JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Tim Flannery – baseload is just a “coal” industry idea (Yes and darkness is a “renewable” idea, right?)

How is this for a scary thought?

Tim Flannery says renewables will run the economy:

“What we can now see is the emerging inevitability that renewables are going to be running the economy…”

And I say: Prepare for economic armageddon. Picture an Australia where we all have jobs — jobs  digging holes, mucking out the stables, and chopping those last few remaining trees down. We may lead the world installing chinese-made solar panels, but they won’t help us make anything that anyone else wants to buy. Anton gives us some numbers no one seems to have mentioned to Tim. Like, it takes 1,000 new wind towers to kinda equal one coal plant. – Jo

—————————————

Guest Post: Anton Lang

Get ready — this is how much the 25 most recent, powerful, high-tech wind plants generate. Not the red line — that’s how much electricity we used. Look at the expanse under the blue line — every bit of that (“bit” being the word) is all thanks to those brand spanking new wind turbines.

Courtesy of the National Electricity Market. (NEM)

The red line at the top shows total electricity demand for NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, and Tasmania over 2011. The blue line the total generation from the 25 most recently constructed Wind Plants in that same 5 State area.

Note how the total demand average is between 22,000 and 28,000MW. Wind power from those 25 new plants generates as much as 650MW (the blue line). That’s 2.6%. This is from a total Nameplate Capacity of 2072MW being generated from those 25 Wind Plants which are made up of 985 huge towers.

The killer here, however is not shown on this graph. That is the absolute 24 hour requirement for power, the baseload or  17,000 MW running day and night.

Flannery on page 16:

The idea of ‘baseload’ power comes from fossil fuel electricity generation. Traditionally the cheapest source of power has been from coal‑fired power plants designed to operate continuously. This constant source of cheap power is called baseload power.

The Wind power Nameplate Capacity of 2072MW is the equivalent of one large scale coal fired plant, so exactly how many of those plants have closed down thanks to wind-power? Not one.

How many wind towers would we need if we were to move to a completely wind power future? To get the Base Load Requirement of 17,000MW we’d need 27 times as many towers, or 26,000 turbines.

For Total demand make that 38,000 huge wind towers.

This is what the full story is, not some warm and fluffy hope from Tim Flannery.

In his pdf document he shows the current power generation at Figure 1. It indicates that renewables currently supply 10% of all Australian power. Of that 10%, two thirds is Hydro, (thanks to the Snowy Mountains Scheme) Wind makes up 23% or 2.5% of the total. Solar makes up 3% which is 0.3% of the total demand.

Flannery, to put it politely, is just gilding the lily.

Anton.

————————————

Link to ABC article

Link to Flannery PDF release

Image: Reference for the image is at this link, and it’s the graph at the bottom right, the top graph for 2011.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (81 votes cast)
Tim Flannery - baseload is just a "coal" industry idea (Yes and darkness is a "renewable" idea, right?), 8.9 out of 10 based on 81 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/blvzt87

248 comments to Tim Flannery – baseload is just a “coal” industry idea (Yes and darkness is a “renewable” idea, right?)

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    If the investment were proportional to the gain, we sould not care less economically. And there will be some places where wind and solar make sense. The problem is that the investment is disproportionately large relative to the gain. Which is wasteful. But even that gross investment is minor in the total running of the economy (especially if you consider the amount of GDP that goes to bureaucracy). The hobbling of the non-green energy sources is, however, the real problem, as that damage flows through the economy and into every household in the nation.

    Green energy is the insult; anti-fossil fuel energy is the injury.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      James

      You’re right. I suggest we go on burning coal forever!!!!


      Report this

      520

      • #
        AndyG55

        Ditto !! With you 100% on that, James.

        CO2 is great for the environment. helps plants and nature stay healthy !!

        Not damaging, like wind turbines are to avian life.


        Report this

        352

      • #
        Crakar24

        Why dont we build Thorium plants James tat way we dont need to burn coal, any thoughts?


        Report this

        70

        • #
          James

          I’m a fan of http://bravenewclimate.com/ and open to discussion on all nuclear based options.


          Report this

          142

          • #
            Brian of Moorabbin

            Pity that the rest of your fellow AGW travellers, and the ALP and Green politicians that they have duped, are all against any discussion about nuclear power in Australia though, eh James?

            Perhaps you should start a discussion topic at Skeptical Science? How about “How Nuclear Energy can lead Australia to a Clean Energy Future”?


            Report this

            120

          • #
            James

            I agree, it’s a pity that a lot of Australians are closed-minded about the nuclear options.


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Crakar24

            James most people dont know how a uranium reactor works let along the difference between the two, your authoritive figures in the Australian parliament think Uranium rhymes with Thorium so it must be bad. That i am afraid is the depths of their stupidity and if forced to decide you will stand with them, as they say birds of a feather flock together so dont come here and lament about this problem because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

            You give them the power to decide what power source we use, what it will cost us and who gets to use it and who does not (Mattb “just tell them to put on another jumper”) as our version of let them eat cake.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            James

            Crakar24, thanks you for your support, but I think you overestimate my powers of influence. Other people in this country also vote according to their own opinion.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        cohenite

        You’re right. I suggest we go on burning coal forever!!!!

        At last, James the troll says something sensible.


        Report this

        221

      • #
        Winston

        Guess what James,

        If we continue to rely on Solar and Wind (intermittent and unstorable) as our only alternative to coal, then we will indeed continue to need to burn coal forever, because the only viable alternatives are natural gas (also producing CO2, frakking is evil, etc), Hydro (not building dams- verboten!, bad for the environment) and nuclear (also verboten! for reasons which remain elusive). I would go so far as to say that people like your good self are ensuring that we will continue to burn coal at escalating rates (as demand increases) as government addiction to tax revenues from carbon taxes, etc for their economic survival will mean they can’t possibly afford to allow viable, non-CO2 producing alternatives to succeed.

        I’d call that a perverse incentive, wouldn’t you?


        Report this

        120

      • #
        Brian of Moorabbin

        If you’re so dead-keen on how dirty coal is, why don’t you start lobbying Julia et al to start closing down those ‘dirty CO2 spewing factories of death” down in Hazelwood (Victoria) and Bayswater (NSW)?

        Come on James, action now is needed isn’t it? Those plants should be shut down RIGHT NOW, before it becomes too late and the planet is doomed.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Mark D.

