Talking Politics

[tigersnake]

This is just confused gobbledegook. When you talk about costs, what are you talking about? Environmental damage? The legal system is there for persons to seek recompense for harm caused to their property. If they can’t prove it, then there are no costs to speak of. The only market failure is that caused by government intervention that disrupts the market process entirely, such as the huge intervention into the SA electricity market. Subsidies do harm people. They distort the market, lead to capital consumption and ultimately impoverishment. These modes you speak of are arbitrary nonsense.

'fraid not G. This is gobbledegook. Like I said, you don't accept CC, so the argument is pointless. The damage has been proven by science. Externalizing pollution, effectively subsidizing fossil fuels, is what distorts the market.

I have to keep chiming in with this brief, fundamental truth because you keep going off on these misinformed rants that's are based on a flawed premise.

 

[AngryAnt]

This is just confused gobbledegook. When you talk about costs, what are you talking about? Environmental damage? The legal system is there for persons to seek recompense for harm caused to their property. If they can’t prove it, then there are no costs to speak of.

Sums up G's whole bizarre approach to reality.

 

[Giardiasis]

'fraid not G. This is gobbledegook. Like I said, you don't accept CC, so the argument is pointless. The damage has been proven by science. Externalizing pollution, effectively subsidizing fossil fuels, is what distorts the market.

I have to keep chiming in with this brief, fundamental truth because you keep going off on these misinformed rants that's are based on a flawed premise.

This has nonthing to do with CC it is basic economics and law. If the science is proven like you claim, then harmed persons should have no problem proving as such in a court of law. But of course they can't because your claim about CC being proven is false.

 

[Giardiasis]

Sums up G's whole bizarre approach to reality.

Yeah basic economics and law, what a bizarre approach...

 

[tigersnake]

This has nonthing to do with CC it is basic economics and law. If the science is proven like you claim, then harmed persons should have no problem proving as such in a court of law. But of course they can't because your claim about CC being proven is false.

Its not false. Its true. Court cases are starting to come, I posted some ages ago back when I thought this debate was worthwhile, but either way, the smart money knows whats going on, even if for various reasons person X can't prove beyond doubt that their health problems are caused by power station y or foundary z. Externalities and market failures are also basic economics and law.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah basic economics and law, what a bizarre approach...

Yes, because those two things have done such a great job at protecting the environment since, you know, forever.

 

[tigersnake]

and in other news, more evidence for what we already knew. Turnbull's NBN is an expensive, , halff-arsed, politically bloody-minded disaster. Yet another astronomically wasted opportunity by the Liberals.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/10/the-experts-agree-turnbulls-nbn-is-a-national-tragedy/

 

[Baloo]

and in other news, more evidence for what we already knew. Turnbull's NBN is an expensive, , halff-arsed, politically bloody-minded disaster. Yet another astronomically wasted opportunity by the Liberals.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/04/10/the-experts-agree-turnbulls-nbn-is-a-national-tragedy/

Yeah. that was screwed the minute Abbott decided to target NBN as a waste of money and it could be done cheaper.

The media barons, all in favour of keeping our Internet slower, blew that trumpet loud.

I expected Malcolm in the Middle to change tact when he became leader and roll back to the FTTH solution but he didn't. Not sure if it's because the party didn't let him or it was too far gone.

But what do I care. I'm surfing at home with my 1Gb FTTH Unlimited data that costs me about $50 a month

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah. that was screwed the minute Abbott decided to target NBN as a waste of money and it could be done cheaper.

The media barons, all in favour of keeping our Internet slower, blew that trumpet loud.

I expected Malcolm in the Middle to change tact when he became leader and roll back to the FTTH solution but he didn't. Not sure if it's because the party didn't let him or it was too far gone.

But what do I care. I'm surfing at home with my 1Gb FTTH Unlimited data that costs me about $50 a month

yep. It was Labor's plan so the Liberals had to oppose it. A disgrace. Thing is, it has ended up dearer. dumb piled on dumb.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

This has nonthing to do with CC it is basic economics and law. If the science is proven like you claim, then harmed persons should have no problem proving as such in a court of law. But of course they can't because your claim about CC being proven is false.

