Showing posts with label government policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government policy. Show all posts
Tuesday 12 February 2019
The lies Liberals tell on the subject of aged care
The
Australian, 7
February 2019:
Aged Care Minister Ken
Wyatt was handed a departmental briefing report showing the “winners and
losers” from the Coalition’s $2 billion savings drive in the aged-care sector
shortly after Scott Morrison announced a royal commission and denied funding
cuts.
Documents obtained by
The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the proportion of
“losers” almost tripled to 53 per cent following the budget savings revealed in
late 2015.
In the three-year period
to 2018, aged-care services that had been classified as “winners” almost halved
to 47 per cent, according to the brief sent to Mr Wyatt.
A series of “hot issue
briefs, question time briefs and general briefs” sent to Mr Wyatt last year
acknowledged the budget hit to the Aged Care Funding Instrument — which is the
basic taxpayer care subsidy paid to all nursing homes — together with
“increasing cost pressures will be putting pressure on the sector”.
Mr Wyatt was also made
aware of reports of “cut backs to staffing”. At a press conference announcing
the royal commission into aged care in September, the Prime Minister was questioned about two cuts to the
ACFI in the 2015 mid-year economic update and the 2016 budget but denied any
had been made.
“No, no, the Labor Party said that. I don’t accept that,”
he said.
Two days later, a question time brief prepared for Mr Wyatt offered advice on
what to say if asked about funding cuts to ACFI.
The ministerial brief
also contains a breakdown of funding changes by domain, revealing that average
annual taxpayer subsidies per resident increased by just $400 between 2016-17
and 2017-18 despite the growing frailty and complexity of Australians as they
enter residential aged care older than ever before.
For the first time,
funding for the two areas that provide extra boosts for nursing home residents
with significant behavioural problems and complex healthcare requirements went
backwards by $300 a person.
The peak body for
aged-care providers, ahead of the April 2 budget, has urged the Coalition to
include an additional payment of almost $700 million each year.
“This estimate reflects
a range of factors, including the value of foregone indexation (through ACFI),”
Leading Age Services Australia (LASA) says in its pre-budget submission, seen
by The Australian. “This is approximately a 5.2 per cent increase in
residential care funding in 2019-20, noting that this is difficult to calculate
as forward estimates for residential and home care are no longer separately
reported.” LASA said it considered the money to be a “down payment” and a
notably larger funding boost might be needed following the findings of the
royal commission.” The commission, which is due to release its interim report
in October and the final version by the end of April 2020, has already
highlighted the widespread industry practice of “doping” nursing home
residents, which doctors, nurses and consumer groups attribute to overworked
staff. [my yellow highlighting]
Monday 14 January 2019
Four months out from a federal election Australian PM Scott Morrison decides to irritate 537 local government councils & their ratepayers
The timing of the announcement by Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison concerning a new code for citizenship ceremonies was probably was probably meant to distract the national electorate from the sight of the ecological disaster occurring along the Murray-Darling Basin river systems.
Instead it irritated a great many voters four months out from the federal election and reminded ratepayers that he expected them to foot the bill for mandatory citizenship ceremonies to be held on 26 January every year from 2020 onwards.
Australian
Local Government Association,
media release, 13 January 2018:
FEDS' COERCIVE APPROACH
TO AUSTRALIA DAY CITIZENSHIP CEREMONIES HEAVY-HANDED
Today’s announcement by
the Federal Government to force councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on
Australia Day as a response to the debate to change the date of this national
holiday is heavy-handed and odd, according to the Australian Local Government
Association (ALGA), the peak body representing local government and councils
Australia-wide.
ALGA President, Mayor
David O’Loughlin, said that most councils likely won’t be opposed to the
Federal Government’s proposed changes to the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies
Code but councils will have valid concerns, not excuses, that will need to be
addressed.
“The priviledge of
Australian citizenship is highly respected by the Australian community and
councils value their role in holding citizenship ceremonies and being a part of
this important commitment,” Mayor O’Loughlin said.