        James the warmer says:

        You’re right. I suggest we go on burning coal forever!!!!

        It appears our work is done here………


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Winston

          Mark,
          Notice James and the other alarmists have come in all guns blazing telling us how efficient wind power actually is and how wrong Anton is with his figures, armed as I am sure they all are with the latest statistics showing how much CO2 wind generation is saving, how many coal fired plants have been closed down because wind is so efficient, how wind generation was producing 20,30,even 40% of our power needs in our brave new renewable energy world………

          This is the alarmists’ weakest link, among many. The solutions to the CO2 issue are so poorly thought out and lacking practicality, it sorta makes one curious as to just what else of which they may have limited understanding. If CAGW was a real and genuine issue of survival facing mankind, then we are truly doomed to extinction because these idiots really haven’t got a clue what they are doing.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Mark D.

            Yes Winston, charge ahead with no plan and no clue.

            I do think that cold will be the turning point. No one likes being cold, I mean bone chilling, mind numbing, teeth chattering cold.

            When the first brown-outs happen things will change. Of course a few people will die too. Tell some grandchild that grammy or gramps won’t be around because of anti-carbon fanaticism.


            Report this

            80

        • #
          wayne, s. Job

          For a fully interconnected grid across Australia using the latest technology of very high voltage DC distribution to limit losses, I can see that wind power could indeed power Australia. The only down side I can see is that we would need around 5 Million of them, spread around the entire continent to ensure supply. The cost in trillions is a minor problem as it is only our money.

          If one looks at the advances in technology in the last century, acceleration of knowledge was mind boggling. The acceleration has been exponential into this century, Don of wind mill fame in previous times did some slaying, these monstrocities are a century late and shall be soon but an ugly blot on the landscape.

          I am totally certain that real technology that is cost effective will shoot all these green money making ventures down in flames. I am getting old and I would like to hand on a world to my children’s children that is better than the one I had. This green wet dream of Flim Flannery will see people suffering the hardships of previous centuries by preaching a fairy tale.

          Beneath all this BS are people with creative brains who will usurp these pretenders with real science and real technology that works, I have total faith in the creative genius of mankind. These fools like Flannery, are but a side show in history, and no more important than the bearded lady.


          Report this

          21

      • #
        mullumhillbilly

        So James says something that many readers would agreee with, and stil gets 14 thumbs down and 2 up.? I come to this blog to be informed not watch schoolyard tribalism. Lift your game ticksters!


        Report this

        012

    • #
      Truthseeker

      I feel the following coming from TonyfromOz …

      I told you so


      Report this

      50

      • #

        Thanks Truthseeker, but, umm, Anton Lang, (me) is TonyfromOz.

        Tony.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          Mattb

          Anton at the jazz club. Tony at the footy? Good article.


          Report this

          44

        • #
          Truthseeker

          I was right!


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Baa Humbug,

          my late dad told me that my favourite toy as a baby, just learning to walk in 52 was a pull along bird on a small wheeled platform, and as you pulled it along, the bird would not its head. It was a Magpie. I even have a photo of me with that bird that Mum gave me some years back now. Dad mentioned that it was with me virtually every waking hour. Right from when I first became aware of football, living in Beaumaris, was in the first year of primary school, and I don’t even know why, but I started following the Magpies, and to this day, I’m the only family member to follow Collingwood, and even dad followed the suburb he was raised in, Richmond.

          When we won the 58 Flag, I was over the moon. Almost cried in 66.

          I followed them all the way and in the 70′s when we found ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I despaired that we might never win again, and I just hoped I would live long enough to see another flag, so 1990 was one of the most satisfying years of my life, and then 2010. Now I know I will die happy.

          Power Without Glory is my second favourite Aussie book with Poor Fellow My Country my favourite. So Carringbush is indeed close to my heart.

          In the RAAF, they are big on fitness, so when I was at Wagga Wagga and balloned out to 105KG, I started to get that weight back down to my BMI healthy weight target of 79KG. It took me a year, and I did it with exercise alone, jogging mainly, well, walk then run then walk, then walk, then walk for the first month or so.

          At the peak I would run the airfield every work day, a distance of 7.5 KM. Luckily I had a close friend who would run with me. He was an English guy and younger than me, and he was a fierce Carlton supporter.

          When we got better at running, we would run separately, as he was faster than I was. At the bottom of the far end of the strip there was a Magpie, and in the season, it would swoop him every day. I never had the slightest problem. he would run in front of me and I’d watch it swoop him, and prepare myself but it never eventuated. Vice versa, he would run behind me and watch. No swoop, and then as soon as he turned up swoop. It pissed him off something chronic, and I put it down to the Carlton beanie he always wore.

          It was the oddest thing.

          So, even when supporting Collingwood was totally unfashionable, well, still is I suppose, I have always been a loud and very proud Magpie supporter.

          Tony.


          Report this

          20

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Flannery and any other greenie politician should be tarred and feathered, then left tied up to a lamp post.


      Report this

      11

    • #
      Truthseeker

      In this debunking of Wind Power, what has been left out one of the most important environmental effects that all these Wind Towers would have, just in the their manufacture. That is the rare earth mineral mining and processing that is required for the nacelles that would be required. There is already an environmental disaster occurring, but since it is in China, that must be OK …

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

      I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning … it smells like environmentalism.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Anton

    For the record, I’m not Anton Lang. But I agree with every word of his.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    John Campbell

    >> For Total demand make that 38,000 huge wind towers.

    Wrong. It’s 38,000 wind towers plus a couple of gas-powered generators (at about 1/10th the cost) running in standby mode (lots of CO2) for when the wind doesn’t blow, or when it doesn’t blow enough, or when it blows too much.

    Total CO2 emissions of the whole caboodle are more than those of the gas-powered generator alone. Go figure!


    Report this

    210

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Imagine 2 days with overcast skies and little wind. How much electricity would “renewables” generate?

    Will householders like the refrigerator and freezer not working for 48 hours? No ovens, kettles nor TV (well that wouldn’t be such a disaster), no computers, no mobile phones because they’ve used all up their charge. No traffic lights, but the streets would be a disaster with all those electric cars unable to move any more.

    You won’t need Smart Meters to shut down your supply. Still, you’ll have bigger problems than worrying about that expense imposed on you.

