Future of the Australian Electricity Market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

But I think we should make a exception with a certain news organistion which practices overt political manipulation from an ultra right wing perspective.

---

I don't think that it's only "a" news organisation that practices political manipulation on behalf of one or other side of politics. The ABC over here (and the BBC in the UK) are both clearly left leaning, perhaps not to the same degree as Fox is right leaning, but significant bias is still present. Most other news sources are also biased one way or the other, and it's very hard to get to the "truth".

Every morning my wife and I share the same joke regarding CNN and Fox - "should we see what evil Trump has committed today, or how bad Biden and his son are?". One interesting observation is that, at least in my eyes and the brief sections I flick through at breakfast time, Fox often seem to be making a joke of the whole thing, over-acting and not taking any of it too seriously. CNN on the other hand always seem very serious, it's all life and death and the smallest trivia is debated at length as though it's the end of the world....

Another example of the political manipulation of news, and related to our discussion here about hydro, is an article about the rivers in Iraq drying up. One article I read recently attributes this to climate change. Another, whilst also initially blaming climate change to some degree, later admits that all the rivers in the system, and their tributaries in other countries, have in fact had multiple dams built, been redirected for agricultural irrigation, and subject to ever increasing extraction to provide water to the ever-increasing human populations of the area. This human intervention has both massively reduced the "normal" flow, and also largely eradicated the annual floods that cleared the silt and fertilised the river flats. So depending on which article you read, and how far through it you go, this is either entirely due to climate change or almost entirely due to direct human intervention. The journalists are clearly trying to push an opinion, rather than publicising facts and allowing the reader/viewer to make up their own mind.

It's very hard to get to the truth these days!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

I don't think that it's only "a" news organisation that practices political manipulation on behalf of one or other side of politics.

---

Fully agree. Their is consistent biases in the news organisations.

However, my specifier "a" was linked to the adjectives "overt" and "ultra". Only one significant mob meets all those criteria?

Quote:

---

Most other news sources are also biased one way or the other, and it's very hard to get to the "truth".

---

The interesting one is trying to pin down the biases in the SBS. They definitely exist; at first I thought they were "anti-Anglophone", but that is not an adequate descriptor.

Quote:

---

... later admits that all the rivers in the system, and their tributaries in other countries, have in fact had multiple dams built, been redirected for agricultural irrigation, and subject to ever increasing extraction to provide water to the ever-increasing human populations of the area. This human intervention has both massively reduced the "normal" flow, and also largely eradicated the annual floods that cleared the silt and fertilised the river flats.

---

And we have done the same with the Murray System! It is not just a third world problem.

Quote:

---

It's very hard to get to the truth these days!

---

Now ain't dat da truth!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

However, my specifier "a" was linked to the adjectives "overt" and "ultra". Only one significant mob meets all those criteria?

---

In Australia "a" (?!) is indeed most overt in its bias. Having said that, for a while I read a newspaper blog, which is or was in fact another newspaper blog under a different name. At that point in time, not only was the editorial content significantly left-leaning (perhaps not "ultra" but certainly heading that way) but the "moderated comments" section was so "modern, politically correct left wing" as to almost be a parody. Very few comments of even centre-left ever got through "moderation" and if that blog and its comments were your only source of information, you'd have believed that everything slightly right of centre had basically ceased to exist. They added to that impression by ensuring that every now and again they allowed an extreme right wing comment to get through, which of course was then screamed at by the outraged "average reader".

Internationally, I find one major news source to be equally obvious and extreme in their bias, though they do it with a straight face as opposed to another's showboating.

The interesting point here is that all these organisations are businesses and cater to the whims of their customers. Yes, they could be seen as trying to manipulate their consumers, but I would think that the majority of their consumers are already leaning the same way as their supplier - other than those who enjoy shouting at the television! With that in mind, it could be argued that the right wing media will inherently be loud and showboaty, whilst the left wing media will be serious and "deep" - the media is supplying what they believe the viewers want, in the way they want it. Perhaps in the opinion of the media, the right-leaning viewer is brash and thinks everything can be fixed "easily" by applying Christianity, punishment or tradition, whilst the left-leaning consumer sees themself as someone who considers things deeply and has "modern" values based on understanding. I suspect this even extends to the choice and appearance of the presenters themselves. Marketing is a science, after all!

If that is the case, then perhaps it is inevitable that left-leaning media organisations "appear" less biased or extreme..?

Just a word of caution on the bias of media outlets. Where it applies to truth or deceit I think it is valid to mention it, particularly when it is giving a deliberately false impression. However, the Forum has quite a strict ruling against political comment. This, I believe, is for a number of reasons, but included would be the fact it is so easy to get people offside. The other main reason is that it is quite easy to fall into defamatory territory: The Forum does not enjoy the same "privilege" as parliament and should an individual or an organisation take exception to a comment made by a Forum member, we would find that they have much deeper pockets than us and we would be lucky to having anything left that even had pockets in it should they decide to go into battle through the courts!

Don't get me wrong on this as I have been warned in the past so I am just passing on information. Ooops; There goes the halo.