“However, most councils hold more than one citizenship
ceremony a year, some as often as monthly. The Federal Government’s strong
focus on drawing a link between Australia Day and citizenship ceremonies is
bizarre.
“If the Federal Government had bothered to consult with
us in the development of this policy, they would have heard that in some
locations, it’s simply too hot for councils to hold ceremonies during the day,
so they do it the evening before, just as the Federal Government does with its
Australian of the Year Ceremony.
“Other councils combine their citizenship ceremonies with
their local Australia Day Citizen of the Year Awards which are often held in
the week before Australia Day, just as many of the State and Territory
Governor’s do with their Australia Day Awards ceremonies.
“It would make more
sense for the Federal Government to insist on local, state and their own level
of government holding events to celebrate Australia Day Honours and Citizens of
the Year on Australia Day, rather than only insisting on local councils holding
a citizenship ceremony on the 26th of January, especially given Citizenship Day
is the 17th of September, months after Australia Day.
“We do acknowledge that a small number of councils are in
discussions with their communities about whether the 26th of January is the
appropriate day to celebrate Australia Day.
“However, councils cannot move Australia Day - this is
ultimately up to the Federal Government – but it is our job to be responsive to
our communities, including to their calls for prudence and advocacy.”
ALGA has responded to the Federal Government’s strong
commitment to change the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code with calls for
it to show an equally strong commitment to assist councils with issues – such
as cost – that may come with holding the ceremonies on Australia Day.
“There are significant additional event and staff costs
associated with holding citizenship ceremonies on a public holiday, which is
why some councils sensibly choose to hold it on a weekday instead,” Mayor
O’Loughlin said.
“Interestingly, the Federal Government has made no
mention of any financial contribution towards the additional costs involved in
running these ceremonies - ceremonies conducted on behalf of the Federal
Government - instead opting to continue a pattern of cost-shifting to councils.
“There is very real pressure on council budgets
nationally and the Federal Government must put their money where their mouth is
if they are serious about their proposal.
“The Federal Government
must lift its core funding to local government, Financial Assistance Grants
(FAGs), back to 1% of Commonwealth Taxation Revenue (CTR) – levels last seen in
1996.
“This funding has been
in steady decline for the past 20 years and, unless the Federal Government does
something to fix it, today’s announcement will be seen as just another
cost-shifting tactic.
“Our local and diverse
communities matter, and so do their pools, beaches, libraries, sporting
grounds, parks and the safety of their local roads. Therefore the 1% funding to
local governments and local communities should be of far more importance to the
Federal Government.”
Further information
about ALGA’s call to restore Financial Assistance Grants to 1% of CTR is
available on www.allpoliticsislocal.com.au [my yellow highlighting]
Thursday 3 January 2019
The Liberal Party of Australia: fighting to suppress climate science & avoiding responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions since 1996
The
Age, 1
January 2019:
The Howard government
was urged more than 20 years ago to consider an emissions trading scheme, while
its signature plans to deal with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions were
considered by its own departments to be merely aimed at deflecting global
criticism.
As the Morrison government continues to fight a
debilitating internal battle over how to deal with climate change, previously
secret papers from the 1990s reveal a suite of major government
departments said the most effective and efficient way to deal with greenhouse
gases was to impose a carbon price.
Cabinet papers from 1996
and 1997 released on Tuesday by the National Archives reveal the beginnings of
the Howard government's drawn-out response to the threat posed by rising
greenhouse gas emissions and the way some of those issues are still playing out
in the Morrison government…….
Government departments
headed by Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and Foreign Affairs fleshed out
the details of a series of proposals backed by the government in September 1997
in a bid to deal with Australia's emissions.
The co-ordinating
document produced by the departments, which were aiming to finalise a package
discussed at cabinet earlier in the month, made clear the bureaucracy did not
believe the government's plans would go nearly far enough in cutting emissions
but may be sufficient to deflect international criticism.