    The plain truth is that “renewables” are ADD-ONs to electricity supply. They cannot exist without 100% backup from conventional power stations. That’s why no country in the World has shut down a power station because of “renewable” energy. Some, such as Germany, are building new coal fired stations as hard as they can go.

    Shortly some fool will claim that “if only we have enough wind turbines, they would even out the supply”. Leaving aside the sheer stupidity of replacing one lot of reliable (i.e. predictable) energy with 450% capacity, there is the problem that this statement is pure drivel. NO study anywhere has shown this as a reality, including 2 for SE Australia.

    The extraordinary thing is that up-grading our black coal power stations to EXISTING best practice would reduce CO2 emissions by more than wind turbines could do. Convert brown coal stations to black at the same standard and Australia could achieve a 12% reduction in OVERALL emissions and still have cheaper power. But the Greens aren’t really interested in reducing emissions, they want to make electricity more expensive as part of their ideal of reducing the standard of living to roughly that of a medieval peasant.


    Report this

    310

  • #
    John de Melle

    I think that there is a typing error in the quotation, it should read :- :-

    “What we can now see is the emerging inevitability that renewables are going to be ruining the economy…”


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ben Smith

    To add to the problems outlined you must also consider the spatial efficiency of non renewables vs renewable energy production. How much land is required to support 38,000 wind turbines? Once again the answer to this question you must add land use issues for 100% backup requirement for conventional energy plants. The cost of land, plants and facilities to produce useless capacity increases even more when considering additional infrastructure needed to link renewable supplies to conventional power sources. And it doesn’t end there because of the need to fund subsidies through taxation. There is no end to these problems because of the harm introduced to nature and the environment. It appears that environmental activism has yielded its entire capacity for caring to the goal of CO2 reduction which, unfortunately, only gets worse under the renewables drive for “sustainable” energy. We live in strange times when right seems wrong and up is down; birds are sacrificed in large numbers for a cause and naturalists do not object, pristine forests and natural beauty are sacrificed for the renewables dream and what was once considered to be nature that should be preserved is now buried under solar panels and the rotating blades of 450 ft high turbines. This is progress?


    Report this

    160

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      ben Smith:
      the practical ‘energy density’ of wind turbines is about 2MW per sq. km. Theoretically it is a little higher, but as you build more wind farms the capacity factor suffers (e.g. in the UK the average is down from 26% to less than 24%, in fact 21% last year, but that may have been a bad year for wind). Germany, with far more wind farms based on the plains, struggles to get 16% (pushed up fractionally by the new farms in the Baltic sea).

      Solar is less easy to estimate. Certainly you ‘lose’ 50% of land area for access for maintenance/ avoiding shadows etc. Then there are the problems of conversion to electricity (about 11-16%) and losses in transmission because your solar farms are all way out back.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The Climate Commission consists of four professional academics, one professional economist, and one retired oil executive. Three of the academics claim “conservationist”, or “ecologist”, or “climate science expert”, in their blurbs. Only one of the academics is a “technologist”, and that is in the field of “sustainable materials research”. I have found no evidence of any practical engineering expertise in the makeup of the Commission

    A very brief (and superficial) word analysis on the site gives the following results:

    “Base Load” – 3 hits – 1 of which appear to be a duplicate (the other extolls the German wind and solar power initiative, but fails to mention that Germany is also building new gas powered generation capacity);

    “Coal” – 23 hits – mostly in conjunction with “gas”, in the context of “dirty” technology;

    “Critical” – 90 hits – in relation to “critical decade”; – 83 hits – in relation to critical supply, a subset of “critical decade”;

    “Electrical” – 0 hits – from which we surmise that there are no Electrical Engineers on the staff, nor acting as consultants;

    “Electricity” – 25 hits – mostly used as a generic term for all forms of generation;

    “Energy” – 90 hits – mostly combined in the phrase “clean energy”;

    “Engineer” – 1 hit – for “hug a climate scientist day”;

    “Fossil” – 17 hits – mostly related to “fossil fuels”;

    “Fuel” – 12 hits – mostly a subset of “fossil fuels”

    ‘Future” – 70 hits – all related to “future generations”;

    “Generation” – 18 hits – 13 for “electricity generation” (a subset of “Electricity”, and 5 for “energy generation” (a subset of energy);

    “Grandchildren” – 14 hits – mostly a subset of “Future”;

    “Hydro” – 11 hits – mostly related to Tasmania;

    “Investment” – 15 hits – mostly related to “Government investing”;

    “Nuclear” – 1 hit – related to exports to China;

    “Photovoltaic” – 6 hits – used in lists of alternatives;

    “Power” – 25 hits – mostly used as an adjective, as in “power supply”, “power lines”, “power plants, etc.;

    “Scientist” – 6 hits – mostly in claiming authority, or in relation to “hug a climate scientist day”;

    “Solar” – 21 hits – mostly used as an adjective, as in “solar power”;

    “Supply” – 17 hits – mostly in terms of “water supply”.

    When you look at the profile, you can see that the “high hit” words are either generic or emotive (future and critical), and the more technical subjects (base load, supply) have lower “hits” in comparison.

    At a first glance, the site has the obvious appearance of a propaganda organ. This is possibly because it is focussed on producing sound-bites to grab attention and create an emotional response, rather than providing substantive information to inform and persuade.


    Report this

    210

    • #
      Manfred

      RW,
      Nice analysis. I can only conclude that the resultant word cloud must have been beautiful to behold!
      http://www.wordle.net/

      …an excellent visual tool that produces a pictorial dramatisation relative to word frequency in an analysed document. It seems to be able to graphically separate the sublime from the ridiculous. For example, in a recent pictorial analysis of a clinical practice capability document the word that won the prize was ‘appropriate’. Propaganda indeed.

