The energy outages that left people stranded in stalled elevators and disrupted dramatically the digital world now increasingly in the thrall of “RENEWABLE ENERGY”, a state of supply that is increasingly unreliable due to large tracts of production that deliver zero when it gets dark and the wind stops.
At first in the stampede to avoid blame and divert attention the cause was down to solar flares that can and do interrupt communications, remember those radio commentaries from the Republic and Europe before satellite TV?
Now it is clear that the cause was the very concept of modern renewables that can cease delivery in an instant, it is officially called “Inertia”. not the sort that sees many able bodied sitting on a couch with their device, more along the lines covered in wikipedia for a phenomena that now threatens energy networks world wide
“Inertia is the natural tendency of objects in motion to stay in motion and objects at rest to stay at rest, unless a force causes the velocity to change”.
There is a perfect time delay that allows Hydro, coal/gas fired steam turbines along with thermal to compensate for a sudden fluctuation in supply and demand before chaos erupts in a grid system for delivery, but when the excrement hits a rotary with high dependence on solar and wind, even when backed by a battery, that inertia factor is just not available.
A simple problem that the Bowens and his ilk do not wish to be publicised ?
As I understand matters Nuclear is also not so easily manipulated, although a little better than the reliance on solar/wind that Net Zero 30/50/whenever is predicated upon.
Now the investigations are not yet in but I await with a keen anticipation exactly the repercussions for say a data center suffering a catastrophic loss of energy with the publicised vast supply issues involved, not to mention such infrastructure as Health and safety require.
The scary predictions that did not eventuate but caused some angst that accompanied the threats around year 2000 may well be consigned to a downgrade? Most of us are aware of the chaos when an energy shutdown hits, for example a Mall that shuts down the card readers of retail, security systems that are covered by generators cutting in for a hospital but not so for a mall.
The three households for our immediate family all have a standby generation available, powered by the very fuel so many erroneously consider can be phased out, but then our collective logic does not rely upon a “Once upon a time” fairy tale solutions.
There are so many downsides to the ponzi schemes that see solar grids and windmills marching across landscapes the world over. Well, not so much in Saudi Arabia. Costs, Rare Earths involved, their extraction and conversion to useable materials, relatively short lifespan for the plant, close to zero ability for recycling, reliability of delivering energy, visual pollution, endangerment for wildlife, transmission costs to grids, noise, maintenance ongoing, you name it.
Waitaki dam, just west of Kurow, began delivering energy 90 years ago and yes there is Maintenance and upgrading but the old dear still delivers its 105 MW every hour the river flows. When an upgrade for Waitaki occurs there is a lot of recycling of replaced plant, but when a solar panel degrades to inefficiency, a windmill blade decays, there is virtually no such environmental recovery.
Yes Waitaki was built by the Government of the day, thus subsidised 100 % so the subsidisation of solar and wind is contestable. But I would warrant that even with the planning hurdles to be overcome there is a far better chance a Waitaki would still be built today and zero wind /solar arrays would delivered without taxpayer subsidy.
Then there are the unmentionable problems with the vast battery components for the Renewables.
No Minister 
Waitaki doesn’t deliver it 105MW every hour. They ramp it up and down to maximise generation when needed. They can make a flow/MW change once a day. In the last week, it has been between 38 & 82MW. That dispatchability is what is valued.
https://electricitymap.frenchsta.gg/?timeframe=-7d&site=WTK
The beauty of nuclear is its ability to provide a steady base which other technologies can complement.. Gas, hydro can be dialed up and down to meet demand esp. Known demand profiles like meal prep at around 6pm etc.
Solar and Wind need massive investment, have nasty recycling issues (what do you do with old wind turbine blades? Answer seems to be bury them…) And are erratic producers of power requiring a back up of either large scale batteries (I love me a lithum fire) or other power plants like…. Coal fired turbines.
We are lucky in NZ we have a large deployed Hydro based power system, though it has dry year issues if course.
If the Greens were truly interested in saving the planet they would openly advocate for a few nuclear plants north of Auckland to boost supply and lessen coal burning.
But its not about the environment with the Greens, its about control and State power…. Greens are Leninist control freaks… Nothing more and nothing less
Because I don’t follow their politics I hadn’t realised that Dutton had tried to push a policy of future nuclear power plants and got hammered on that by Labour. I haven’t seen any polls analysing how important that was in voter intentions but it seems to have been another factor in the landslide loss by Dutton.
Surprising if true since Oz never got into the anti-nuclear stuff they way we did and to this day have nuclear-powered American warships in their ports (and probably nuclear armed back in the 80’s).
I guess Aussie voters will just have to endure further price hikes and Spain-style blackouts, although there’s few signs that voters there and in Germany are actually willing to boot these polices.