"None of the
packages presented here would achieve the stabilisation of emissions at 1990
levels," they said.
"Rather, they are
aimed at deflecting criticism that Australia is not fully committed to reducing
its emissions."
The departments costed a
series of proposals which would ultimately become part of the government's
official response to climate change.
These included a focus
on tree plantations, encouragement for businesses to slice their emissions, the
introduction of ethanol into petrol and subsidies to boost investment in
renewable energy.
They noted Australia had
a "poor international reputation for driving fuel efficient cars",
arguing significant gains could be made by improving the nation's car
fleet.
Building codes, reform
of the energy market and investment in climate research were all encouraged.
But the departments,
which acknowledged the government's opposition to a price signal, said these
would ultimately be expensive initiatives which would not deliver a real impact
on the nation's overall emissions profile.
"The most effective
way to reduce emissions would be to combine significant price signals (either
general or sectoral increases in taxes on greenhouse producing activities),
information so firms and individuals can reduce greenhouse production,
opportunities to invest in carbon sinks and some degree of compulsion to
address areas where markets cannot be made to work effectively," they
said.
"It is generally
agreed that reductions will not happen without significant persuasion,
incentives or leadership from government."
In late 2006, Mr Howard
announced a panel would investigate an emissions trading scheme. Both the
Howard government and the Kevin Rudd-led ALP would take a trading scheme policy
to the following year's election.
But in 1997, the
government's most esteemed departments told cabinet it should consider an ETS
even if the results of the study were kept hidden from the public.
"A study of
possible emissions trading mechanisms and regulations would help position
Australia in the event that emissions trading is introduced
internationally," they said.
"This study would
not be for public announcement since it may not help our international
negotiating position if it became public knowledge."....
The
Guardian, 1
January 2018:
In June 1996, cabinet
agreed that “Australia’s overall objective in climate change negotiations
should be to safeguard our national trade and economic interests while
advancing compatible outcomes that are environmentally and economically
effective”.
While Australia
recognised “the need for effective global action on climate change”, it vowed
to pursue an international agreement that “does not contain targets which are
legally binding” and argued for differentiated, rather than uniform, reduction
targets.
The then environment
minister, Robert Hill, reported to cabinet that for the first time the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report had said that the
balance of scientific evidence supported the view that the changes in climate
and greenhouse gas concentrations were due to human activity.
Small island states were
proposing a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2005.
While other time frames were being discussed, all were potentially problematic
for Australia because of its carbon-intensive economy.
Hill told the cabinet
that modelling showed Australia’s emissions from the energy sector – accounting
for half of national emissions – were projected to be 30% above 1990 levels by
2010…..
The consternation grew
further by mid-1997. A joint submission to cabinet warned of the prospect of an
“EU–US bilateral understanding for progressing climate change” at a forthcoming
G7 summit…..
The cabinet actively
considered walking away from Kyoto altogether.
It was facing publishing
its future emissions as part of the Kyoto process but modelling was now showing
that emissions from the energy sector would be 40% to 50% above 1990 levels by
2010…
The cabinet also agreed
in July to establish a climate change taskforce to advance Australia’s domestic
greenhouse gas strategies, to strengthen its bargaining stance. One option to
be explored was “domestic and international emissions trading”.
In the following months,
Treasury modelled various measures for reducing domestic emissions.
The memorandum warned
that none of its scenarios would cap carbon emissions at 1990 levels but would
achieve potential cuts of 22%.
And so began Australia’s
long and tortured debate over carbon trading schemes.
A proposal was put
forward by the Australian Greenhouse Office in 2000, but was scuttled in
cabinet; another came forward in 2003, but was vetoed by Howard.
Finally, in the dying
days of his government in December 2006, Howard announced an emissions trading
scheme, after bureaucrats convinced him it was the most efficient way to meet
Australia’s commitments.
BACKGROUND
National Archives of Australia, 1996 and 1997 – Keating
and Howard governments, Cabinet
Papers, released 1 January 2018.