      I have also found it quite useful to consider a range of key words I would expect to find in a document and then see how their frequency compares with the actual Wordle analysis. As you know, what is not written is often more revealing.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pattoh

    Just for the record, I just purchased 2 once used shipping containers.
    For what you get they are relatively cheap at the moment. I appears that they load them up with goods in Asia full of consumer goods (which we don’t make) send them out here.
    However with the exchange rate & THE LACK OF INTERNATIONALLY COMPETITIVE MANUFACTURING IN AUSTRALIA to load them back up & ship them out containers, many particularly old ones, get retired here.
    This is probably going to be a boon in the future when our commodities become too expensive for the world markets, the exchange rate goes into major reverse & interest rates take the well-worn path upwards to keep finance coming into the country. I imagine there will be quite a few Gen Xs & Ys (whose birth-right includes a $300k mortgage ) who will be looking for a dog box or a kennel to live in & perhaps park the Prius.
    At least the will have their smug Gaia Philosophy to keep them warm & after all, it IS good for the environment to turn those pesky rabbits into a source of protein./ sarc.

    GO JULIA!!!!!!!!! ………………………Just go


    Report this

    150

  • #
  • #
    KinkyKeith

    IF

    As Flannery says:

    “renewables are going to be running the economy…”

    THEN:

    1. There will be no exports out of Australia. Costs of production too high.

    2. Only the rich will have electricity.

    3. We will; be cooking over back yard fires that we feed with local sourced timber from the local park. After all that is gone we will be using the neighbours fence.

    4. The increased use of Kerosene lamps for reading at night, no TV and no news, will result in a sudden rise in house fires.
    Those affected will live in the local sporting grounds where soup kitchens have been set up by the United Nations Energy Relief Committee. UN effort sponsored by money from India and China.

    5. People’s committees are set up at each UN relief park and people march on disused coal fired power plants in an attempt to re-start them.

    6. By 2020 one quarter of the old coal fired plants is back and working and a People’s Tribunal is set up to try and convict those from academia, SkS, politics and big business who were responsible for the catastrophe.

    7. Those convicted were sentenced to shovel coal at the local power stations until 2050 when normality is restored with the first 20 Nuclear Power plants coming on line.

    8. In 2053 all Climate Criminals are pardoned.

    9. All University Psychology undergraduates are now undertaking the compulsory course in “The Climate Catastrophe and How It Happened” which is officially listed as:

    CC101: Studies in Human Delusion and It’s Avoidance.

    10. More power to the Rational.

    KK :)


    Report this

    280

  • #
    joe V.

    There’s an interesting presentation here from Engineers at the UK’s National Grid, who are responsible for taking and balancing the supply from all theses generators. and how they see the future unfolding – with increasing variability, total loss of coal over next 3 years , without wind or even nuclear expected to take up the slack in that time. they’ll be bound to buy more Nuclear from France and still risk power cuts.

    Rather long I’m afraid but it gives a good dispassionate view from those who are faced with having to manage the ‘inevitable’

    Click. Go to Webcast, next to the Cheery Chap at the bottom of the page. to view.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      AndyG55

      Joe, because of the much longer distances involved in the Austrlian power grid, I think you will find it is starting to get to the “vulnerable” stage because all the feed-ins are starting to cause instability, and if the grid does go down, from say , a large lightning strike, it may take quite a long time to get it restarted and balanced. (comment from a guy I know who works in the power industry)

      Imagine the effect of say 3 days of no power to Sydney! That would be fun… not!


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Redress

        Hi AndyG55

        Already happening in rural Australia.
        I recently had to replace my air conditioner under warranty.
        My electrician said it blew because the power coming in was at above recommended voltage,
        caused by increased feed in from all the solar units put in with NSW labour govt subsidies.


        Report this

        71

        • #
          AndyG55

          I want it to happen to inner city Sydney !

          And the reason CLEARLY spelt out.

          Maybe then some of the latte set would wake up to reality !! or not !!


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Redress

            Apparently the little house panels are not the major cause for concern although they do contribute.
            It is the very large commercial sun-tracking units, and static units which have gone in which cause the major voltage fluctuations.
            And in my area of S/W NSW there are some huge units, lots of sunshine and low capacity powerlines..


            Report this

            30

      • #
        joe V.

        Australia doesn’t have all these handy neighbours to call on either, when the Grid is about collapse.

        When all you can count on is the unexpected, all these new Gas turbines that will be required to back up the Wind farms, will perhaps prove doubly reassuring for their capacity to facilitate a Black Start..


        Report this

        20

  • #

    and I bet dimes against dollars, that fuel substitution is way below the 2.5% suggested. Ireland managed to substitute a little over 50% of the fuel corresponding to the wind MW supllied. And Ireland has a significant gas component. Gas can load follow. Coal cannot. Never mind the money wasted. Got to keep them Danes happy… And the Germans too… Aren’t THEY the ones screaming about AGW?


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Actually, the Danes started with them after the oil embargo in ’73. Sadly, it seemed something of a panicked response and not well-thought out. Now even the Danes are losing their fondness for the turbines. They just don’t work in any usable fashion, no matter how many times that promise is repeated. Reality just does not care about feeling warm and fuzzy.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    Comments like Flammery’s can only be fully explained by space aliens having arrived a few decades ago.


    Report this

    81

  • #

    The real issue to me is that people keeping voting the Greens into positions of influence way beyond both their experiences and abilities. I’m really fearful that come the next election the Greens will get in ‘under the radar’ and get more seats as our two main parties trade blows at each other, thereby not challenging the Greens.

    The UK many years ago had a similar situation with a party called the LibDems – luckily the first past the post system stopped them becoming too significant to be a worry – but a lot of what the Greens propose matches the LibDem policies..

    The Greens need to be kept under a microscope at all times now. Especially when so many of their policies are more emotive than factually based. We do not want another hung parliament and all the Green led silliness that creates.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    harry buttle

    locally we have people complaining about a proposed NBN wireless tower (looks much like a mobile phone tower), imagine the screams if it was a gigantic wind turbine.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Robert

    Tin Flannery is a national embarrassment…..as well as a smug fool who doesn’t let little things like facts get in the way of his ideology or ambitions


    Report this

    251

  • #
    pat

    pricing carbon dioxide is now backed by almost all of Big Oil. Newsday appears to be the only MSM outlet reporting this:

    16 Nov: Newsday: Carbon tax: Exxon backs Obama plan to impose climate change fees
    Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington…
    It is gaining interest as lawmakers and President Barack Obama pledge to simplify the corporate tax code and raise revenue to narrow the deficit. The devastation from superstorm Sandy following the wildfires and drought of this summer have also increased concern about global warming…
    “It does fit with the Republican idea of cleaning up the tax code, and to have a clean instrument for addressing this problem,” John Reilly, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said in an interview. Given this year’s weather disasters, “it’s hard to stand up and say global warming is a hoax,” he said…
    The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, which says it advocates libertarian and conservative values, held a full-day discussion Nov. 13 to examine how best to implement a carbon tax, which its economists say could enable a cut in corporate taxes and head off regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The same day, an opponent of the idea, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department, seeking private e-mails it said would show the administration is secretly pushing for a carbon tax.
    “They want new sources of revenues, and this is an enormous one,” Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Washington- based CEI, said in an interview. “This thing is gaining steam. If successful, it would be disastrous.”…
    The carbon tax also has had support among economists who have worked for Republican administrations, including Kevin Hassett, who is also at AEI, and Gregory Mankiw, an economist at Harvard University…
    Exxon is the biggest U.S. natural-gas producer.
    ***A carbon tax could boost demand for natural gas in U.S. power plants, as gas emits half the carbon dioxide as coal when burned to make electricity…
    Carbon Conference
    Exxon, the world’s largest energy company by market value, gave AEI $295,000 last year. Exxon played no part in Mathur’s research or the meeting, she said…
    http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/carbon-tax-exxon-backs-obama-plan-to-impose-climate-change-fees-1.4229894


    Report this

    10

    • #

      We call this “what really dumb tax can we get hit the least by”. It seems obvious many Republicans are going to cave to the “oh gosh, I have to compromise so the Dems will like me” mentality (who cares about constituents?) so Exxon may feel this is the least really bad idea. Also, oil companies have renewable energy departments that will offset their taxes. Sometimes it comes down to do you risk dying in the cave or chew your arm off an escape. Losing an arm may seems like the best choice at the moment. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. You can count on Exxon and others knowing what will happen with this move. By the way, the top three tax paying corporations in the US are oil companies, with tax rates around 45%.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Angry

      Pat,
      It is nothing more than a ponzi scheme.
      Selling something worth absolutely NOTHING to the gullible.
      Just like the “dot com” debacle.
      We all know how that turned out…….


      Report this

      52

    • #
      Streetcred

      Really, why would ‘big oil’ care ? They just pass it on to the consumer and voila! they look luminous green. Essentially they’re just cowards for buckling to the likes of the ‘algorical’ et al.; if the greenies don’t like fossil fuel then they can bloody well live in a cave on their own.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Angry

    Andrew Bolt’s take on this………..

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_100_per_cent_fantasy/

    THIS MORON FLANNERY IS OFF WITH THE FAIRIES !!!!!!!!!

    OBVIOUSLY HE HAS THE IQ OF A MENTALLY DISABLED AMOEBA !


    Report this

    115

  • #
    Angry

    In the last 3 months alone the St Vinnies charity has handed out over $800,000 to help Australians to pay for their over priced electricity thanks to the gillard carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax !!

    Enough Is Enough !!!!


    Report this

    121

  • #
    James

    and chopping those last few remaining trees down

    That’s a pretty stupid remark.


    Report this

    017

  • #
    James

    if we were to move to a completely wind power future?

    Strawman argument, no one is saying we should move to a completely wind power future.

    Seriously man, put in some time and do a proper analysis.


    Report this

    025

    • #

      Then why are we using wind in the first place? If we have to build backup power, and there’s little evidence turbines reduce CO2 and some evidence they actually warm the planet, why are we using this unscientific, economically ruinous form of energy?


      Report this

      210

      • #
        James

        Are you referring to the localised warming effect? Can you produce a citation please.


        Report this

        018

        • #
          • #
            Mark D.

            Good one Sheri!

            I expect James will shut up now…..


            Report this

            10

          • #
            James

            Sheri, the local warming of areas near wind turbines is not the same as global warming of the planet.

            Global warming is the accumulation of more energy to the planet.

            Local warming near wind turbines relates to the movement of existing warmth, not additional warth, so whilst it might get slightly warmer nearer the turbine, it’s getting colder elsewhere. It’s a shift of heat.

            (Sorry Marky D)


            Report this

            05

          • #
            Crakar24

            Well James Mark D is technically correct as nothing you said is note worthy.

            Local warming near wind turbines relates to the movement of existing warmth, not additional warth, so whilst it might get slightly warmer nearer the turbine, it’s getting colder elsewhere. It’s a shift of heat.

            ITS CALLED WEATHER YOU IMBECILE


            Report this

            20

        • #

          James is not going to shut up–and I am okay with that. I know the claim is localized warming and it may be true. But as we add more and more and more turbines, the effects will become more widespread. Considering the current questions about urban heat sinks and location of temperature stations, as we warm more and more of the surface, it will be claimed that the warming is due to more climate change and more turbines will be needed. What right now is considered localized can easily be woven into the climate change storyline. If the turbines fail at their alleged job of reducing CO2, then climate change will get worse and it could become a flaming inferno under the turbines. Al Gore had a child demonstrate this with a Barbi doll. I’m just trying to save us from the oceans boiling under those turbines. :)
          (sarc/)


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Sheri, thanks for your calming effort.

            James won’t shut up for sure. Not that I really want him to either. A brilliant mind once said “stupid is what stupid does”.

            I could ask him for a paper that explains how windmills could extract xamount of energy and not have a local cooling effect. But why bother.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            James

            Telling me to shut up stems from their inability to counter an argument.

            As for your concern, the warming, as stated by the paper you refer to, is only over the installation itself.

            I’m just trying to save us from the oceans boiling under those turbines.

            No need to fear. From your paper

            In contrast, surface cooling exceeding 1 °C is computed over ocean installations.


            Report this

            02

          • #
            James

            I could ask him for a paper that explains how windmills could extract xamount of energy and not have a local cooling effect. But why bother.

            Actually the onus would be on you (or Sheri) to support your arguments. I’m not the one to claim global climate is affected by windmills.


            Report this

            02

          • #

            So James,

            let me take excerpts from both of your Comments above:

            Telling me to shut up stems from their inability to counter an argument.

            and then this from the next Comment

            Actually the onus would be on you ….. to support your arguments.

            Perhaps you may like to take your own advice and (you don’t even have to go very far because it’s barely half a screen down from here) actually reply to Comment 21.3.

            Scotoma, or no idea?

            Tony.


