperatures in 2022 and 2023 caused a 10% glacial ice loss in the country.
abcnews.go.com
The video footage is pretty good.
Why glaciologists believe the Birch Glacier collapsed, burying a nearby Swiss town
Glaciers in Switzerland have lost almost 40% of their volume since 2000, and the loss is accelerating, according to the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research. Record-high summer temperatures in 2022 and 2023 caused a 10% glacial ice loss in the country.
Why glaciologists believe the Birch Glacier collapsed, burying a nearby Swiss town
The landslide flattened homes in the Alpine town of Blatten.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,091
- Reactions
- 5,394
Pretty good report on coal power use word wide
In 2024, global coal power additions dropped to their lowest level in 20 years, yet the world’s coal fleet continued to grow, according to Global Energy Monitor’s annual survey of the global coal fleet.
Data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker show that 44.1 gigawatts (GW) of coal power capacity was commissioned while 25.2 GW was retired in 2024, resulting in a net increase of 18.8 GW. The capacity commissioned was nearly 30 GW below the annual average for 2004 to 2024 (72 GW) — a sign of the continued slowdown in global coal construction.
globalenergymonitor.org
Tracking the global coal fleet: 2024 highlights
In 2024, global coal power additions dropped to their lowest level in 20 years, yet the world’s coal fleet continued to grow, according to Global Energy Monitor’s annual survey of the global coal fleet.
Data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker show that 44.1 gigawatts (GW) of coal power capacity was commissioned while 25.2 GW was retired in 2024, resulting in a net increase of 18.8 GW. The capacity commissioned was nearly 30 GW below the annual average for 2004 to 2024 (72 GW) — a sign of the continued slowdown in global coal construction.
Boom and Bust Coal 2025
Boom and Bust is an annual survey of the global coal fleet by Global Energy Monitor and partners. The report analyzes key trends in coal power capacity and tracks various stages of capacity development including planned retirements. This provides key insights into the status of the global...
globalenergymonitor.org
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,297
- Reactions
- 4,653
There is more recent data, showing RE capacity additions in 2024 were some 25% greater, and that in 2025 are already over 140% greater than the same period in 2024:Spot on, considering the amount of the worlds manufacturing China does, they are actually doing a hell of a job mitigating their emissions.
China installed the most renewable energy capacity in 2023, adding almost 350 GW, which is two-thirds of the global total. This is according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
List of countries by renewable electricity production - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
China produced 32% of global renewable electricity, followed by the United States (11%),
China's RE capacity additions are now well in excess of 5 large nuclear power plant per week.
Attachments
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,868
- Reactions
- 26,671
Yes they are doing a great job, while we pay for it.
Its ironic that we are struggling to pay for our transition, that we are buying from them and they are steaming ahead, with the money they make from selling us stuff.
Yet we are the smug ones, it will be interesting to see how long that lasts for, we live in a fools paradise.Lol
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,297
- Reactions
- 4,653
You have it back to front.
Your "we" derive more electricity from coal plant generation than the average Chinese person.
What's more it has been the case for over a century. And Chinese per capita CO2 emisssions are still lower than Australia's, but you would blame them for a problem you never sought to solve.
It is also the case that 17% of the world's population now generates over a third of all products made, mostly for western nations - like Australia - who cut their industrial emissions by offshoring production. Luckily Chinese production is now the most efficient in the world so the unit CO2 contibution of goods is lower than had it been produced here or anywhere else. So if you want to maintain your present high living standard it's far better to rely on China than any other nation from an emissions perspective.
For now obvious reasons China is the world’s largest electricity consumer, unsurprisingly in 2024 accounting for a third of global power demand. RE+nuclear met more than 80% of China's demand growth and this sector is expected to subsume coal plant generation after 2027 when China expects to cease new coal plant builds. Builds in the interim only shore up demand during the transition:
I'm not sure why you consider us to be living in a fool's paradise. Because of China's low cost RE+ battery costs we have the ability to quickly andinexpensively transition from coal power dominance, but struggle due to poor policy, excessive regulation and the power of existing big players in the energy market to manipulate electricity pricing.
Your "we" derive more electricity from coal plant generation than the average Chinese person.
What's more it has been the case for over a century. And Chinese per capita CO2 emisssions are still lower than Australia's, but you would blame them for a problem you never sought to solve.
