News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[mattblack]

tough pill to swallow for the poor pensioners who cant afford to heat their houses in the UK and now no relief from dear leader Starmer

...its all for the greater good of the fatherland though right?

The UK had its power industry privatised decades ago. It's got nothing to do with Starmer.

Is the concept of selling something difficult to understand? Nothing to do with the fatherland. The fatherland doesn't run those businesses. It's all for the good of the shareholders. That's literally what privatisation means.

The UK, and Australia (to a large extent) sold their power assets. If we didn't think about the consequences, too bad. Go complain to the private companies who own the businesses. Government is not your nanny.

nothing to do with privatisation, everything to do with government deciding which forms of energy are penalised via the climate scam rubberbrain

Sigh....

[rubberman]

tough pill to swallow for the poor pensioners who cant afford to heat their houses in the UK and now no relief from dear leader Starmer

...its all for the greater good of the fatherland though right?

The UK had its power industry privatised decades ago. It's got nothing to do with Starmer.

Is the concept of selling something difficult to understand? Nothing to do with the fatherland. The fatherland doesn't run those businesses. It's all for the good of the shareholders. That's literally what privatisation means.

The UK, and Australia (to a large extent) sold their power assets. If we didn't think about the consequences, too bad. Go complain to the private companies who own the businesses. Government is not your nanny.

nothing to do with privatisation, everything to do with government deciding which forms of energy are penalised via the climate scam rubberbrain

So, you have no idea that private companies can make their own decisions?

Sure, abc.

[abc]

The UK had its power industry privatised decades ago. It's got nothing to do with Starmer.

Is the concept of selling something difficult to understand? Nothing to do with the fatherland. The fatherland doesn't run those businesses. It's all for the good of the shareholders. That's literally what privatisation means.

The UK, and Australia (to a large extent) sold their power assets. If we didn't think about the consequences, too bad. Go complain to the private companies who own the businesses. Government is not your nanny.

nothing to do with privatisation, everything to do with government deciding which forms of energy are penalised via the climate scam rubberbrain

So, you have no idea that private companies can make their own decisions?

Sure, abc.

they make decisions based on government subsidies which is not free market economics

[Adelarch]

I think if you look into it you'll find that there are plenty of subsidies for fossil fuels as well, but in any case if you remove all subsidies from the equation which is precisely what Lazard do in their annual 'Levelized cost of Energy' publications, renewables are still found to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels globally, with coal and nuclear all but priced out of the market at this point. That's based on global averages mind you - Australia has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. Nuclear in particular is extremely expensive, so it's hard to understand the advocates for it in this county other than as a proxy for the continued use for coal to keep the coal mines open for longer, which would certainly appear to satisfy certain vested interests.

[rubberman]

nothing to do with privatisation, everything to do with government deciding which forms of energy are penalised via the climate scam rubberbrain

So, you have no idea that private companies can make their own decisions?

Sure, abc.

they make decisions based on government subsidies which is not free market economics

What subsidies are you talking about? The diesel fuel rebate? Exploration tax reductions? I'd be quite happy for all subsidies to be removed.

[rubberman]

I think if you look into it you'll find that there are plenty of subsidies for fossil fuels as well, but in any case if you remove all subsidies from the equation which is precisely what Lazard do in their annual 'Levelized cost of Energy' publications, renewables are still found to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels globally, with coal and nuclear all but priced out of the market at this point. That's based on global averages mind you - Australia has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. Nuclear in particular is extremely expensive, so it's hard to understand the advocates for it in this county other than as a proxy for the continued use for coal to keep the coal mines open for longer, which would certainly appear to satisfy certain vested interests.

The only reason I can think of is that Peter Dutton is stealing Tony Abbott's homework here.

Tony Abbott looked a nationally significant program undertaken by Labor, using world's best practice, the NBN.

He then proposed a technically inferior process, already proven to be a dud in the UK, and convinced the Australian electorate, despite all evidence, that his government could do it better, cheaper, faster.

The Australian electorate, swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. We now have a second rate, more expensive, slower NBN. Thanks Tony...and people who believe what they read in the Australian.