On a completely different note, I have banged on about Norway in recent times and how they seem to be so far advanced in renewable power compared to almost anybody else, but certainly compared to Australia. Our son, who is living in Norway sent us this brief comment a few days ago:

Attachment 529697

A few words of explanation: "Tibber" is the energy provider such as Ergon or Energex or a whole host of other providers in Oz. Between the hours of 0300 and 0400 the retail price that day went to a minus figure. In fact the provider pays the consumer if they use power during that period and it is deducted from the bill.

Before we all go 'I want some of that," the hour is pretty inhospitable. There are 100ore to the kroner and 7Noc (Norweigian Kroner) is approx A$1.00. I think that makes it a little less than 1c/kWhr and you have to find something to consume the power at that time in the morning. (Your EV?) However, the principle is to encourage power useage outside of peak periods.

Regards
Paul

PS: No significance with the dog other than it belongs to our son and his partner and as of one month their new daughter. It is an Alaskan Husky (retired from sled duties) and goes by the name of "Sorry." It appears there was a litter of six pups and a small Japanese girl, who was learning English, was given the task of naming them. She only had about six words of English (which was very convenient) and "Sorry" was one of the words. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The other main reason is that it is quite easy to fall into defamatory territory: The Forum does not enjoy the same "privilege" as parliament and should an individual or an organisation take exception to a comment made by a Forum member, we would find that they have much deeper pockets than us and we would be lucky to having anything left that even had pockets in it should they decide to go into battle through the courts!

---

The potential for legal and financial disaster is very rarely understood by people ['the publishers'] who run forums, online groups and other places where people can post comments.

The publishers can be liable for defamatory comments made by people on their sites, even if the publishers are unaware of the comments.

It's one of the reasons which has inhibited my occasional inclination to start a YouTube channel publishing videos on handyman topics. I've seen various channels descend into rabid defamatory comments in the subscriber comments which are just s**tfights between touchy, trolling or loony subscribers, which I have neither the time nor interest to police if I start a channel. The subscribers are legally liable for defamation but much harder to identify than the publisher, which in my case for legal purposes would be me, not YouTube. Same applies to someone running a group or page on Facebook, Instagram etc. In the case of stand alone sites like woodworkforums.com it's whoever owns the site.

A plain English outline of the law is at High Court rules media liable for Facebook comments on their stories - The University of Sydney .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Just a word of caution on the bias of media outlets. Where it applies to truth or deceit I think it is valid to mention it, particularly when it is giving a deliberately false impression. However, the Forum has quite a strict ruling against political comment. This, I believe, is for a number of reasons, but included would be the fact it is so easy to get people offside. The other main reason is that it is quite easy to fall into defamatory territory: The Forum does not enjoy the same "privilege" as parliament and should an individual or an organisation take exception to a comment made by a Forum member, we would find that they have much deeper pockets than us and we would be lucky to having anything left that even had pockets in it should they decide to go into battle through the courts!

Don't get me wrong on this as I have been warned in the past so I am just passing on information. Ooops; There goes the halo.

---

Whilst I have no complaints about any forum having rules to prevent trouble, I do find it interesting that when organisations or businesses are so keen on heading off any negative or even "questioning" comment about their motives - presumably they feel the sand under their feet is so insecure that they need to prevent anyone poking it! But back to electricity.........

Thank you 419 and Warb for your comment. I needed to mention the situation, not that I think anybody has transgressed at this stage. I felt it was better for us to self-moderate than cause an administrator the hassle of intervening. This thread has been a mature discussion for close to 90 pages and something of which the contributing Forum members should be proud.

I also edited my post as it appears the pic did not load. I also modified the conversion rate as I think I had it ten times to large. :rolleyes: I also mentioned that, if it were me, I would be using the hour concerned to charge my EV (on the biggest charger I could find).

Regards
Paul

Queensland in this report looks like it is making big inroads into the emission target, but it is still the bad boy:

Emission Control: Australia’s most coal dependant state now halfway to achieving 2030 renewable energy target (msn.com)

I won't re-hash the content as you can read if interested.

This chart I found interesting:

Attachment 529698

Regards
Paul

The graphic of highest emitters is interesting, but perhaps like the dam being 12m from full it doesn't, by itself, mean all that much. Comparing the NT at 3.5% with NSW at 25.1% makes NSW look bad. However, if you factor in this share of GDP data which shows the NT at 1.34% of the national economy whilst NSW is at 32.09%, then emission per unit of GDP is far lower in NSW. From the same data, NSW has 31 times as many people, yet only 7 times the emissions.

I've also noticed over the years and the many articles I've read, that the "accounting" of emissions varies to suit the case being made. For example, I've seen the carbon emissions from coal attributed to the consumer of power (our houses and industry), to the grid, and also to the mine where the coal was extracted. In reality, if 1kw of power from coal produces (from memory) around 0.9kg of CO2, then whilst that 0.9kg can be split between "emitters", it can't be accounted for twice. Equally coal used for smelting, or any other purpose, can only have its emissions counted once, even if apportioned between extractor and user. So perhaps the NT is having the coal it extracts attributed to it, whilst the actual emission is powering the economy of another state? Or another country?