It is also the case that 17% of the world's population now generates over a third of all products made, mostly for western nations - like Australia - who cut their industrial emissions by offshoring production. Luckily Chinese production is now the most efficient in the world so the unit CO2 contibution of goods is lower than had it been produced here or anywhere else. So if you want to maintain your present high living standard it's far better to rely on China than any other nation from an emissions perspective.
For now obvious reasons China is the world’s largest electricity consumer, unsurprisingly in 2024 accounting for a third of global power demand. RE+nuclear met more than 80% of China's demand growth and this sector is expected to subsume coal plant generation after 2027 when China expects to cease new coal plant builds. Builds in the interim only shore up demand during the transition:
I'm not sure why you consider us to be living in a fool's paradise. Because of China's low cost RE+ battery costs we have the ability to quickly andinexpensively transition from coal power dominance, but struggle due to poor policy, excessive regulation and the power of existing big players in the energy market to manipulate electricity pricing.
- Joined
- 20 October 2021
- Posts
- 324
- Reactions
- 674
Damn you Global Warming! Now its boiling southern QLD!
If only electricity could be made even more expensive, this would save QLD!
2 August 2025
Snow spotted near Warwick as Southern Downs sees rare winter spectacle
The Granite Belt region was greeted with flurries of snow for the first time in several years, as many people took trips further south into the NSW Northern Tablelands to enjoy a winter wonderland.
In a spectacle not often seen in the Sunshine State, people across the Granite Belt were treated to sleet and snow flurries as a major cold front swept across Queensland.
People across the Southern Downs marvelled at the beautiful sight of snow flurries at the weekend, something rarely spotted as far north as Warwick, while many took trips a bit further south across the border for heavier snowfall.
If only electricity could be made even more expensive, this would save QLD!
Loading...
www.thechronicle.com.au
Snow spotted near Warwick as Southern Downs sees rare winter spectacle
The Granite Belt region was greeted with flurries of snow for the first time in several years, as many people took trips further south into the NSW Northern Tablelands to enjoy a winter wonderland.
In a spectacle not often seen in the Sunshine State, people across the Granite Belt were treated to sleet and snow flurries as a major cold front swept across Queensland.
People across the Southern Downs marvelled at the beautiful sight of snow flurries at the weekend, something rarely spotted as far north as Warwick, while many took trips a bit further south across the border for heavier snowfall.
- Joined
- 20 October 2021
- Posts
- 324
- Reactions
- 674
"..to manipulate electricity pricing"., rederob
Like by ..subsidizing solar panels and batteries, and closing coal-fired power plants? ..Honestly.
The monthly electricity bill tells everyone where "renewable energy" leads.
Like by ..subsidizing solar panels and batteries, and closing coal-fired power plants? ..Honestly.
The monthly electricity bill tells everyone where "renewable energy" leads.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,091
- Reactions
- 5,394
In the so called energy market on the east coast more energy is traded than actually produced?
I know insiders (foreign owned) involved in the market looking to make plus $200 mil minimum.... guess who pays?
BTW in WA I haven't paid a energy bill for 6 years, I have solar, WA is State owned... worse Labor government.
- Joined
- 20 October 2021
- Posts
- 324
- Reactions
- 674
IF,
I'd just like my electricity bill to be less!
Also, whilst totally unrelated, and probably not your club:
-I hope the Dockers will see off in style, the AFL champion Nat Fyfe
I'd just like my electricity bill to be less!
Also, whilst totally unrelated, and probably not your club:
-I hope the Dockers will see off in style, the AFL champion Nat Fyfe
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,091
- Reactions
- 5,394
I am an Eagles supporter but hope the Dockers get up they have at long last changed the culture to AFL standards and yes Fyfe is a champion wish him all the best.
For your electricity bill to come down on the East Coast I honestly don't see how that can happen.
Renewables change over is too slow, aging coal fired power stations being propped up beyond their use by date, places like Victoria have restricted gas exploration, NSW and QLD have sold off much of their gas reserves to overseas making local gas prices stupidly high, gas import terminals being built on the East Coast (unbelievably).
I would happily blame the Coalition for all the woes but Labor have been complicit in the mess as well (historically).
Federal Labor wont be able to fix the last 30 plus years of D F stupid decisions in fact neither could the Coalition (10 years of indecision not that it was any worse than state Labor Governments)
Als I can say is migrate West as long as mining booms continues we are floating on cash while paying down debt.... if they could fix the freeway jams... paradise.
Note : possible bias opinion with WA inserted chip on shoulder.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,824
- Reactions
- 19,093
What's missing in that debate is where the money's going.
