Going to need a lot more gas if we are going to be able to cook all the free pork before it reaches it’s use by date. Best cooked fresh, not frozen with the promise to bring it out of the freezer for a post election BBQ?
2 Likes
I missed this one - a few days old. I wonder if I can find traces of coal in my garden? Could be worth a motza from this government. Just need to plow a few trees and turn a residential neighbourhood into an open cut mine and viola, money flows and government policy in action?
2 Likes
What do we call a subsidy when we don’t - ‘A fuel security package’.
It comes complete with a promise of jobs and assurances of cheaper petrol?
A 1.8c/l subsidy that may or may not be paid based on refinery margins. A gift or political puffery?
2 Likes
Just more support for a Fossil Fueled future as some Australian Pollies and supporters want it. Anymore largesse and you could be certain that Renewables indeed are an anathema to some within and without our borders but who all peddle their influence to affect Australia in the worst way.
1 Like
Agree with this or not, oil based products are going to be around for long time to come.
It is not just petrol and diesel fuels made in refineries. All sorts of hydrocarbon products are produced from gases used as chemical feedstock, to jet fuel, to naptha, to lubricants, up to bitumen used to make our roads.
It makes a lot of sense to maintain an ability to make these products in Australia, and if the Government needs to step in to do this, then I for one am all for it.
2 Likes
I understand the needs, but it is the large disparity of support that concerns me.
3 Likes
The problem as I see it is this government is breathtakingly uneven in supporting fossil fuels while doing everything it can to avoid any form of support for renewables.
Government can only marginalise the continent’s prospects by its ongoing and single eyed support of fossil fuels that most of the world understands have to be wound down eventually. Australia might be the last country standing and dependent on our gong winning low grade petrol and diesel fuels.
Remember that this government has decreed renewables are mature enough to stand on their own and need so further support. Fossil fuels have been around for a century+ and ‘?’. If it is really about energy security one might think grasping onto the future even if only with one hand, with the other on fossil, is risk management and energy security. As it is, it reeks of yet another of many, many handouts to their base.
3 Likes
Another article regarding it.
Meanwhile in Cairns, our local United and Liberty are at $1.699/L for U91 whilst the local cartel members are between 7 and 16 cents more per litre.
I had to laugh when I filled up at United a few days ago when I spotted a small round advertising sticker on the bowser nozzle displaying 2 bottles of water and stating Special. Any 2 bottles up to 1 litre for just $5.
$1.699/L for U91 from the other side of the globe and all the transport and processing costs and $2.50/L for water which is virtually free from thee tap.
Perhaps the oil companies are in the wrong business?
Wait till the Commonwealth of A ( insert your personalised version of what the A stands for) sees the opportunity to add fuel excise to bottled water.
P.S.
Santavittoria mineral water from Northern Italy comes halfway around the world too, for $1.61/l. Zero processing, bottled at the source. Try running your car on that.
Those in QLD have no need of imported water to run their Horvath car as it comes straight out of the Brisbane River.
Perhaps we need a similar campaign as the action taken in the UK as published in the linked article that follows. Astounding that more was paid out in a couple of years than the taxes taken from the Companies:
The pdf on the tax and revenue published by UK Customs and Revenue
1 Like
Australian Institute report found that last financial year Fossil Fuel Subsidies cost our Governments here $10.3 Billion or about $19,000 per minute. Now we can add a further $2 Bn at least to that figure this year.
An older fact check (also posted by @syncretic in 2020) also showed we subsidise Fossil Fuels through our Governments:
1 Like
I don’t get the security angle. We are told that if we don’t refine our own petroleum products we could be thrown into crisis by refined product supply from overseas being cut off. Why are we not also at risk, if we keep some refineries going, of crude supply being cut off the same way? If the answer is we keep stocks of crude on hand to see us through such a blockade why can we not keep stocks of refined products on hand instead?
I don’t get the efficiency aspect either. Our refineries are small and old and less efficient than the huge new ones overseas and this makes the products more expensive. The reason our old refineries are closing is that they are no longer competitive, the market has spoken and the word is close them. This is no different from wanting to keep old coal-fired power stations open that the market cannot wait to be rid of. So much for letting the market decide what’s best.
Thirdly if there is a risk of being held to ransom by some nasty person holding the straits of Hormuz or other choke points wouldn’t you work as hard as possible to reduce reliance on such imports once technology makes that possible?
4 Likes
Considering there are claims this makes no sense, it is not just a subsidy, it seems more a gift to vested interests done for reasons that could include delivering pork, or a simple lack of ability to plan anything that has not been done before the way it has been done before, including the pork aspect.
edit: an op-ed that reinforces how far sighted (<-sarcasm) (or electorally focused) this government appears.
2 Likes
An assessment from the executive director of the IEA on Coal Oil and Gas projects “Continuing to put money into oil and gas projects may be “junk investments” and it could throw domestic climate targets off course”, so we are investing big money into “Junk”. Another LNP and Labor fail, as Labor supports this type of investment, they even voted with the LNP on this type of investment.