            Report this

            20

          • #

            Sure, today they say 1 degree of warming. But then there’s tomorrow. Today I read an article predicting 4 degrees warming from fossil fuels (no, I don’t have a reference–it’s late and I just don’t care) and before the highest I’d seen was 3 degrees.
            I didn’t actually say global warming was increased by windmills. I said they warm the area underneath. I questioned whether as we add more and more turbines, could it change the perceived global average temperatures if the weather stations were improperly located. I also anticipated that the warmists may add this to their arsenal as proof of the impending disaster. I can see where the terms “could” and “may” might be misleading, but since I am the science type and not an alarmists, the words mean this is an as yet unsubstantiated prediction.
            The boiling oceans would start 1 degree earlier under the turbines, if the oceans do indeed boil as an infamous climate change promoter once claimed. Since I don’t know how much time that 1 degree would buy us, if any, I thought I should err on the side of caution and warn people about the possible danger. If the alarmist is wrong, this is a mute point.
            My reason for mentioning this is virtually any deviation from whatever average temperature the warmists have calculated spells doom, yet 1 degree of warming that is “localized” is blown off if turbines are involved. Unless the only warming that is bad for the planet comes from fossil fuel burning ONLY, there seems to be a few holes in the AGW claims.
            For now, I am monitoring the studies and watching for any significant news. We should be vigilant in keeping watch over the AGW claims.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            James

            Tony, learn to link, like this.

            And, no, I won’t be drawn into your discussion. My argument was that the above analysis is crap, and I gave my reasons as to why.


            Report this

            03

          • #

            Just as I thought.

            No idea!

            Tony.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            James

            Sure, today they say 1 degree of warming.

            Local, at the site of the windmills, not a global figure.

            But then there’s tomorrow. Today I read an article predicting 4 degrees warming from fossil fuels

            That would be a global figure.

            I didn’t actually say global warming was increased by windmills. I said they warm the area underneath. I questioned whether as we add more and more turbines, could it change the perceived global average temperatures if the weather stations were improperly located.

            Ahh. OK. Then in that case, yes it would affect the thermometers, in the same way the Urban Heat Island Effect does, IF they were placed near these large installations.

            Given that we are well aware of the UHIE, I doubt that situation will occur.

            Currently I have not heard of one occurance of this to date. Have you?

            I also anticipated that the warmists may add this to their arsenal as proof of the impending disaster.

            Given that the UHIE is not added to the arsenal (Tokyo for example) I don’t see why this would be.

            The boiling oceans would start 1 degree earlier under the turbines

            On water, as mentioned before, it added a 1° cooling effect. The IPCC report does not say the oceans will boil, I suspect you have been misled. This is a strawman argument.

            My reason for mentioning this is virtually any deviation from whatever average temperature the warmists have calculated spells doom, yet 1 degree of warming that is “localized” is blown off if turbines are involved.

            As said previously, the change in local warming is only a transfer of heat – no change in global heat is being caused. Global warming is a capturing of additional heat – less is getting out to space.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            James

            @TonyfromOz, just as I thought, making assumptions of other peoples knowledge based upon a non-response.


            Report this

            02

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Sheri

            The only googd thing about James, is that when ypu see how he carries on, it makes you realise you are not as dumb as you first thought.

            My uncle used to say : “there’s always someone worse off than yourself.”

            To paraphrase that in today’s content: “There’s always someone more stupid than you.”

            I know that might seem small comfort but what the hell , it’s been tough.

            KK


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Not at all James.

            I’m just interested as to what your plan might be.

            I’ve been doing this for 5 years now, and I’m always open to new ideas, and you seem to think you have some answers, so let’s hear them then.

            You even say here:

            My argument was that the above analysis is crap.

            Fair comment. Let’s then hear what your analysis is. I could say put up or shut up, but I’m way too polite to say that.

            Tony.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            James

            Fair comment. Let’s then hear what your analysis is. I could say put up or shut up, but I’m way too polite to say that.

            I don’t need to be a singer myself to know that Milli Vanilli was crap.


            Report this

            04

          • #
            Mark D.

            Actually the onus would be on you (or Sheri) to support your arguments. I’m not the one to claim global climate is affected by windmills.

            Not speaking for Sheri, I’ll take this on:

            Actually James you demonstrate just how little you know about physics. It is obvious that extracting energy from the wind (atmosphere) will affect climate. Be careful here you might find yourself in denial.

            No, I don’t expect to see a paper to exactly agree with this but I challenge (the onus) you to find a paper that refutes what I am claiming.


            Report this

            10

          • #
          • #
            Mark D.

            James: Telling me to shut up stems from their inability to counter an argument.

            Your reading comprehension sucks. I did not “tell” you to shut up. Re-read what I really said. If you had a polite bone in your computer body you’d apologize. I EXPECT you will not.

            Signs of a troll bot…….

            PS I did say you were a dumbass. Nothing yet has convinced me I should apologize.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            James

            Actually James you demonstrate just how little you know about physics. It is obvious that extracting energy from the wind (atmosphere) will affect climate. Be careful here you might find yourself in denial.

            Concentrate Mark D. I didn’t say they would NOT affect the climate. I said the argument was not mine, therefore the onus is not with me to prove it (or the opposite of it).


            Report this

            02

          • #
            Mark D.

            OooooH Mattb/James/Catshit/trolls post a link without further comment.

            Recall I said “will affect climate”. Your link says:

            without radically altering the planet’s climate,

            I trust you can see….

            No I don’t trust you can see the difference.


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Mark D.

            James/Mattb/catshit: Concentrate Mark D. I didn’t say they would NOT affect the climate. I said the argument was not mine, therefore the onus is not with me to prove it (or the opposite of it).

            Concentrate dumbass; so you agree then, that well understood principles of physics clearly support what I said (that climate will be affected)? Or by implying (denying) otherwise, you now have the onus.


            Report this

            12

          • #
            Mattb

            (Snip) [Setlle down Matt. mod oggi]


            Report this

            03

          • #
            Mark D.

            It WAS helpful (as your reaction shows) Thanks you wanker/tosser dumbass


            Report this

            22

          • #
            Mattb

            what does how helpful my link is/isn’t have to do with my reaction? Genius logic. Hopefully Santa brings you half a brain for Christmas.


            Report this

            03

          • #
            Mark D.

            Well That is a nice gesture from someone that doesn’t believe in Christmas…..