Electricity supply costs can be broken down into four basic groups:
1. Generation. That is power stations of all descriptions along with the fuel supply to make them work.
2. Transmission. That is big lines on steel towers (there's some underground transmission in cities, but mostly it's overhead)
3. Distribution and metering. That is the network in your town or suburb.
In all cases the wages or salaries of workers, the cost of finance, administration and so on is part of that cost. Eg someone has to clean the toilets at a power station and that cost is apportioned to the generation category, etc same with every expense.
Historically generation was roughly 40% of the total supply chain cost for the overall industry, with no separation of the other two although in practice distribution was most of it (that is, transmission cost stuff all).
What's changed today is there's been upwards pressure on all the above due to the market and industry structure having introduced a great deal of additional administration as well as directly lowering both labour productivity and technical efficiency. It's why the electricity industry employs more people now than it did decades ago not just in total but per kWh supplied to consumers, it's become less efficient over time.
The other big factor today is:
4. Administration that is not of generation, transmission or distribution but which is an unavoidable cost to consumers. These costs today are, for a typical household in SA, 35 - 40% of the total bill and are the largest single cost component. Larger than generation. Larger than distribution. A lot larger than transmission.
Now looking at those costs, they fit into three basic categories:
First is regulation and we have quite a few regulators involved here. Noting it's not just the cost of the regulators, it's the cost of the legal team employed by each generator, network and retailer to ensure compliance and avoid being fined - there's a lot of lawyers working in the electricity industry these days and they're not cheap.
So we have the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) but that's just the beginning. To that we can add:
Australian Energy Markets Commission (AEMC)
Australian Energy Regulator (AER), the governance, powers and duties of which are established under agreement of the Energy Council and described in the National Electricity Laws.
Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee (ENCRC)
Energy Security Board (ESB)
The Energy Minister's Meeting, which is an official thing not just a straightforward meeting of the ministers.
Governing all is is the National Electricity Law.
Governing the development of policy is the Australian Energy Market Agreement (AEMA)
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) also has a significant role, including but not limited to an effectively permanent ongoing review of the gas industry.
Retailers must comply with the National Energy Retail Law (NERL)
To that we can add an assortment of reviews into the NEM or aspects thereof, for example the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market or more recently the Nelson Review.
That's just for the operation of the industry, it does not include things like setting standards for electrical works, licensing and registration of electricians, enforcement and so on which are undertaken by other bodies separate to the above and to each other.
That's the first category, the second category are the retailers.
A household consumer in SA has a choice of 268 retail plans offered by 25 different retail companies, all of whom will supply the same electricity to the same address via the same physical network. All of whom also have their own management, staff, hugely expensive NEM-compliant billing system (and that alone can run to $100 million) and so on. Repeat for each retailer.
Now the third category and that's finance.
The role of finance in this context isn't about providing capital for the construction of power stations, transmission lines etc and nor is it about billing customers for electricity. Rather, the role of finance in this context is to create a highly volatile market, create a financial market to hedge that volatility, then undertake trading on these markets.
To put it into perspective, the volume of electricity run through the financial process is about 6 times that which comes out of the power stations (of all types including solar, wind etc). Or in other words, each unit of electricity is traded on average 6 times before it reaches the consumer.
Now I'm conscious that this is a stock market forum not an energy forum and I'm also generally a pretty nice guy, I don't like upsetting people unless there's a good reason.
I will however make an observation about how society works and there's really two points to it.
First is that people tend to bias toward others like themselves and they tend to bias toward things in their area of competence. That's a human thing and just how we are.
Ask a dozen different people, all with different qualifications, how to fix a problem and they'll all give you different answers but, key point, they'll bias toward their own competency.
Ask a security guard about security and they'll suggest physical patrols and the like.
Ask an electronics tech and you'll find CCTV and alarms being set up.
Ask a finance person and they'll sell you insurance.
Someone else will sell you a safe or put bars on the windows.
Etc, all to fix the same problem and all will bias toward their own occupation and area of competency.
The second issue is that old saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That doesn't necessarily manifest as outright fraud or other wrongdoing. It can simply manifest that whoever's in charge favours their own profession and competency, making no effort to consider alternative solutions meanwhile society foots the bill.
Put the two together and if engineers are given free rein without checks and balances then don't be surprised when the result is they employed more engineers than necessary and went about designing and building things that didn't really need building, or which were unnecessarily complex and so on when some objectively superior "off the shelf" solution was available.