Dutton is doing the same. He knows, just like Abbott did that if he can present a good political story, then enough people will go along with him to possibly get him into the Lodge in Canberra.

Whether it will work or not is irrelevant to these guys. What matters is whether they can sell it.

Of course, in this case, if it doesn't work, those people who are presently wailing about electricity prices will really have something to complain about. Whether they will accept responsibility for listening to Dutton is another matter.

[abc]

I think if you look into it you'll find that there are plenty of subsidies for fossil fuels as well, but in any case if you remove all subsidies from the equation which is precisely what Lazard do in their annual 'Levelized cost of Energy' publications, renewables are still found to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels globally, with coal and nuclear all but priced out of the market at this point. That's based on global averages mind you - Australia has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. Nuclear in particular is extremely expensive, so it's hard to understand the advocates for it in this county other than as a proxy for the continued use for coal to keep the coal mines open for longer, which would certainly appear to satisfy certain vested interests.

This is total disinformation. The subsidies given to 'renewables' are on a different level.

[SBD]

I think if you look into it you'll find that there are plenty of subsidies for fossil fuels as well, but in any case if you remove all subsidies from the equation which is precisely what Lazard do in their annual 'Levelized cost of Energy' publications, renewables are still found to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels globally, with coal and nuclear all but priced out of the market at this point. That's based on global averages mind you - Australia has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. Nuclear in particular is extremely expensive, so it's hard to understand the advocates for it in this county other than as a proxy for the continued use for coal to keep the coal mines open for longer, which would certainly appear to satisfy certain vested interests.

This is total disinformation. The subsidies given to 'renewables' are on a different level.

As someone else has pointed out, private companies make business decisions. AGL closing the old power stations is economic because they are old and high cost to keep running. Closing the newer coal ones quicker is demanded by the shareholders/owners. If you don’t like those decisions, either make an offer to buy one, or buy more shares and agitate at company meetings.

[abc]

I think if you look into it you'll find that there are plenty of subsidies for fossil fuels as well, but in any case if you remove all subsidies from the equation which is precisely what Lazard do in their annual 'Levelized cost of Energy' publications, renewables are still found to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels globally, with coal and nuclear all but priced out of the market at this point. That's based on global averages mind you - Australia has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. Nuclear in particular is extremely expensive, so it's hard to understand the advocates for it in this county other than as a proxy for the continued use for coal to keep the coal mines open for longer, which would certainly appear to satisfy certain vested interests.

This is total disinformation. The subsidies given to 'renewables' are on a different level.

As someone else has pointed out, private companies make business decisions. AGL closing the old power stations is economic because they are old and high cost to keep running. Closing the newer coal ones quicker is demanded by the shareholders/owners. If you don’t like those decisions, either make an offer to buy one, or buy more shares and agitate at company meetings.

Private companies make business decisions based on the landscape set by the government. See previous post.

[rubberman]

This is total disinformation. The subsidies given to 'renewables' are on a different level.

As someone else has pointed out, private companies make business decisions. AGL closing the old power stations is economic because they are old and high cost to keep running. Closing the newer coal ones quicker is demanded by the shareholders/owners. If you don’t like those decisions, either make an offer to buy one, or buy more shares and agitate at company meetings.

Private companies make business decisions based on the landscape set by the government. See previous post.

Lol. If you believe that, I have a bridge over Sydney Harbour to sell you. Private industry lobby groups such as gambling, farming, defence, finance and mining influence government all the time. If the electricity companies were interested in nuclear power, they'd agitate for it exactly the same way as Gina Rhinehart does, or the gambling industry does.

Does anyone here believe for one second that if the CEOs of AGL, Alinta, Engie etc thought they would make a profit on nuclear they wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops?

I've heard some silly stuff, but the idea that energy companies wouldn't be campaigning if there was profit from nuclear, takes the cake for improbability.

Sure, abc.

[abc]

As someone else has pointed out, private companies make business decisions. AGL closing the old power stations is economic because they are old and high cost to keep running. Closing the newer coal ones quicker is demanded by the shareholders/owners. If you don’t like those decisions, either make an offer to buy one, or buy more shares and agitate at company meetings.