            I hope he brings you a whole brain……


            Report this

            21

          • #
            James

            Concentrate dumbass; so you agree then, that well understood principles of physics clearly support what I said (that climate will be affected)? Or by implying (denying) otherwise, you now have the onus.

            Once more for the stupid. READ MY WORDS.

            I didn’t say they would NOT affect the climate.

            My farts affect the climate, though mighty they are sometimes, I doubt I can be blame solely for climate change.

            The onus is STILL on you to demonstrate the magnitude of the impact. Good luck. Back on Monday to see how you go!


            Report this

            14

          • #
            Mark D.

            :)

            Magnitude! (I win)

            Changing the game? (I win again!)

            Actually your farts are carbon neutral unless you’re into eating something weird. But then you are a computer. (I win a BONUS)

            You need a weekend. I hope the weekday pay is enough to compensate for all the cognitive dissonance you’ve (or your processor) have endured.


            Report this

            32

          • #

            Mattb,

            with respect to your link at 21.1.1.2.14

            No matter how many links I take, I never cease to be amazed by the amount of so much bullshit that is out there, and this link again only confirms that.

            People who support Wind Power will always be sucked in by whatever makes it sound so good.

            If you want some information about Offshore wind, then read the following link very carefully.

            I know this is an absolutely futile gesture because, Mattb, I know how you hate to take any links, and this one especially, being one of mine, means that there is no chance whatever that you will even bother to take it, because as you have said before my Posts are only crap.

            Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (US equivalent of an Oz Govt. Minister) came out with this absolute howler in November 2009, 3 years back, which prompted this Post from me.

            Futile effort asking you to read it, because you will believe what it is you want to believe, but at least others who do read it will see the absolute futility of what is mentioned at the link you offered.

            As for James, it’s typical of those who come to this site and have no idea of what they are talking about. When confronted, they divert away from the subject asked about, resort to personal attack, and change the subject in an attempt to cover up their lack of knowledge, trying to throw the onus back onto others. James has no idea, and we know that from his response.

            Read the Post at the link and see just how ridiculous some people really make themselves out to be. The worst part about it is that people actually believe what they say because it comes from a position of authority.

            Below is the link to the Post.

            Salazar’s Wind Power: First Open Mouth, Then Change Feet

            Tony.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            James said..

            I don’t need to be a singer myself to know that Milli Vanilli was crap.

            Excellent. Likewise, I don’t need to be a climate scientist to know that the IPCCs climate science is C.R.A.P.P.P.P

            Now that’s settled.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Mattb

            Dear mod oggi. In these posts Mark D refers to someone as Catshit. Calls me a wanker tosser dumbass. But go f*** yourself gets a warning? sheesh.

            [Yes I made that distinction Matt. How about you send Jo an email and ask her to add you to our mod squad. Then you can help us moderate. It'd be about time you earned your keep. Mod oggi]


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mattb

            Tony – it seems a fairly reasonable effort to see just how much wind power it would take to actually reduce the energy of the atmosphere by a meaningful amount. Mark D thinks it is a valid question… Sheri too. If someone claims there will be a meaningful impact then I guess it is prudent to have a look.

            you know I’m not one who thinks we can have a wind powered world (without massive massive expense and even then questionable) so excuse me for not following your link on a Friday evening after a couple of beers:)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            James

            Yes magnitude. Understand that climate change isn’t just about a change in climate, but about the AMOUNT of change.

            You’ve had the weekend and yet you can’t support the idea that windfarms are going to warm the planet.

            It seems you went as far as you could with that idea. Oh well, on to the next “fake argument” you go.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            James, James, James: Unlike the warmists, some of us like to do extensive research before announcing a certain conclusion. To date, I have a couple of studies that lean in the direction of the localized warming. I am also researching if there are changes in wind patterns due to wind plants. It is impossible to research such a complex subject in a weekend, unless of course you are one of those super climate change scientists.
            Interesting that you call this a “fake argument”. Seriously, why would there be at least two published studies on the warming below turbines if there was not some question about the phenomena? Bringing up a study is not to one-up you but rather to point out that there may be problems that are not being considered. Sarcasm concerning this is admittedly to annoy you because you exhibit impatience and insincerity at times. If you want certainty, go back to SkS (the website named after a gun) and read there. Those guys are more to your liking, I would think.
            If you are going to insist we jump to conclusions in three days because you think science can be settled in three days, that’s a problem. You see, science takes time. Sure, it’s frustrating to wait for an answer, but it is important that we get the details right. At least important to some scientists.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            James

            Sheri, Sheri, Sheri. Unlike some non-warmists, I would be very careful about declaring experts, in their field of expertise, wrong because I wanted to interpret their findings differently and come up with my own conclusions.

            I’m all for observing what science has to say on the matter, but you will need to really really spend a lot of time understanding the science in before you can start to make your own judgements. The web blog sphere is full of crazy ideas wanting to make their own point – rarely do they make it to peer-reviewed science.

            I would be really interested in you finding peer-reviewed science that shows how the impact of wind turbines is of a magnitude great enough to have a detremental impact on the planet.