So by your reasoning mesothelioma didn't exist until a court decided it did? Interesting take on reality. Cancer is a legal definition not a medical one? Pollution or green house gases don't need passports and have effects on global scales and in epochs not minutes so your idea of the need for personal suit only highlights the limitation of law to handle a problem of these proportions, not a limitation of the science or a mitigation of the actual effects.

Also you didn't address the main focus of Ants post. Why do you bleat about piddling "subsidies" to renewables but glance over massive handouts to coal companies? And, again, it was the energy system that failed in S.A. it was not a failure of renewables per se. The need to update the energy system remains whether it includes renewables or not. Parochial State based supply is riduliculous in such a small (in population not area) grid.

 

[Baloo]

yep. It was Labor's plan so the Liberals had to oppose it. A disgrace. Thing is, it has ended up dearer. dumb piled on dumb.

Yep. It was a shame. We're so far behind the rest of the "modern" world that it's not funny

 

[Giardiasis]

So by your reasoning mesothelioma didn't exist until a court decided it did? Interesting take on reality. Cancer is a legal definition not a medical one? Pollution or green house gases don't need passports and have effects on global scales and in epochs not minutes so your idea of the need for personal suit only highlights the limitation of law to handle a problem of these proportions, not a limitation of the science or a mitigation of the actual effects.

Also you didn't address the main focus of Ants post. Why do you bleat about piddling "subsidies" to renewables but glance over massive handouts to coal companies? And, again, it was the energy system that failed in S.A. it was not a failure of renewables per se. The need to update the energy system remains whether it includes renewables or not. Parochial State based supply is riduliculous in such a small (in population not area) grid.

You could be killing yourself by eating a certain mint everyday, but unless you can identify the harm and demonstrate that the harm was caused by a third party, then you don't have any cause for recompense. No, what it highlights is that trying to demonstrate that a third party caused you harm by emitting CO2 is impossible and therefore you have no cause for recompense. This does not provide justification to then trample private property rights.

You might want to check up with the latest assessments from AEMO, the wind farms were indeed largely responsible for the SA blackout, and the closure of Hazelwood has greatly increased the chances of a statewide blackout in Vic.

 

[Giardiasis]

Externalities and market failures are also basic economics and law.

eh, no.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

You could be killing yourself by eating a certain mint everyday, but unless you can identify the harm and demonstrate that the harm was caused by a third party, then you don't have any cause for recompense. No, what it highlights is that trying to demonstrate that a third party caused you harm by emitting CO2 is impossible and therefore you have no cause for recompense. This does not provide justification to then trample private property rights.

You might want to check up with the latest assessments from AEMO, the wind farms were indeed largely responsible for the SA blackout, and the closure of Hazelwood has greatly increased the chances of a statewide blackout in Vic.

You are still trying to use the inadequacy of legal avenues to recompense to claim that no actual costs are incurred. The fact that the legal structure is not built for the timescales involved and global scale effects does not in any way prove that there are no actual effects and hence no costs as a result. This is simply playing hide the ball with climate science and the actual real damage to the environment.

The structural flaws that led to the blackouts weren't related only to the mix of renewables in S.A. there was capacity for the electricity still to flow. It stopped flowing. That was a structural problem, not a supply 'type' problem. And this ignores that need to be forward thinking about energy supply and a grid that can work across the country (and maybe region?) that ignores state lines.

 

[Giardiasis]

You are still trying to use the inadequacy of legal avenues to recompense to claim that no actual costs are incurred. The fact that the legal structure is not built for the timescales involved and global scale effects does not in any way prove that there are no actual effects and hence no costs as a result. This is simply playing hide the ball with climate science and the actual real damage to the environment.

The structural flaws that led to the blackouts weren't related only to the mix of renewables in S.A. there was capacity for the electricity still to flow. It stopped flowing. That was a structural problem, not a supply 'type' problem. And this ignores that need to be forward thinking about energy supply and a grid that can work across the country (and maybe region?) that ignores state lines.