The Howard Government fight against taking responsibility for Australia's own domestic greenhouse gas missions.....
See: https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/NAAMedia/ShowImage.aspx?B=32709070&T=PDF. My apologies for not posting this document but current slow upload times have meant that I cannot yet display this document here.
Saturday 22 December 2018
Still no hope of a genuine national energy policy as crew on the sinking liner SS Liberal Party brawl on deck
Financial
Review, 19
December 2018:
NSW Climate and Energy
Minister Don Harwin vowed to push on with his crusade to "end the Canberra
climate wars" after federal minister Angus Taylor derailed his proposal to
plot a national pathway to net zero emissions by 2050 at an acrimonious Council
of Australian Governments' meeting.
Tempers flared at
the meeting of energy ministers in Adelaide after Mr
Taylor used an obscure procedural rule to block Mr Harwin's motion for a net
zero emissions pathway. A furious Mr Harwin said that if Mr Taylor was going to
use obscure procedural rules to block a motion supported by most state and
territory energy ministers "be it on your own head".
The bitter split between
the NSW and federal coalition governments comes as Gladys Berejiklian's NSW
Coalition government faces a March 23 election in which climate policy looms
large after voters sharply rejected the Morrison government's climate change
agnostic energy policies at the Wentworth byelection in October and the
Victorian state election in November.
Mr Harwin said in a
statement after the meeting: "I am very disappointed by the actions of the
federal government at COAG Energy Council in Adelaide today.
"The refusal, on
procedural grounds, to let the vital matter of restoring an emissions
obligation into national energy policy be discussed is extraordinary. NSW will
continue to pursue this critical matter with COAG Energy Council."
…..the NSW-federal
government stoush dominated the aftermath of the meeting as Mr Harwin told
reporters he was furious that "the Commonwealth used the rule book to try
and shutdown a discussion on emissions".
"As a sign of how
out of touch they are, they wouldn't let us have the discussion," Mr
Harwin said. "NSW is not giving up on this. It's absolutely imperative
that we end the Canberra climate wars. "
Tuesday 11 December 2018
Just three months out from a state election and the NSW Berejiklian Government decides to introduce a new punative public housing policy guaranteed to upset a good many voters
In
2016 est. 37,715 people in New South Wales were recorded as
homeless on Census Night.
The following year the
NSW Berejiklian Coalition Government had a public
housing stock total of 110,221 dwellings and an est. 60,000 people
on the Dept. of Housing 2017 waiting list.
Below is the state government’s answer to the effects of decreasing
public housing stock and federal Coalition Government cuts to public
housing funding allocations to the states - introduce a new initiative under the 'Opportunity
Pathways' program which will cut the housing waiting list by increasing eligibility restrictions, privatise service delivery to certain categories of public housing applicants and tenants in order to ensure that vulnerable individuals and families are discouraged from seeking housing assistance.
The
Daily Telegraph,
7 December 2018, p.2:
Public housing applicants
will have to get a job if they want a taxpayer-funded home under a tough new
test to be introduced in NSW.
The state government is
overhauling the public housing system by stopping residents who
languish on welfare for decades feeling entitled to a cheap home, paid for by
the taxpayer, for their entire life.
Currently less than a
quarter of social housing tenants are in the workforce. There are
about 55,000 people on the public housing waitlist in NSW, and
under the new program they will be able to skip the queue if they agree to get
a job.
But if they get into the
home then fail to get a job or maintain work they will be booted from the
property.
Once they are secure in
a job they will then move into the private rental market and out of the welfare
system.
Social Housing Minister
Pru Goward said the program will “help break the cycle of disadvantage”.
“This is about equipping
tenants with the skills they need to not only obtain a job, but keep it over
the longer term and achieve their full potential,” she said.
“We also want to set to
a clear expectation that social housing is not for life and, for
those who can work, social housing should be used as a stepping stone to
moving into the private rental market.” The new program will be trialled in
Punchbowl and Towradgi, near Wollongong, for three years across 20 properties.
