Dona Ferentes
A little bit OC⚡DC
- Joined
- 11 January 2016
- Posts
- 15,175
- Reactions
- 20,594
a little bit of nostalgia. .. power is.... (fill in the gaps)
Mr. Trump (The Donald) To Win in 2024
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2024 donald trump
- Joined
- 20 October 2021
- Posts
- 228
- Reactions
- 457
Blah, blah, blah, usual blathering Smurf -about as much focus on cheap energy..Agreed with the point you're making.
But......
I think there's a much deeper story here as to why all this is occurring in the first place.
My theory is it comes down to society having lost the ability to objectively consider all aspects of an issue. Winning the argument has become more important than getting to the correct answer. That combined with an unwillingness to consider or even acknowledge alternative perspectives and treating debate as a personal battle rather than a discussion on the subject is a certain path to escalating conflict.
Related to that is society's apparent obsession with the idea that a consensus must be reached, something that is effectively impossible due to the above. End result is either nothing gets done at all, or what gets done is limited to an approach which satisfies the lowest common denominator which, given the underlying conflict, is extremely low.
Both situations are consequences of a sustained period of weak leadership all round. A self-centred short term focus combined with an unwillingness to upset anyone leads to progressively worse options for future decision making as productive capability and output declines, debts increase and critical resources* become scarce.
*Including built things, labour, skills and so on not just physical natural resources, though it includes those too.
Just my thoughts on it all.
Fyi Smurf, people have electricity bills to pay!
Your little 'Like' mates on this forum thread ..they don't get it either. Much less care.
You'd be talking nuclear, if you had the slightest notion..
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,119
- Reactions
- 16,952
Even if your nuclear energy was literally free, that doesn't fix the problem in Australia. Assuming you're referring to Australia given electricity's relatively cheap in most of the US.
Average US prices, all inclusive, for August 2024 being as follows:
Residential = 16.63 cents / kWh
Commercial = 13.39 cents / kWh
Industrial = 8.72 cents kWh.
Prices from Electric Power Monthly, US Energy Information Administration, August 2024. Those prices are in USD.
There are of course notable outliers, eg California is expensive, so is the entire New England and Mid Atlantic region except Pennsylvania, plus of course Alaska and Hawaii are fairly expensive, but the rest are considerably cheaper than the average. Eg industrial is below 7 cents / kWh in Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico and Washington state.
So electricity's generally pretty cheap in the US outside of a few problem states, the most notable (other than Hawaii etc) being California where prices are:
Residential = 31.05
Commercial = 28.92
Industrial = 24.93
So that's very substantially above the US average, indeed it's higher even than Australia.
Back to Australia where it is a problem and I assume is your point, it's most easily explained by pointing out that in SA for a medium residential consumer using 14.5kWh per day AGL charges $2620 per annum (including GST) based on their cheapest available plan. This price includes GST.
That $2620 includes $503.09 worth of electricity and yes that includes network losses and 10% GST. The electricity itself is worth $415.78
So even if nuclear were literally free, it still only drops residential bills by 19.2% in that example. And not even Mr Dutton claims his nuclear will be free.
So where's the rest going?
The distribution network charge for that consumption is $741.93 including GST.
The transmission network charge is $280.03 including GST.
That leaves $1094.95 for things which are not the generation, transmission or distribution of electricity and are not GST.
So nuclear of itself cannot fix the problem. That is not an argument for or against nuclear, but mathematically it cannot fix the problem. Noting the data I've used is all publicly available to anyone from AEMO, AGL and SAPN collectively, apart from GST being 10% which is a well known law, and the network losses which I've added in using 10% as an arbitrary figure but it's about right (will vary between consumers).
So what would fix it then?
Well putting a stop to this sort of thing would be a good start. Note the timing, this is current, and that this is the actual reason why the market price of electricity is presently $349.58 in NSW despite being only $69.00 in Victoria.
That's not something engineers came up with. No, it takes a belief in economic ideology to have come up with that nonsense.
