Electric cars?

[Chronos-Plutus]

Over the next 20 years we'll spend ~$500 billion to purchase replacement petrol or diesel light vehicles and we're currently spending around $20 billion a year on petroleum fuels so yes, it's going to cost $ billions that's a given. Then there's the cost of running service stations, maintaining the cars and so on.

How to spend those $ billions is the question.

You won't be spending those billions, that's for sure. Spend your own money.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

I think I will find a few more reports today on the electrical capacity requirements and costs.

That way no-one needs to rely on a few socialists/communists here claiming to have expertise .

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Over the next 20 years we'll spend ~$500 billion to purchase replacement petrol or diesel light vehicles and we're currently spending around $20 billion a year on petroleum fuels so yes, it's going to cost $ billions that's a given. Then there's the cost of running service stations, maintaining the cars and so on.

How to spend those $ billions is the question.

Not in your lifetime. We aren't going for the green new deal, like the Democrats in the US. It's OK, keeping voting for the Greens, they will never get into power.

 

[rederob]

I think I will find a few more reports today on the electrical capacity requirements and costs.

That way no-one needs to rely on a few socialists/communists here claiming to have expertise .

A number of people posting here get their information from the people providing input to decision makers.
You need to drop your campaign of belittlement as it does you no favours.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

A number of people posting here get their information from the people providing input to decision makers.
You need to drop your campaign of belittlement as it does you no favours.

I can see that there are people here that probably have strong ties and connections to the Greens Party or the radical Left of the Labor Party.

I am clearly outnumbered. In fact I am probably the only conservative posting on this thread. It is against human rights to discriminate and bully on the basis of political ideology

 

[rederob]

I can see that there are people here that probably have strong ties and connections to the Greens Party or the radical Left of the Labor Party.

I am clearly outnumbered. In fact I am probably the only conservative posting on this thread. It is against human rights to discriminate and bully on the basis of political ideology

Keep your points on topic and try to back your case/proposition/argument with sound reasoning, sources, links, or references.
Using "culture war" tactics just shows posters to be bereft in their claims. Stop falling into that trap.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Keep your points on topic and try to back your case/proposition/argument with sound reasoning, sources, links, or references.
Using "culture war" tactics just shows posters to be bereft in their claims. Stop falling into that trap.

I did; I presented a report from KPMG; then we had people lose their minds because it didn't agree with their perception. People started claiming that they are experts and the report is nonsense.

It's pathetic and political. It is what the Greens and the hard Left do when they are presented with facts.

 

[SirRumpole]

I did; I presented a report from KPMG; then we had people lose their minds because it didn't agree with their perception. People started claiming that they are experts and the report is nonsense.

Every report like that which predicts what 'might' happen makes a lot of assumptions about future events which may or may not be correct. They also say what the sponsors of the report want them to say.

I'm not going to argue the specifics because I'm not an expert, but to expect that what consultants say is absolutely correct is foolish, because someone else can hire another group of consultants that come up with something completely different based on their own or their client's assumptions which may or may not be correct.

 

[over9k]

A number of people posting here get their information from the people providing input to decision makers.
You need to drop your campaign of belittlement as it does you no favours.

That ship has long sailed. He's even like it with the people like myself who WEREN'T snarky etc with him. I at least attempted to have a polite conversation, but nope.

 

[rederob]

I did; I presented a report from KPMG; then we had people lose their minds because it didn't agree with their perception. People started claiming that they are experts and the report is nonsense.

It's pathetic and political. It is what the Greens and the hard Left do when they are presented with facts.

I have followed the thread.
A lot needs to be done to support renewables' continuing integration into the grid, and a lot will need to be done to get the energy balance right to support high EV penetration into the future.
Your linked paper presents the challenges to be overcome in order to be successful over 25 years from now.
Let's look at solar PV:

For all intents and purposes the market never took off until incentivised about 10 years ago. The funny thing is, strongest growth has occurred after FIT made ROI a lot less desirable. Who would have predicted that? KPMG?
The point I am leading to is that we are in a very dynamic market, and major additions to energy supply no longer take years in planning and decision making before construction and subsequent supply.
The bigger challenges today relate to getting government decision makers to actually decide on the path to be taken as it is constraining the grid's ability to adapt to the future.