In complete contrast to our Govt manoeuvres we have the IEA stating in their released report for the COP26 meeting
"The IEA sets out the key steps to creating clean energy systems as:
-
Making the most of the existing clean energy solutions, such as solar and wind
-
Prioritising the development of clean energy technologies that can help accelerate our move away from carbon-intensive industries like aviation, steel and cement
-
Drastically reducing the use of fossil fuels oil, gas and coal"
Investment into already mature Renewable Energy sources would help secure our Nation against outside blockades of energy sources such as Oil. Once you have no reliance on Fossil Fuels and rely on green renewable sources of energy eg Sun and Wind, pumped hydro, green hydrogen derived from water rather than Fossil Fuels which is termed blue hydrogen, then security of energy is very hard to disrupt. BEVs reduce reliance on Fossil Fuels so they increase our level of Energy Security. This has also been outlined in an article:
3 Likes
Possibly I heard this wrong, or read it wrong, but my understanding is this new gas fired power station boondoggle is to be run to produce electricity:
- Initially using diesel until a gas connection is available, and
- Only for 2% of the time according to some environmental impact statement.
Say it aint so Joe.
1 Like
It doesn’t yet have a gas supply required to run it but build it they will. It’s good money if you can get the Govt to fund it for your business to run it…oh that’s right they have just done it.
2 Likes
Gas is an expensive way to generate electricity and isn’t usually designed to operate continuously to provide ‘baseload’ power however can have near instantaneous ability to provide network support. Instantaneous support is where they are effective. This is why it will be used…
If Australia wants a high reliability which has existed in the past, then there are many challenges to face.
If renewable generation with battery is less than that which can meet short to medium supply due to prevailing weather conditions or loss of part of the network (e.g, fire, ground movement or storm), there will be loss of supply (regionally with potential for mass shutdowns to protect the network). Before loss of network conditions, electricity prices can escalate to a capped $14,000/MW or greater if cap is lifted. Gas generation at such times becomes very lucrative.
These high cost events are forecast to increase in frequency and duration when there is a greater move to renewables. Other countries have generators such as biomass, waste or nuclear to meet demand gaps. Australia lacks alternatives and possibly why it is moving to gas as a backup when demand exponentially increases prices and batteries or other energy storages can’t meet the shortfall.
The alternative would be massive and cost prohibitive storage facilities which may need its full capacity to be used a few times a year. The storage would need to cover losses through catastrophic event or where medium electricity supply (many days if not weeks) can’t be met by direct generation contributions to the network. Failing to provide reliable supply will have dramatic effect on the future economy as more of things we make and use will be more electricity dependent.
It is worth noting that if the current shift to move residential use to the contestable market, there will be a significant cost to the consumer as real time energy costs may be charged. If the residential tariffs stay somewhat regulated, it will be businesses which incur the higher energy costs. Such costs will be passed onto the consumer through product costs, unless businesses decide to move manufacturing to low electricity (and overall) cost economies…similar which has happened in recent times for those products with high labour costs.
Not always the case. From the granddaddy of all electrical consumption (hotlinked)
Those aspects are applicable to any generation, anywhere. Fukushima? Chernobyl? Bush fires in Australia? Victoria Yallourn coal fired generator shut down (may be subscription walled) and the reason is almost comical.
I lived only a few miles from of the Knox Mine Disaster in the USA and over time greed seems to trump risk. Anthracite coal as a mainstay of generators in the day and far cleaner than any other variety.
Regardless of mode of generation there are risks and one cannot point at any one as ‘the only best backup’ that will ‘save it all’. More batteries or wind farms in more places is as viable as a nuclear/coal/gas fired plant if done sufficiently well. Most days I suspect wind farms outside Parliament that captures the hot air emanated from those hallowed halls may be the most dependable of all - at least when they are sitting 
.
Considering some of the programs being trialled here and there I could envisage one day estates (local areas) might have their own community solar with backup generators. I suspect smaller scale facilities could be more economical than the very large ones that are historically built and deliver better service than those on each roof top,all working individually.
Where government puts our money, who benefits, and how, are often telling.
2 Likes
Both of those problems have been reported in the press. Both depend on contingencies that have an element of doubt.
Burning diesel is about the most expensive possible way to make electricity but if the gas pipeline build is quicker or the plant slower it may not happen.
As the plant is for emergency backup the frequency it is used in the year depends on the rest of the market (including failure of other plants and transmission lines) and consumption peaks like heatwaves and cold spells. The most charitable interpretation of the motives of those who want to build it are that their tolerance for risk is lower than those who don’t. If the thing is built and if it saves the day a few times they will be heroes regardless of cost effectiveness, if it never gets turned on but for testing there is no market for a slightly used gas power plant.
1 Like