Private companies make business decisions based on the landscape set by the government. See previous post.

Lol. If you believe that, I have a bridge over Sydney Harbour to sell you. Private industry lobby groups such as gambling, farming, defence, finance and mining influence government all the time. If the electricity companies were interested in nuclear power, they'd agitate for it exactly the same way as Gina Rhinehart does, or the gambling industry does.

Does anyone here believe for one second that if the CEOs of AGL, Alinta, Engie etc thought they would make a profit on nuclear they wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops?

I've heard some silly stuff, but the idea that energy companies wouldn't be campaigning if there was profit from nuclear, takes the cake for improbability.

Sure, abc.

governments capitulating to lobbying isn't capitalism, that's crony capitalism / corruption

the fact you can't see the difference here speaks volumes of your naivety. You wouldn't be out of place at an ANTIFA meetup.

[PeFe]

Renewables receive "subsidies".......

but if its for fossil fuels then its called "tax credits" "tax concessions" "exploration credits"

Fossil fuel subsidies hit $14.5 billion in 2023-24, up 31%

New research from the Australia Institute has found that state and federal governments provided $14.5 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel producers and major consumers in 2023-24 – the equivalent of $27,581 for every minute of every day, or $540 for every person in Australia.

The analysis finds that over the forward estimates the Federal Government has budgeted $54 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, five times the amount it has committed to its key housing policy, the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.

Key findings:

Australia’s subsidies to fossil fuel producers and major users from all governments totalled $14.5 billion in 2023-24, the equivalent of $27,581 for every minute of every day, or $540 for every person in Australia.
2023-24 saw a 31% increase in fossil fuel subsidies to $14.5 billion, from the $11.1 billion recorded in 2022-23, driven by large increases to diesel and aviation fuel tax breaks.
Total fossil fuel subsidies over the forward estimates from all governments has reached $65 billion, or 16 times the balance of Australia’s Disaster Ready Fund (as of December 2023).
The OECD has recommended that Australia cut or reduce the largest subsidy, the Fuel Tax Credit Scheme, which alone cost the Federal Government $9.6 billion in 2023-24, more than Australia spends on the Royal Australian Air Force.
“Budgets are about choices. This research reveals Australian state and federal governments are budgeting for more fossil fuel use and more fossil fuel production, not less,” said Rod Campbell, Research Director at the Australia Institute.

“The magnitude of these fossil fuel subsidies overshadows government claims about climate action. Our state and federal governments are failing to implement even the most basic climate policy – cutting fossil fuel subsidies.

“Eliminating these subsidies would significantly increase government revenue to address climate issues while also reducing emissions. If governments collected this foregone revenue, it could instead look to address housing affordability and other cost of living pressures.

“With federal and state elections just around the corner, policymakers have a golden opportunity to realise the benefits of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.”

Federal and state fossil fuel highlights for the 2023-24 financial year:

Federal – increase in the cost of the Fuel Tax Credit to $9.6 billion, more than the expenses of the Royal Australian Air Force. This comes as the OECD recommends Australia remove fuel tax exemptions.
Federal – $1.6 billion in aviation fuel concessions, up 36%, as Australians expect to fly more.
Federal – $113 million on upgrading coal railways to help “coal producers to…capitalise on global demand and high prices for thermal coal”.
Queensland – a $520 million, six year program to “drive emissions reductions, with a focus on the state’s highest emitting metallurgical coal mines.”
NT – $2.6 billion worth of gas purchase commitments and $674 million in pipeline commitments, this does not include recent announcement to buy fracked Beetaloo gas.
WA – $141 million Investment Attraction Fund that assists “identified projects and sectors for strategic development including energy primary industries…”
SA – Budgeting for “increased petroleum production”, with subsidies to the Santos-operated Port Bonython of $21 million this year, with the estimated total cost of $64 million.
NSW – Recently announced Eraring coal-fired power subsidy will come on top of the NSW Coal Innovation Fund’s $45 million balance.

Full article : https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ ... -24-up-31/

For decades, governments have subsidised fossil fuels. But why?