That's a fair criticism indeed there's an actual precedent for it, because the former Electricity Commission of NSW did indeed run amok and did just that 45 or so years ago, then tried to take it even further. To be fair government had kept them in the dark about a critical piece of information which had they known about it might've changed the approach, but still it did get out of hand. Several other states very nearly did the same.
So there's a good argument to say don't let engineers do things unchecked, for you might find they do too much engineering and subsequently that leads to too much construction.
On the other hand, well I think you know what I'm about to say. Put lawyers, regulators and finance in charge, leave them unchecked, and they end up creating excess work for lawyers, regulators and finance people at the expense of society.
That's exactly what's happened here. Breaking up the utilities, bringing in a competitive market and so on may have put a stop to excess on the engineering side but instead we've now got bloat on the financial, regulatory and legal side. Hence your rising bills.
Now I'm not suggesting the solution is to just fire every lawyer, regulator and finance person in the industry, that won't work, but I do think there's a need for a much better balance. We need the money to be going into actually doing things, be that renewable or other, not being spent in an office.
Same applies to other industries. As per a recent ABC report, it seems we've got something very similar going on with housing which, of course, is another industry with a price issue.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,297
- Reactions
- 4,653
This thread has many times shown that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of generation, so your ideas are baseless.
Moreover, the subsidising of fossil fuels make any support for RE look like penny change.
The easiest way to show how wrong you are is to compare electricity bills for a home with rooftop solar with a home without. In my case I have earned over $1000/year every year in the 15+ years of having installed rooftop solar, and only ever had one bill for electricity when lightning knocked out my system. Conservatively that's a $20k saving in supply after installation costs plus $15K in FIT. Also, if your idea was worth a crsacker, then generators would be buiding FF-based power plants rather than RE. The fact that Bluewater in WA was the most recent FF-based power plant built in Australia - in 1999 - and that it went into administration, supports the switch to RE.
You also do not realise how the big players (generators) are able to game the system. This happens because they may have most or all the full mix (ie coal, gas, wind, solar and BESS) of dispatchable energy under their umbrella,and they can ensure the final bid price (usually based on coal or gas generation) offsets their lower priced RE or BESS input.
Not many people are likely to read the linked National Electricity Market Wholesale Market Settings Review. Those who do will see that it examines how to better link the wholesale market, related derivatives markets and long‑term investment markets, ensuring they work together for the end consumer; the spot market facilitating efficient dispatch, the derivatives market managing risks arising from the spot market and a new Electricity Services Entry Mechanism (ESEM) extending the forward signals from the derivatives market to support longer-term investment.
Signficant impetus for the review is predicated on the rapidly increasing penetration of variable renewable energy and consumer energy resources in the system, which media notes as regularly hitting record new record highs, and the scheduled closure of ageing thermal plant generation draws nearer
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,312
- Reactions
- 8,335
The "Biggest Game in Town" is power companies rorting the current electricity market. This has been established time and time again.
The huge profits these companies are extracting from customers is the outcome. Consumers being being over and Governments slinging energy subsidies money to people to quieten than down is another outcome.
Regulators’ wake up call: Fossil fuel majors are gaming markets
Giles Parkinson
Jun 1, 2017
Featured, Smart Energy
Australian regulators are finally waking up to the grim consequences of Australia’s archaic energy market design, and the fallout from the reckless and self-serving opposition to carbon pricing and renewable energy targets by the industry incumbents.
The Australian Energy Regulator’s latest State of the Energy Market report paints a frightening picture of how prices are controlled, manipulated and thrust into orbit by the cynical bidding practices of the major fossil fuel generators.
Consumers – both households and business – are paying the price, and they are faced with a double whammy, because as the Queensland Competition Regulator notes in its latest pricing report, it is the lack of renewable energy in the state which is allowing the coal and gas generators to set high prices.
This last bit of information is highly ironic, because the QCA, under the then leadership of Malcolm Roberts (not the Senator, but the current head of the main oil and gas lobby APPEA) was among those who used to rail against solar feed in tariffs and the like.
The then Queensland energy minister Mark McArdle argued that renewable energy would cause energy prices to surge. In fact, as anyone who was paying attention would have predicted, the opposite has turned out to be true.
So much so that the QCA now makes clear that it is the lack of renewable energy that is allowing wholesale prices to stay high. That’s because it means the market relies more on expensive gas to set the marginal price, but also allows the fossil fuel generators virtual carte blanche to manipulate the market.