 

[over9k]

someone else can hire another group of consultants that come up with something completely different based on their own or their client's assumptions which may or may not be correct.

Or even assumptions which they know will produce a certain conclusion

 

[rederob]

That ship has long sailed. He's even like it with the people like myself who WEREN'T snarky etc with him. I at least attempted to have a polite conversation, but nope.

It can be hard for some to stop "playing the man," even well after Joe has recently posted his warning in a number of threads.
It's always interesting when @Smurf1976's practice of attempting to be even handed, fails!
Try to keep adding good and relevant information here and we can Vulcanise the the thread so it will "live long and prosper."

 

[over9k]

DOUBT.jpg

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Every report like that which predicts what 'might' happen makes a lot of assumptions about future events which may or may not be correct. They also say what the sponsors of the report want them to say.

I'm not going to argue the specifics because I'm not an expert, but to expect that what consultants say is absolutely correct is foolish, because someone else can hire another group of consultants that come up with something completely different based on their own or their client's assumptions which may or may not be correct.

I would have responded earlier, but my phone battery went flat.

Like I said; the report was carried out by a respectable entity who specialise in accounting and economics. The report was asked to be conducted by the Victorian government. KPMG has a fiduciary responsibility to their clients. The peak energy association reviewed the report and published it.

Now people can try to discredit the report as much as they like, because they don't agree with the facts. That is fine, however I am a person that works with facts, not people claiming that they are experts and that they think the report is nonsense or based on corrupt practice, which would be illegal.

Rest assured Sir Rumple; in time I will find more reports that the Greens and hard Left of the Labor Party, will not like; in which case they will just claim the weak and pathetic assumption line/excuse once again.

 

[over9k]

Ah yes, because if it's illegal, it never happens.

Just ask all of those "independent third parties" that for some reason just always come to the conclusion that someone (usually someone that gives them a lot of business) wants them to.

I even tried explaining how they do it, but nah, take it as gospel.


Let me ask you something: If I found a report that said the complete opposite to that KPMG one, what would you say?

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Or even assumptions which they know will produce a certain conclusion

Yeah; why don't you find a report to back up your own assumptions. Rather than just taking the lazy option and taking cheap shots.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Ah yes, because if it's illegal, it never happens.

Just ask all of those "independent third parties" that for some reason just always come to the conclusion that someone (usually someone that gives them a lot of business) wants them to.

I even tried explaining how they do it, but nah, take it as gospel.


Let me ask you something: If I found a report that said the complete opposite to that KPMG one, what would you say?

Like I said, most people would be believe a KPMG report that was reviewed by the peak energy association.

But hey; I suppose you don't know much about peak industry bodies in Australia or expert consultancy work.

 

[over9k]

Yeah; why don't you find a report to back up your own assumptions. Rather than just taking the lazy option and taking cheap shots.

Because I am arguing with someone that will not even so much as acknowledge anything I say. I could link you anything, absolutely anything, and I'm sure you'd say yours is more credible or some such BS.

My whole point from the start was that these reports are not indicative of reality/are total horseshit and not how any decision should be nor is ever made. They are created to provide the excuse that the powers that be need to do or not do something that they either want or do not want to do.

I've done them myself. You fail to understand that the "experts" are expert BULLSHITTERS.

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

It can be hard for some to stop "playing the man," even well after Joe has recently posted his warning in a number of threads.
It's always interesting when @Smurf1976's practice of attempting to be even handed, fails!
Try to keep adding good and relevant information here and we can Vulcanise the the thread so it will "live long and prosper."

Yes, please keep on encouraging those that just dismiss credible reports to produce something credible themselves, rather than claiming that they are experts themselves!

 

[Chronos-Plutus]

Because I am arguing with someone that will not even so much as acknowledge anything I say. I could link you anything, absolutely anything, and I'm sure you'd say yours is more credible or some such BS.

My whole point from the start was that these reports are not indicative of reality/are total horseshit and not how any decision should be nor is ever made. They are created to provide the excuse that the powers that be need to do or not do something that they either want or do not want to do.

I've done them myself.

You need to back up your own assumptions and opinion. You need to find credible information and references.

Didn't they teach you this at university?

Don't they expect this of you at work?