And this is the price outcome:
Without fixing that, the biggest problem a nuclear power station has is there's no certainty it would actually be operated. It'll be subject to the exact same problem that's had 360MW of diesel generation and around 2200MW of high cost open cycle gas running in Qld and NSW this evening despite unused hydro and much lower cost combined cycle gas sitting there unused in Vic, Tas and SA. Unused not because of engineering limitations, just because of economic ideology calling the shots.
There's a valid debate about the means of generation, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but politically it's distracting from what's really going on that's looting the money.
First thing most on the inside would do to fix it is to take this advice and put the right people in charge.
And there's the problem. The electricity industry in Australia is fundamentally run by people with economics and legal degrees. Engineers don't call the shots, they just make it work as best they can under the rules imposed from above. Rules that would see a nuclear plant not operated consistently even if it were built and which directly undermine the technical ability to operate such a facility in the first place given the need for immediate start and stop capability, without which serious money will be lost. That's a construct of economists and lawyers, not engineers,
Now if you read a bit further on that X post, you'll find the author is quite vocal politically in terms of who he supports. He's an American and likes some guy named Donald Trump. Funny that.
Only once that's sorted is there any potential price reduction from changing the means of generation. Just building it under the current market rules, well it wouldn't even necessarily be used and certainly wouldn't be operated constantly or efficiently, thus making it somewhat pointless.
Based on figures from the World Nuclear Association, which isn't exactly biased against nuclear energy, for the USA the cost of energy from new facilities completed from 2025 onwards is projected at:
Using a 3% discount rate on finance = $43.90 / MWh
Using a 7% discount rate = $71.30
Using a 10% discount rate = $98.60
Converted to AUD those figures are $66.20, $107.50 and $148.70 respectively.
For reference average Australian market prices for the 2023-24 financial year were:
NSW = $101.57
Qld = $87.80
Vic = $63.29
SA = $78.56
Tas = $69.07
So the key to nuclear being cheaper is the discount rate, getting that capital available and locked in cheaply enough it can work.
It still doesn't work under the present market however. It only works if it's actually used for a start.
Noting for the record that my previous post you quoted (1) had nothing specifically to do with energy supply (2) didn't side with either Trump or Harris directly, though was essentially an anti-Democrats argument in the context of US politics without explicitly being pro-Trump.
Back to energy, well the interesting thing about all this is even the World Nuclear Association acknowledges that gas in the US is cheaper than nuclear using any plausible discount rate. Their argument for nuclear is essentially about climate change so not particularly well aligned with Trump politically, unless he now deems climate to be something worth spending serious $ on.
From the World Nuclear Association's own figures, at a 10% discount rate the cost from nuclear in the USA is $98.60 per MWh versus gas at $48.90 per MWh, so firmly in favour of gas unless a very high value is put on CO2 emissions. Even with a 3% discount rate it still favours gas, albeit not by much but it's still the cheaper option.
The WNA's data can be found here: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power
If you analyse US electricity prices, rank them from highest to lowest excluding Alaska and Hawaii for obvious reasons, then what separates them? Long story short, having done that, the means of generation isn't a consistent factor although it does have some relationship. Nor is population size or density a consistent factor. What is consistent is the regulated utilities beat the deregulated markets on price and that the market closest in design to Australia's NEM, that being California, has the highest price. Hmm......
Last edited:
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,487
- Reactions
- 4,497
Michael West looking forward
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,923
- Reactions
- 1,591
Lolololol
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,619
- Reactions
- 12,738
Surprised his copies of Das Kommunistische Manifest and Das Kapital aren't on proud display.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,119
- Reactions
- 16,952
For reference and additional to the previous post, average electricity price for all consumers by US state and regulation status as follows.
States in bold are deregulated competitive markets with retail choice. States not in bold are regulated monopolies.
All price data from US Energy Information Administration as of August 2024. All prices are cents per kWh in USD.