Even now, decades after we first began trying to avert the worst of global warming, more than 80% of the world’s total energy comes from fossil fuels.

You might think this would make fossil fuel production extremely profitable. But it’s not always the case. Much of the most accessible oil has already been extracted and burned. Many countries want to shore up domestic sources of fossil fuels to boost energy security. Energy price fluctuations and competition from new energy sources such as solar, wind and fossil gas have made it harder for some fossil fuel companies to make money, especially in coal.

This is where fossil fuel subsidies come in. Australia gave A$14.5 billion in subsidies to major fossil fuel producers and consumers in 2023–24 alone.

You might have wondered – why would some of the largest companies on Earth need subsidies? Here’s why.

Private companies, public money
Globally, private companies dominate fossil fuel production, though fossil fuel-rich nations often have state-owned companies, such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and Russia’s Rosneft.

Why would governments give fossil fuel companies money? Many reasons. But the most important is that wealthy countries have historically needed huge volumes of fossil fuels for manufacturing, transport and power. Many countries have some sources of fossil fuels inside their borders, but only a few are self-sufficient. This has enabled fossil fuel giants such as Saudi Arabia to become wealthy beyond belief.

Many governments have used subsidies to boost their energy security and encourage local producers to seek out new sources of coal, gas and oil. These subsidies can make all the difference in making fossil fuel companies competitive internationally. For instance, Canada spent billions on subsidies to boost its oil sands and fracking projects.

Subsidies were essential in the United States’ fracking revolution. Novel approaches to extracting fossil gas and oil – boosted by major tax incentives – turned the US from a major importer of oil and gas into a net exporter by 2019.

You can see why the US did this. At a stroke, it went from being dependent on energy provided by foreign nations to being independent.

Once subsidies are in place, they become very hard to remove. Indonesia’s lavish fuel subsidies now account for 2% of the nation’s GDP. When the national government tried to walk these back, there were riots.

And there’s another reason, too. Fossil fuels are still playing an important role in boosting the economy in most nations. Subsidising them has long been seen as a way to maintain economic growth and stability.

Globally, these subsidies are estimated at a staggering $10.5 trillion each year.

This figure has grown sharply in recent years, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As European nations tried to wean themselves off Russia’s gas, energy prices surged worldwide. In response, some countries introduced new subsidies to support businesses and consumers.

The top-line figure of $10.5 trillion includes two types of subsidy – explicit (meaning real dollars change hands) and implicit (for example, governments building roads and railways to encourage crude oil transport).

Full article : https://theconversation.com/for-decades ... why-213467

[abc]

"the conversation" please

slanted globalist corporatist propaganda

the difference is the scale of subsidies are weighted toward 'renewables'

[Adelarch]

I think if you look into it you'll find that there are plenty of subsidies for fossil fuels as well, but in any case if you remove all subsidies from the equation which is precisely what Lazard do in their annual 'Levelized cost of Energy' publications, renewables are still found to be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels globally, with coal and nuclear all but priced out of the market at this point. That's based on global averages mind you - Australia has some of the best wind and solar resources in the world. Nuclear in particular is extremely expensive, so it's hard to understand the advocates for it in this county other than as a proxy for the continued use for coal to keep the coal mines open for longer, which would certainly appear to satisfy certain vested interests.

This is total disinformation. The subsidies given to 'renewables' are on a different level.

I think you've missed my point which was that in removing the impact of subsidies of any scale, coal and nuclear are less economic, as demonstrated in successive reports prepared by Lazard annually among other studies.

[Algernon]

Why are boomers so pissed off with subsidies and power bills anyway?

They don't actually pay any taxes because of all that negative gearing and 'losing' money that other people give to them.

They don't buy avocado toast or latte and save lots and lots of money due to their discipline.

They made all the right choices buying their inner city houses for $65,000 dollars.

Few hundred bucks on their power bill shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe they're just blowing up over power bills because they're bored and have nothing else to complain about, such as the impact climate change is going to have on their futures. No point saying anything about a world "you don't actually live in". They've already squeezed Earth for every last drop.