Regulators’ wake up call: Fossil fuel majors are gaming markets
Regulators issue grim warning about power of big fossil fuel generators to game energy markets, forcing up prices. They say the price surge to “unprecedented” highs in coal-dependent Qu…
reneweconomy.com.au
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,868
- Reactions
- 26,671
HI Rob, we are living in a fools paradise, because we are living way beyond our means and doing very little to reign it in.
China is playing the long game and kudos to them.
Unfortunately we live one election cycle at a time, you may dissagree, but that is my take on it.
Our add hock electrical system, which has a target to meet, but obviously no idea, plan or structure of how to achieve it, is just another example of short term thinking driven by sound grabs and prayers.
We will be lucky if we have any industry, other than mining, left in 5 years. Lol
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,824
- Reactions
- 19,093
I'll go one better - I had face to face discussion providing my input to it.
Ultimately though, and this is not a criticism of those involved, it is a review constrained by a predetermined outcome that it's a review of some details of the NEM and that's it.
I'll use an analogy here of saying this is not a review of transport in a city. Rather, it's a review of some details regarding how to improve the movement of cars around the city. So we can discuss things like widening the road at a few pinch points, changing the traffic signal timings to maximise vehicle throughput, we can perhaps have an app showing available parking spaces and so on. What we won't be doing is suggesting buses, trains, trams, cycling or walking. That the outcome will be car based is a given, what we're trying to do is get them moving faster.
Now back to the NEM Review and to be fair to Tim and the others running it, they made no attempt to stop me expressing my view that it's not rational to use gas when already built wind and solar is available so full points for freedom of expression. They did however politely remind me that's a matter for the market to decide, it's not something the review is concerned with. One of my other suggestions seemed to be much better received, since it was fully consistent with the market approach.
As per my previous comment, put engineers in charge and you get an engineering outcome. Put market economists and similar people in charge and you get a market outcome. Doubly so when the terms of reference pointed them in that direction.
The trouble with all this is in Australia we tend to get stuck on the one approach. Something is done that was perhaps the right thing to do at the time then we become stuck in a thought process that must be the best way no matter what, it's never questioned.
The present manifestation of that is that we don't want anyone to walk in and say here's what needs to happen, there's a need to build this, do that and so on. Rather we're intent on making absolutely sure that doesn't happen, nothing is prescriptive and "the market' is left to come up with the answer. It's being approached from a market economics perspective not a technical or outcome focused perspective.
How it'll pan out is of course unproven at the present time. My personal view however is it's nowhere near enough, it'll do something but it won't change the big picture. I don't expect it will remove the need to subsidise industry or watch it disappear, I don't expect it will remove the economic barrier to electrification and I don't it'll avoid price being a problem for household and commercial users. Better than nothing, but it's not radical reform. Time will tell.
What's needed in my view is far more prescriptive. With reference to the transport analogy, something more akin to:
"Thank you for inviting my input to your inquiry into the subject of how to make cars move around the city better. Now here's my map of the entire metropolitan area and I draw your attention to the train lines and stations shown in blue, the busway shown in yellow and the ferry terminals and routes marked in red. Attached is a proposed plan of works with indicative costs, completion dates and a list of properties to be acquired and their estimated market value. I've also had some discussions with the chamber of commerce about a plan to smooth demand. Finally, we'll also undertake detailed geological investigation at the location shown in black on the map, this being for a future road tunnel. BOOM!"
Last edited:
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 14,676
- Reactions
- 22,264
Do we have gave any industry left?
As for mining,which one will be left?
Iron will be on the way down, gas and coal towards ruled extinction.
A few gold mines and maybe copper?
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,297
- Reactions
- 4,653
Not sure how things are significantly different from 50 years ago, except that home ownership is more difficult.
A large range of consumer goods are massively cheaper today (on an indexed cost basis) than then, or even 20 years ago. Here's an example of our 50 year old TV costs:
While it is true that China -as a nation - plays the long game, a major societal difference is the propensity of their people to save money rather than live on credit.
Given most democracies involve changes of government on a comparatively regular basis, Australia is little different from the majority. And in terms of various policies, such as in regard to energy, it is the case that ideology is a significant driver. How that relates to living in a fool's paradise is unclear, unless you deem democracies as such.