North Dakota = 8.00
Louisiana = 8.84
Utah = 9.57
Nebraska = 9.76
Wyoming = 9.88
Arkansas = 9.90
Idaho = 9.93
New Mexico = 9.97
Oklahoma = 9.98
Washington = 10.18
Kentucky = 10.41
Virginia = 10.56
Texas = 10.66
Iowa = 10.79
Montana = 10.97
Mississippi = 11.02
Tennessee = 11.12
West Virginia = 11.21
Oregon = 11.30
South Carolina = 11.43
Nevada = 11.43
South Dakota = 11.46
Ohio = 11.53
Indiana = 11.55
North Carolina = 11.69
Alabama = 12.04
Kansas = 12.06
Florida = 12.14
Pennsylvania = 12.64
Illinois = 12.73
Missouri = 12.95
Colorado = 13.06
Minnesota = 13.12
Georgia = 13.15
Delaware = 13.27
Wisconsin = 13.33
Arizona = 13.40
Michigan = 14.48
Maryland = 15.15
District of Columbia = 16.46
New Jersey = 17.95
Vermont = 17.98
Maine = 18.71
New Hampshire = 20.20
New York = 21.06
Rhode Island = 23.96
Massachusetts = 24.24
Connecticut = 25.68
California = 29.06
Looking at that it's pretty clear, states with competition have higher prices than states with regulated utilities.
The most expensive 7 states are all competitive. The cheapest 11 are all single supplier monopolies.
Plus looking at neighbouring states it's much the same. Oregon is more expensive than Washington or Idaho that it borders. Nevada is more expensive than Utah that next to it. Texas is more expensive than Louisiana right next door burning the same gas and it's also more costly than neighbouring New Mexico and Oklahoma. Georgia's more expensive than neighbouring Alabama or South Carolina. Etc.
There are exceptions, as there are with most things in life, but broadly speaking the notion that competition leads to lower prices in utilities is demonstrably false.
So to the extent there's a political implication of that, if the aim is lower prices then Trump doesn't need to worry too much about the means of generation physically. What he really needs to do is give the flick to the academics, economists and others who don't know what they're doing. Remove those who bizarrely think that adding huge overhead costs is somehow going to result in lower prices to consumers. Bearing in mind that politically, well it's the Left who pushed that argument in the first place so there's no barrier there.
Following data is for 2021 calendar year:
For nuclear, the three states using nuclear for more than 50% of total generation are Illinois, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
States with at least 50% coal are Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming.
States with at least 50% gas are Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia.
States with at least 50% hydro = Idaho, Vermont, Washington
States with at least 50% wind = Iowa, South Dakota
Now take a look at prices and try and explain that based on generation. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions there, but suffice to say it doesn't well suit political arguments from either end of the spectrum.
Other energy sources that no state obtains at least 50% of its electricity from but which are used to some extent:
Geothermal - Largest user is is Nevada (9.4%) followed by California (5.8%) and Utah (0.8%).
Solar - top 3 users are California (17.4%), Nevada (15.9%) and District of Columbia ( 11.9%).
Oil - top 3 are Louisiana (4.0%), Montana (1.8%) and Michigan (1.0%).
Biomass and other - top 3 are District of Columbia (25.5%), Vermont (25.2%), Maine (22.3%).
I've left Alaska and Hawaii out of all the above for obvious reasons that they're not directly comparable to the rest of the US. For the record though:
Alaska: Average price 25.07c and is a regulated utility not competitive. Generation is 41% gas, 27.7% hydro, 14.9% oil, 13.7% coal, 2.1% wind, 0.6% biomass etc.
Hawaii: Average price 37.46c and is regulated not competitive. Generation is 65.4% oil, 11.8% coal, 7.3% wind, 6.8% biomass and other, 5.7% solar, 1.8% geothermal, 1.2% hydro.
So overall if Trump's worried about electricity prices paid by Americans then while there's a valid debate about the means of generation, the real problem in the US as in Australia is the structure of the industry. Utilities run on a technical basis and subject to regulation beat markets run by finance and law which isn't surprising. Bearing mind that politically it's the Left who likes that model, so it shouldn't be too hard for Trump to oppose it.
States in bold are deregulated competitive markets with retail choice. States not in bold are regulated monopolies.