Its success will be evaluated over this time and it’s likely the program will
be expanded across the state.
Homes will be leased for
six months at a time, with renewal dependent on the resident maintaining their
job or education, such as TAFE, and meeting agreed goals within the plan.
RFT ID FACS.18.30
RFT
Type Expression
of Interest for Specific Contracts
Published 23-Aug-2018
Closes 27-Sep-2018 2:00pm
Agency FACS Central Office
Tender Details
The NSW Department of
Family and Community Services (FACS) is seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI)
from non-government organisatons with the capability to deliver the Opportunity
Pathways program.
Opportunity Pathways is
designed for social housing tenants and their household members, approved
social housing applicants and clients receiving Rent Choice subsidies who
aspire and have the capacity to, with the appropriate support, gain, retain and
increase employment.
The program is voluntary
and uses a person-centred case management approach to provide wrap-around
support and facilitate participant access to services to achieve economic and
housing independence (where appropriate).
The objectives of the
program are to:
assist
participants to gain, retain or increase employment, by accessing supports and
practical assistance, and by participating in education, training and work
opportunities
encourage
and support participants to positively exit social housing or Rent Choice
subsidies to full housing independence, to reduce their reliance on governement
assistance, where appropriate
Please refer to the
Program Guidelines for further details.
Opportunity Pathways
will run for three years and delivered across NSW in those locations where a
need and service gaps are identified.
The program will be
delivered by one or more providers following an EOI and Select Tender.
Location
NSW Regions: Far
North Coast, Mid North Coast, New England, Central Coast, Hunter,
Cumberland/Prospect, Nepean, Northern Sydney, Inner West, South East Sydney,
South West Sydney, Central West, Orana/Far West, Riverina/Murray, Illawarra,
Southern Highlands
Estimated Value
From $0.00 to $36,100,000.00
RFT Type
Expression of Interest
for Specific Contracts - An invitation for Expression of Interest (EOI) for
pre-registration of prospective tenderers for a specific work or service.
Applicants are initially evaluated against published selection criteria, and
those who best meet the required criteria are invited to Tender (as tender type
Pre-Qualified/Invited). [my yellow highlighting]
As of June
2018 in NSW there were 200,564 people registered with Centrelink whose income
was Newstart Allowance and, by September there were only est. 82,400
job vacancies available as the Internet Vacancy Index had been
falling since April 2018. The number of job vacancies were still
falling in October 2018 to 66,000 job vacancies.
Just three months out from a state election and it doesn't appear that the Berejiklian Cabinet or other Liberal and Nationals members of the NSW Parliament have thought this new policy through to its logical conclusion.
Wednesday 5 December 2018
NSW Liberal & Nationals politicians won't be satisfied until they have turned this state into a wasteland
Echo
Net Daily, 3
December 2018:
The North East Forest
Alliance has called the process used by the Commonwealth and State Governments
to adopt new Regional Forest Agreements as a superficial sham simply intended
to lock-up public native forests for private sawmillers at significant environment
cost.
North East Forest
Alliance spokesperson Dailan Pugh says there has been no attempt to assess or
review environmental, industry or social data, instead they are relying on
incomplete and out of date assessments undertaken 20 years ago.
’The Governments chose
to ignore the recommendation of their own reviewer for a contemporary review
that included an assessment of the effects of climate change,’ he said.
‘By rejecting the
recommendation of their own review and proceeding on incomplete and out of date
assessments the National Party have once again proven that their intent is to
lock up public resources for private companies irrespective of the
environmental costs and community interests.
Mr Pugh says NEFA are
disgusted that the Governments have not publicly released their new RFAs, so it
is not possible to know what changes they have made. ‘They are keeping us in
the dark,’ he said. ‘The only document they have released is their resource
commitments which show they are increasing the cut of high quality logs in
north-east NSW by at least 10,000 cubic metres to 230,000m3 per annum, at the
same time they are fraudulently claiming a shortfall of 8,600m3 per annum to
justify opening up protected old growth and rainforest for logging.’