Keating was the last PM to have a vision for Australia in the international community. He saw the need for Australia to engage more with Asia and benefit from the geo-economic changes occurring in the Asia-Pacific region, which have played out as he foresaw over 30 years ago. Our problem as a nation is not so much the fools paradise you contend, but the lack of direction for how we position ourselves with respect to our near neighbours, and leverage the natural resource advantages we possess. The fool's paradise syndrome is more likely thinking that we are should be beholden to the UK and USA for so many things, instead of carving out a distinctive role for our nation within the region we are part of.
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,297
- Reactions
- 4,653
The Review had a clear focus, and only covered the wholesale market, so your many valid points - even as you made to Tim - detract a little from its intent to get better outcomes in the range of areas that affect aspects such as wholesale pricing, operational integration and future capacity investment. My point being that such things as CER need to be built in to market operations and pricing as it's one element that stands to reduce wholesale prices going forward. It's not hard to envision millions of cars with V2G and homes with battery backup that will fill demand response needs without market players needing to dip into their pockets to add capacity.I'll go one better - I had face to face discussion providing my input to it.
Ultimately though, and this is not a criticism of those involved, it is a review constrained by a predetermined outcome that it's a review of some details of the NEM and that's it.
I'll use an analogy here of saying this is not a review of transport in a city. Rather, it's a review of some details regarding how to improve the movement of cars around the city. So we can discuss things like widening the road at a few pinch points, changing the traffic signal timings to maximise vehicle throughput, we can perhaps have an app showing available parking spaces and so on. What we won't be doing is suggesting buses, trains, trams, cycling or walking. That the outcome will be car based is a given, what we're trying to do is get them moving faster.
Now back to the NEM Review and to be fair to Tim and the others running it, they made no attempt to stop me expressing my view that it's not rational to use gas when already built wind and solar is available so full points for freedom of expression. They did however politely remind me that's a matter for the market to decide, it's not something the review is concerned with. One of my other suggestions seemed to be much better received, since it was fully consistent with the market approach.
As per my previous comment, put engineers in charge and you get an engineering outcome. Put market economists and similar people in charge and you get a market outcome. Doubly so when the terms of reference pointed them in that direction.
The trouble with all this is in Australia we tend to get stuck on the one approach. Something is done that was perhaps the right thing to do at the time then we become stuck in a thought process that must be the best way no matter what, it's never questioned.
The present manifestation of that is that we don't want anyone to walk in and say here's what needs to happen, there's a need to build this, do that and so on. Rather we're intent on making absolutely sure that doesn't happen, nothing is prescriptive and "the market' is left to come up with the answer. It's being approached from a market economics perspective not a technical or outcome focused perspective.
How it'll pan out is of course unproven at the present time. My personal view however is it's nowhere near enough, it'll do something but it won't change the big picture. I don't expect it will remove the need to subsidise industry or watch it disappear, I don't expect it will remove the economic barrier to electrification and I don't it'll avoid price being a problem for household and commercial users. Better than nothing, but it's not radical reform. Time will tell.
What's needed in my view is far more prescriptive. With reference to the transport analogy, something more akin to:
"Thank you for inviting my input to your inquiry into the subject of how to make cars move around the city better. Now here's my map of the entire metropolitan area and I draw your attention to the train lines and stations shown in blue, the busway shown in yellow and the ferry terminals and routes marked in red. Attached is a proposed plan of works with indicative costs, completion dates and a list of properties to be acquired and their estimated market value. I've also had some discussions with the chamber of commerce about a plan to smooth demand. Finally, we'll also undertake detailed geological investigation at the location shown in black on the map, this being for a future road tunnel. BOOM!"
It is an historical fact that the NEM was put in place on the now false assumption that the market would lead to better outcomes for consumers. In that regard Tim's hands were tied, as are any future reviews of the NEM. That aside, whatever you believe technically to be a solution going forward has to be agreed by all States and the ACT in order to prevail. That seldom happens as changes in both state/territory and federal governments keep moving the goalposts, if not change the game.
I have read countless submissions to the NEM on their many reviews and it is clear that there is often consensus from industry players on what needs to happen for things to improve. The problem we have is getting their best ideas to be agreed, funded and implemented. Political ideology has been a massive impediment to meaningful reform.
Could we do better? Perhaps giving the NEMO the required (multi billion dollar) budget to fund/finance across boundaries the entirety of reforms that are needed so that States and the ACT simply get everything that is required for the NEM to operate efficiently while driving the transitions that never actually end.