All price data from US Energy Information Administration as of August 2024. All prices are cents per kWh in USD.
North Dakota = 8.00
Louisiana = 8.84
Utah = 9.57
Nebraska = 9.76
Wyoming = 9.88
Arkansas = 9.90
Idaho = 9.93
New Mexico = 9.97
Oklahoma = 9.98
Washington = 10.18
Kentucky = 10.41
Virginia = 10.56
Texas = 10.66
Iowa = 10.79
Montana = 10.97
Mississippi = 11.02
Tennessee = 11.12
West Virginia = 11.21
Oregon = 11.30
South Carolina = 11.43
Nevada = 11.43
South Dakota = 11.46
Ohio = 11.53
Indiana = 11.55
North Carolina = 11.69
Alabama = 12.04
Kansas = 12.06
Florida = 12.14
Pennsylvania = 12.64
Illinois = 12.73
Missouri = 12.95
Colorado = 13.06
Minnesota = 13.12
Georgia = 13.15
Delaware = 13.27
Wisconsin = 13.33
Arizona = 13.40
Michigan = 14.48
Maryland = 15.15
District of Columbia = 16.46
New Jersey = 17.95
Vermont = 17.98
Maine = 18.71
New Hampshire = 20.20
New York = 21.06
Rhode Island = 23.96
Massachusetts = 24.24
Connecticut = 25.68
California = 29.06
Looking at that it's pretty clear, states with competition have higher prices than states with regulated utilities.
The most expensive 7 states are all competitive. The cheapest 11 are all single supplier monopolies.
Plus looking at neighbouring states it's much the same. Oregon is more expensive than Washington or Idaho that it borders. Nevada is more expensive than Utah that next to it. Texas is more expensive than Louisiana right next door burning the same gas and it's also more costly than neighbouring New Mexico and Oklahoma. Georgia's more expensive than neighbouring Alabama or South Carolina. Etc.
There are exceptions, as there are with most things in life, but broadly speaking the notion that competition leads to lower prices in utilities is demonstrably false.
So to the extent there's a political implication of that, if the aim is lower prices then Trump doesn't need to worry too much about the means of generation physically. What he really needs to do is give the flick to the academics, economists and others who don't know what they're doing. Remove those who bizarrely think that adding huge overhead costs is somehow going to result in lower prices to consumers. Bearing in mind that politically, well it's the Left who pushed that argument in the first place so there's no barrier there.
Following data is for 2021 calendar year:
For nuclear, the three states using nuclear for more than 50% of total generation are Illinois, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
States with at least 50% coal are Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming.
States with at least 50% gas are Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia.
States with at least 50% hydro = Idaho, Vermont, Washington
States with at least 50% wind = Iowa, South Dakota
Now take a look at prices and try and explain that based on generation. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions there, but suffice to say it doesn't well suit political arguments from either end of the spectrum.
Other energy sources that no state obtains at least 50% of its electricity from but which are used to some extent:
Geothermal - Largest user is is Nevada (9.4%) followed by California (5.8%) and Utah (0.8%).
Solar - top 3 users are California (17.4%), Nevada (15.9%) and District of Columbia ( 11.9%).
Oil - top 3 are Louisiana (4.0%), Montana (1.8%) and Michigan (1.0%).
Biomass and other - top 3 are District of Columbia (25.5%), Vermont (25.2%), Maine (22.3%).
I've left Alaska and Hawaii out of all the above for obvious reasons that they're not directly comparable to the rest of the US. For the record though:
Alaska: Average price 25.07c and is a regulated utility not competitive. Generation is 41% gas, 27.7% hydro, 14.9% oil, 13.7% coal, 2.1% wind, 0.6% biomass etc.
Hawaii: Average price 37.46c and is regulated not competitive. Generation is 65.4% oil, 11.8% coal, 7.3% wind, 6.8% biomass and other, 5.7% solar, 1.8% geothermal, 1.2% hydro.