‘Due to their increased
logging intensity they are intending to more than double the cut of small and
low-quality logs from 320,000 tonnes per annum to 660,000 tonnes per annum.
‘The increased logging
intensity and significant reductions in protections for most threatened species
and streams is an environmental crime.
Mr Pugh says that out of
more than 5,400 public submissions on the proposed new NSW RFAs, only 23
supported the RFAs. ‘There is no social license to continue the degradation of
our public native forests.
‘Plantations already
provide 87% of our sawntimber needs, it is time to complete the transition to
plantations and establish more plantations on cleared land, while we actively
rehabilitate our public native forests to help them recover from past abuses
and restore the full suite of benefits they can provide to the community.
BACKGROUND
North Eastern, Southern & Eden Regional Forest Agreements Image:NSW EPA |
NSW EPA Regional Forest Agreements
Here are links to NSW members of the state parliament:
If any readers wish to contact members of the Berejiklian Government in order stand up for native forests these links provide addresses, telephone numbers and, in the case of the Legislative Assembly, the names of electorates these politicians represent.
Friday 9 November 2018
When will the Federal Government realise there is a Climate Emergency?
The need for urgent and
effective action on climate change is becoming a major issue in Australia . More people are starting to realise that we
are facing a climate emergency and that we are being caught short largely
because of the incompetence of our Federal Government which continues to be
captive to climate denialists and the coal lobby.
The message from the
October 20 Wentworth byelection does not appear to have resonated with Prime Minister
Morrison and others in his Government.
Morrison is equating the devastating swing against the Government with
the electorate’s concern about the dumping of their popular member, Prime
Minister Turnbull. While that was
certainly a factor, there were other concerns about the Government’s poor
performance with a major one being its lack of effective climate action.
Despite all that
Wentworth voters said about climate change (as well as the way they voted),
there are Government members who claim Wentworth cannot be seen as comparable
with other electorates. Wentworth is different! According to them, climate
change is not a major issue elsewhere.
It will be interesting to see if this wishful thinking lasts until next
year’s federal election campaign.
While Wentworth
indicated the growing public concern about climate change, other recent
developments in relation to climate have further shown how out of touch the Government
is.
Morrison started his
Prime Ministership with the determination to assist drought-affected
farmers. But he brushed aside any
linking of this latest severe drought with climate change. However, the National Farmers Federation and
an increasing number of farmers acknowledge the link and understand that simply
throwing drought relief money at the problem is only a short-term solution. Calls for discussion about land use in parts
of the country are growing. These
include consideration of the viability of some forms of farming and whether
farming will be sustainable in some areas as climate change impacts worsen.
The latest data on
Australia’s climate emissions for the twelve months to March 31 was released
late on the Friday afternoon of the Grand Final weekend (September 28). The
Government had been sitting on this data for months and quite obviously did not
want it noticed – for good reason. The
report showed that emissions have continued rising as they have every quarter
since the end of the carbon price in 2014. Emissions continue to increase
simply because the Government does not have an effective policy to curb them.
Despite this bad result,
the Prime Minister and Melissa Price, the Minister for the Environment, managed
to put a positive spin on the figures. Price
claimed Australia would beat its 2020 target – an impossible achievement. And Morrison, ignoring reality completely,
claimed Australia was on track to achieve its 2030 Paris targets and would do
so “in a canter”. This is despite the analysis
of experts who say we will fall drastically short unless there is an urgent
change in government policy.
The recent dire
announcement by the IPCC has shown just how urgent the climate issue is. According to an analysis of the IPCC report
published by the Climate Council “limiting global warming to 1.5°C would
require rapid and far-reaching transitions during the coming one to two decades
– in energy, land, urban and industrial systems”. (The aim at Paris was to keep global
temperature rise well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and to attempt to
limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. A rise of 2°C would produce
catastrophic effects.)