On a different subject, I've now established that even on an overcast, cloudy and rainy day, my newly upgraded PV+batteries system is able to produce 100% of my power (although heating is by wood burner, and I plant way more trees than I burn!), but under such conditions it only manages to export enough to cover about half of my daily supply charge. However even at this time of the year (winter) and with my 5kW feed-in limit, 2 typical days produces enough excess feed-in to cover the deficit from the rainy day.

My next task will be to install (or rather to have the electrician install) Shelly controls, to enable me to automagically switch on loads such as water heating when solar production is high, and to monitor our consumption in greater detail. I'm enjoying this project!

I guess the closer we get to self-sufficiency energy nirvana (home storage batteries, V2H from EVs, etc.), the harder the established generating/distribution organisations will push back.......desperately trying to fend off the inevitable irrelevance. One reason I'm an early adopter is that the costs to remaining customers to maintain the grid can only go up as more and more of us move away from buying our power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

The graphic of highest emitters is interesting, but perhaps like the dam being 12m from full it doesn't, by itself, mean all that much.

In reality, if 1kw of power from coal produces (from memory) around 0.9kg of CO2,

On a different subject, I've now established that even on an overcast, cloudy and rainy day, my newly upgraded PV+batteries system is able to produce 100% of my power (although heating is by wood burner, and I plant way more trees than I burn!), but under such conditions it only manages to export enough to cover about half of my daily supply charge. However even at this time of the year (winter) and with my 5kW feed-in limit, 2 typical days produces enough excess feed-in to cover the deficit from the rainy day.

My next task will be to install (or rather to have the electrician install) Shelly controls, to enable me to automagically switch on loads such as water heating when solar production is high, and to monitor our consumption in greater detail. I'm enjoying this project!

---

Warb

I am certain you will recall the old line "There's lies, damned lies and statistics!" People can prove whatever they want avoiding outright lies by the simple expediency of cherry picking.

The .9Kg of CO2 emitted is bad, but should be from 1MW! Actually, that figure is for the most efficient coal fired stations. The general run of older stations are around 1.2Kg/MW. Once-through Gas turbines are about .8Kg/MW and the more efficient HRSG units down to about .6Kg/MW.

It is great that you are in a position to go renewable and are taking action. Unfortunately, the vast majority are not in that position. I was looking at increasing my solar collection recently and then twigged that I don't have any more suitable roof space until I get a proper shed.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

My next task will be to install (or rather to have the electrician install) Shelly controls, to enable me to automagically switch on loads such as water heating when solar production is high, and to monitor our consumption in greater detail. I'm enjoying this project!

---

Look forward to reading about your experience and to seeing some reliable performance figures.

so much of the solar debate is contaminated by:

• Overt marketing hype, and
• Well intentioned dreamers with rosy glasses.

Paul, I had first hand experience in the strategic use of legal bullying in a previous corporate life.

• I was very careful in my post to not name any organisation or person; don't want to embarrass our host,
• you are unlikely ever to get to court. A corporate lawyer through endless manoeuvrering will run up your legal costs and bankrupt long before you get near a court. Routine legal strategy!

Sorry, but Sorry is definitely very important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The .9Kg of CO2 emitted is bad, but should be from 1MW! Actually, that figure is for the most efficient coal fired stations. The general run of older stations are around 1.2Kg/MW. Once-through Gas turbines are about .8Kg/MW and the more efficient HRSG units down to about .6Kg/MW.

---

Much as I'd like you to be right, I suspect you're thinking tonnes rather than kg!

If "coal" contains about 90% carbon (anthracite, like my parents used to burn to heat the house), and 1kg of carbon makes 3.7kg of CO2 (1 x carbon + 2 x oxygen where oxygen has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon is 12, so CO2 is 3.7 times heavier than carbon), then 0.8kg of CO2 was produced by 0.21kg of carbon, which equates to 0.24kg of anthracite.

0.8kg of CO2 to make 1kWh of electricity is a scary number, but it seems more likely than 250grams of coal generating 1MWh of power!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warb

Much as I'd like you to be right, I suspect you're thinking tonnes rather than kg!

If "coal" contains about 90% carbon (anthracite, like my parents used to burn to heat the house), and 1kg of carbon makes 3.7kg of CO2 (1 x carbon + 2 x oxygen where oxygen has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon is 12, so CO2 is 3.7 times heavier than carbon), then 0.8kg of CO2 was produced by 0.21kg of carbon, which equates to 0.24kg of anthracite.

0.8kg of CO2 to make 1kWh of electricity is a scary number, but it seems more likely than 250grams of coal generating 1MWh of power!

---

Warb

We tend to talk exclusively in MWs in my workplace and I have confused the two. So, .9Kg per KW or .9T per MW.

Thank you for the correction. If you had not spotted that, I can visualise the denialists spouting how little difference burning fossil fuels makes.

:-

Regards
Paul