So overall if Trump's worried about electricity prices paid by Americans then while there's a valid debate about the means of generation, the real problem in the US as in Australia is the structure of the industry. Utilities run on a technical basis and subject to regulation beat markets run by finance and law which isn't surprising. Bearing mind that politically it's the Left who likes that model, so it shouldn't be too hard for Trump to oppose it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,923
- Reactions
- 1,591
Everyone got played in the 2020 Election
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,923
- Reactions
- 1,591
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,079
- Reactions
- 23,643
Well we have been getting shafted by the Chinese, the change of position should be nice.
I guess the other issue is, what happens if things improve under Trump? What do you blame for the mess that has happened under the Democrats, if things improve.
Last edited:
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,487
- Reactions
- 4,497
Actually the US economy and markets under the Democrats has been quite good the big but is inflation has hurt the lower and middle classes and they are not happy, suspect Trump won't fix that however it will be total chaos under Trump followed by long lists of excuses by the Cult followers.
Ironically the damage done to those demographics was caused by Republican policy but the blame sheeted home to the Democrats (rightly so) for not fixing it.
Just a reminder our problem with the Chinese was started by Morrison
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,079
- Reactions
- 23,643
As always faithful to the end.Actually the US economy and markets under the Democrats has been quite good the big but is inflation has hurt the lower and middle classes and they are not happy, suspect Trump won't fix that however it will be total chaos under Trump followed by long lists of excuses by the Cult followers.
Ironically the damage done to those demographics was caused by Republican policy but the blame sheeted home to the Democrats (rightly so) for not fixing it.
Just a reminder our problem with the Chinese was started by Morrison
The problem with coming up with excuses and blaming everyone else is, nothing actually gets done, as everyone is working out.
Yes Albo has fixed up the China issue, they now buy our cray tails, while they screw over our nickel, lithium etc. Priceless.
Remember the nickel and lithium that Albo was going to kick start our battery manufacturing with, funny he talks as much about battery manufacturing as he does about the voice, these days.
Unfortunately the optics are wearing thin on all fronts, as has happened in the U.S.
Last edited:
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,487
- Reactions
- 4,497
As always faithful to the end.
The problem with coming up with excuses and blaming everyone else is, nothing actually gets done, as everyone is working out.
Yes Albo has fixed up the China issue, they now buy our cray tails, while they screw over our nickel, lithium etc. Priceless.
Remember the nickel and lithium that Albo was going to kick start our battery manufacturing with, funny he talks as much about battery manufacturing as he does about the voice, these days.
Unfortunately the optics are wearing thin on all fronts, as has happened in the U.S.
Thought this summed up the US future nicely
"When a clown moves into a palace he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus."
A question that sits in my mind
Is it possible to hold moral convictions and be a Trump supporter?
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,619
- Reactions
- 12,738
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,923
- Reactions
- 1,591
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,923
- Reactions
- 1,591
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,079
- Reactions
- 23,643
And no doubt there would be just as many asking the question of Democrat voters, when they watched Joe on T.V.
The one thing with politics it is a bit like footy, you don't pick a coach just because you think they are a nice person, they are there to do a job not win a personality contest.
From my memory Hawke wasn't one of the nicest people I've met, but he got a job done and the trade union movement has never recovered from it, member numbers fell from mid way through Hawkes tenure and have just kept falling as the middle class feel ignored and abandoned.
As I've said on numerous occassions Trump isn't my cup of tea and I actually find him quite weird, but meandering along doing nothing as has happened since Biden got in, will just keep accelerating the decline of middle class as is happening in most Western countries.
People want to see the brakes being applied, not the accelerator, that's why Albo got in and no doubt the reason he will probably be removed, it's just the way it goes when the silent majority get fed up of rhetoric and no action.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,288
- Reactions
- 11,917
In one of those uncanny moments where art imitates life, a 2015 episode of Simpsons predicted tumps win.
Again.
Mick
Again.
Mick
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,619
- Reactions
- 6,417
Hope the other part of the prediction doesn't come true. The country is broke when Lisa takes over.
Harris wore a very close match to the outfit Lisa had on. Didn't help her.
Similar threads