If you can't demonstrate harm and a cause then you have no justification to coerce others for recompense, which is what you advocate when you call for CC policies such as taxes, subsidies and restrictions on fossil fuel usage.

Obviously if the power lines didn't fall over there wouldn't have been a blackout, but the fact remains that the wind turbines that were online could not cope with the disturbance to the system that fossil fuel generators would have. They tripped off, which then led to Heywood violating the export constraint which then led it to trip off and for the state to go black. AEMO have in the meantime invoked a constraint that limits Heywood exports to SA depending on how many gas generators are online. This has led to much higher prices. The SA government have also made AEMO limit Heywood exports to 50 MW when Heywood is on a single contingency, which has also led to higher prices. This forward thinking you seek can only be met by the free market, centralised planning only leads to waste, market distortion and system failures.

 

[tigersnake]

eh, no.

eh, yes

 

[Giardiasis]

Yes, because those two things have done such a great job at protecting the environment since, you know, forever.

I think you mean not understanding economic law and not respecting the rule of law.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If you can't demonstrate harm and a cause then you have no justification to coerce others for recompense, which is what you advocate when you call for CC policies such as taxes, subsidies and restrictions on fossil fuel usage.

Obviously if the power lines didn't fall over there wouldn't have been a blackout, but the fact remains that the wind turbines that were online could not cope with the disturbance to the system that fossil fuel generators would have. They tripped off, which then led to Heywood violating the export constraint which then led it to trip off and for the state to go black. AEMO have in the meantime invoked a constraint that limits Heywood exports to SA depending on how many gas generators are online. This has led to much higher prices. The SA government have also made AEMO limit Heywood exports to 50 MW when Heywood is on a single contingency, which has also led to higher prices. This forward thinking you seek can only be met by the free market, centralised planning only leads to waste, market distortion and system failures.

Your market utopia does not exist so proposing it constantly as the solution is pointless. To actually help people and improve the grid we have requires real world solutions. It is unfortunate (ludicrous?) that although there was capacity to supply S.A. from both renewable and filthy backwards 1960's sock-hop tech the safeguards in the system went into hyperdrive. It is political partisanship of the worst stripe to blame 'renewables' for a structural failure of the whole system. The headlines and by lines don't bother to explain the nuance but simply parrot the political line of the right and the people hear "renewables bad/coal good" and so do you, though with a little nuance.

 

[Giardiasis]

Your market utopia does not exist so proposing it constantly as the solution is pointless.

For the thousandth time I don't argue for utopia. It doesn't exist, so what? Does that have anything whatsoever to do with the possibility of it existing? The solution you call for won't achieve the result you want, unless your goal is to impoverish people? But you don't see that because you don't understand economics.

To actually help people and improve the grid we have requires real world solutions. It is unfortunate (ludicrous?) that although there was capacity to supply S.A. from both renewable and filthy backwards 1960's sock-hop tech the safeguards in the system went into hyperdrive. It is political partisanship of the worst stripe to blame 'renewables' for a structural failure of the whole system. The headlines and by lines don't bother to explain the nuance but simply parrot the political line of the right and the people hear "renewables bad/coal good" and so do you, though with a little nuance.

Mate you simply don't know what you are talking about. The only renewable power source that can provide FCAS are hydro stations, so don't try and make out as if it can be wind or solar. The safeguards you disparage are there for a reason, if the interconnector didn't trip then it risked the integrity of the rest of the system. I'm not talking about headlines, I don't get my information from the MSM, but from the actual people responsible for the security of the power system (i.e. AEMO). Perhaps you think you know more than the people that actually look at power systems for a living? It is simply a fact that fossil fuel generators have a far greater ability to provide inertia to the power system, something wind farms are currently incapable of providing the NEM. It is you that can't see through your political blindfold because you want renewables, you don't care about the costs, and you don't understand the real implications to power system security and energy prices that renewables have now wrought to the NEM.

 

[tigersnake]

So the only reason we can't see that yours is the only true way is because we don't understand. Dogma.