At war within itself, our
Government just does not have either the interest in the issue or the will do
what is essential - to act effectively across the board to reduce our emissions
drastically. This is in spite of the Wentworth result and all the polls
indicating that a growing number of people are concerned and want effective
action.
As well as concerned individuals, scientists, environmentalists and
farmers, it is significant that many in the business community, who know they
need to take measures to protect their businesses in a carbon-constrained
world, also want effective action from the government.
Just what are the
chances of the current Government coming to its senses and acting in the
national interest? At the moment that
seems unlikely. We may have to wait for
a change in government - unless a grass roots campaign across the nation
persuades Morrison that he has no chance of political survival unless he
changes tack.
Hildegard
Northern Rivers
29th October 2018
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to
make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300
words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will
be considered on topical subjects.
Monday 5 November 2018
Scott Morrison doesn't know watt's watt
This was the ‘interim’
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison
on ABC TV The Drum, 23 September 2018:
SCOTT MORRISON: I want
more dispatchable power in the system.
ALAN JONES: Could you
stop using the word dispatchable? Out there they don’t understand that.
SCOTT MORRISON: Well,
real power, OK?
ALAN JONES: Real power.
SCOTT MORRISON: Well,
fair dinkum power.
So what
exactly is this “dispatchable power” the Prime Minister is talking about
whenever he cites “fair dinkum power” that “works when the sun isn’t shining and the
wind isn’t blowing”.
This is what Energy
Education:has to say on the subject:
Dispatchable source of
electricity
A dispatchable
source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as
a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other
words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on
demand.[2] Most
conventional power sources such as coal or natural
gas power plants are dispatchable in order to meet the always changing
electricity demands of the population. In contrast, many renewable energysources are intermittent and non-dispatchable, such
as wind power or solar
power which can only generate electricity while their energy flow is
input on them.
Dispatch times
Dispatchable sources
must be able to ramp up or shut down relatively quickly in time intervals
within a few seconds even up to a couple of hours, depending on the need for
electricity. Different types of power plants have different dispatch times:[3]
Fast (seconds)
Capacitors are
able to dispatch within milliseconds if they need to, due to the energy stored
in them already being electrical, whereas in other types of power storage such
as chemical batteries the power must be converted into electrical energy.
Hydroelectric facilities are also
able to dispatch extremely quickly; for instance the Dinorwig hydro power
station can reach its maximum generation in less than 16 seconds.[4]
Medium (minutes)
Natural
gas turbines are a very common dispatchable source, and they can
generally be ramped up in minutes.
Solar thermal power plants can
utilize systems of efficient thermal energy storage. It is possible to design
these systems to be dispatchable on roughly equivalent timeframes to natural
gas turbines.
Slow (hours)
While these systems are
typically regarded as only providing baseload power, they often have some flexibility.
Many coal and biomass
plants can be fired up from cold within a few hours. Although nuclear power
plants may take a while to get going, they must be able to shut down in seconds
to ensure safety in the case of a meltdown.
What this tells us is that renewable energy can and is used
as “dispatchable power” and often responds faster than coal-fired power.
Battery
storage by way of home battery installations and mega battery
installations such as the Tesla system in South Australia are just two successful
examples of storing renewable power for later use – making it dispatchable
power.
According to the Melbourne
Energy Institute, South
Australia’s new mix of renewables and traditional source of energy is working
well.
What has
become increasingly obvious over the years is that once
renewable energy via wind and solar reaches a reasonable scale it becomes cheaper
than coal and other fossil fuels. That is where Australia is now.
Yet Scott
Morrison apparently doesn’t understand how electricity generation and the
national power grid work – it’s a though he has been asleep for the last
decade. Because he
appears to believe that renewable energy systems have not evolved to meet
market demands.
Therefore, based
on his erroneous views Morrison states he is “going
to force them [electricity wholesalers]
to put more fair dinkum, reliable energy, power, into the system”.
Expensive,
polluting, coal-fired power supplying electricity to Australian homes at maximum cost to ordinary consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)