            Perhaps you can add to the one MattB provided earlier.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Many people lack the courage to stand up to authorities. It’s just the way they are made. It did result in tragic acts in Hitler’s Germany, kept medical treatments buried for years that were valid but not part of the consensus and probably accounts for the love North Koreans have for living in dire poverty (yes, two are designed to make warmists look bad, though they are valid cases–if you don’t like those, I have several more that are in the field of science. Just ask.). Unless you are arguing that authorities are omniscient Gods, they can be questioned. Unless you are arguing that science is like psychics and only those with the gift can understand it, the science can be questioned. “Peer-reviewed” just means they were chosen by the cheerleading squad to get a paper published. I’d say it harkened back to high school, but you were probably a little teacher’s pet who kissed behinds then, too. For those of us with back bones and brains, it harkens back to high school and the pretty, athletic people picking their teams. You only picked the popular kids, not the best athletes. Think of peer-reviewed as “science by vote”. That’s what it is.
            As for the paper, assuming you actually have enough patience and memory, and you don’t insist on my using only peer-reviewed articles allowed on the warmest site named after a gun, when one comes out, I’ll see if I can post it here. I cannot guarantee that the curtain won’t be pulled back and the terrified wizard behind the curtain revealed before that (Wizard of Ox reference, in case you’re frowning right now) thus destroying climate change lies, but if I find one I promise to post. :)
            PS The job of thinking people is to figure out which blogs are full of garbage and which are not. Warmists that just rely on “peer-review” are no different than “deniers” who read scientists that oppose the AGW theory. Why do all warmists assume people who disagree have degrees in pottery making and are basically illiterate? Besides, there was NO degree in climate science until about two years ago. Meteorologists are now “experts” if they agree and “deniers” if they don’t. The idea that your science is sooooo persuasive no one who wasn’t a pottery major could disagree is WRONG. Believe it or not, scientists with advanced degrees and research have blogs that are in the “deniers” camp. It’s just that you can’t imagine how you could be wrong and thus anyone who disagrees is illiterate and would not recognize a differential calculus equation if you labelled it. Your hypothesis is blatantly false.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        Article: http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-century indicates the NEW temperature rise is 4 degrees. How can one possibly not fear more and more and more and more and more and more causes of warming, including the localized going global? It’s terrifying.
        Global is the average (worst statistical measurement there is) temperature and turbines are becoming global. See where that goes? If I assume the insanity will stop, then global won’t matter nor will this. Except for Frankenstorm, which was local but still proved climate change on a global level.
        Not a strawman argument. Dr. James Hansen, god of climate science, made the comment on the oceans. Had his picture in the article, smiling away. If he doesn’t know, who does?
        I understand completely your arguments and I will repeat: My listed concerns COULD materialize, which COULD and MAY are good enough for climate change scientists so they should be good enough for my questions too. I did not say this things ARE or PROBABLY WILL happen. That’s an important difference you seem to miss.
        (You can decide if I should put a /sarc tag or not…..)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Angry

      “James”,
      I see you have finished you Centrelink appointment for today….


      Report this

      131

    • #

      James, you say here:

      Strawman argument, no one is saying we should move to a completely wind power future.

      Seriously man, put in some time and do a proper analysis.

      Fair comment.

      So, umm tell me then, what do you envisage the future to be for electrical power generation, keeping in mind that the current thinking is only for Wind (2.5%) and Solar. (0.3%)

      I notice above that you also support Nuclear power generation.

      Now, tell me how soon you expect that first Nuclear Power Plant to be up and running here in Australia, keeping in mind that form of power generation is not even on the agenda anywhere here in Oz, so you are looking at maybe 20 to 25 years at the soonest.

      In the interim, what’s your plan then?

      Oh, and to paraphrase your own comment.

      Seriously man, put in some time and do a proper analysis. Then show us your results.

      I have been ….. for the last five years now ….. on every form of power generation, Nuclear included.

      Go on, show us your chops.

      Tony.


      Report this

      270

  • #
    Mark

    This is what happens when engineers are cut out of the process. First, the bean- counters rise proclaiming they are the controllers of lower costs. Then, the bleeding hearts take control claiming their way is the only way to save the planet, the bean-counters can only argue on costs and it still, no one is listening to the engineers. Who the hell makes all this happen?

    If the engineers were listened to, we would be running supercritical thermal stations resulting more efficiency. Efficiency equals lower costs AND emissions! Victoria has the technology available to make huge efficiency gains in converting the processes in their brown coal fired stations. This country was built on cheap power. It is crazy to let the bean-counters charge as much as the market will bear! It is equally as crazy to let the pseudo-scientists proclaim their climate “science” will save the world


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Mark D.

      Mark, if engineers were deployed en mass we’d turn all those sea level sensing satellites onto land. Feed the data into a super computer to locate every single nook and cranny to build hydro dams. We’d build those dams with the cement that would have been the bases for these windmills. We’d build the “smart grid” to connect the hydro power.

      By doing so we’d:
      1. lower sea levels,
      2. reduce carbon consumption (not because that is polluting but to extend the reserves),
      3. employ at least as many people as with wind
      4. have a more durable and reliable power sources
      5. have water available for increased farming
      6. Create beautiful scenic lakes instead of ugly eyesore wind farms
      7. create recreation areas for humans to enjoy
      8. places to farm fish

      I could go on but here in the USA instead of increasing hydro power, the EPA and other regulators are pushing most out of that business via regulation. Can you believe the Green madness??????

      PS after building all the hydro described above, if you REALLY want effective wind power, you’d place the wind mills down stream of each catchment and use wind to pump water back above the dam.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I’d like to know what caused the excessive demand in early February 2011. There is no equivalent response from the blue line of course.

    I’m kind of looking forward to the “big crunch”. It will be the biggest “we told you so” in history. Then Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote can be rewritten as: “You can fool all of the Greens all of the time”.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Debbie

      My guess would be RC air conditioners?
      I know SHL (Snowy) makes lotsa dosh in Feb on derivatives market due to high demand for cooling.
      Also notice majority of backup comes from hydro not wind/solar.
      It begs a ‘bleeding obvious’ question.
      Of course we are now informed by our green betters that hydro is not clean energy.
      But as Rereke explains above, neither are wind and solar.
      Hydro is eminently renewable and more reliable as back up.
      The world bank is also investing heavily in hydro power OS.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Debbie

        As in…if the graph above also showed usage from Hydro…I suspect you would see a corresponding peak in February there.
        It clearly isn’t supplied by wind….as the graph above does show.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Snafu

    The Australian via Bolts:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/C955

    MORE than $8.9 billion will be spent importing wind turbines because of the blowout in the Gillard government’s renewable energy target, providing few if any benefits to local industry, one of the nation’s biggest electricity generators warns.

    The Australian can also reveal that a new Frontier Economics analysis commissioned by Macquarie Generation has found that the renewable energy target could slash the value of coal-fired power stations by between $11.3bn and $17.3bn – potentially having a greater impact than the carbon tax, which includes industry compensation.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Sonny

    If I wanted to implement a “green revolution” to transition to a “zero carbon economy” I would be looking for ways to bring countries to economic ruin by investing billions of dollars in useless projects. More power to me if I could build large statues displaying the symbol of this new revolution.

    I know! Let’s invest billions of tax payer dollars building useless bird killing wind turbines!

    CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE POWER ELITES RELIGION OF DEATH AND THE WIND TURBINE IS THEIR ORWELLION SYMBOL OF SACRIFICE.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    observa

    And for those simpletons that still believe dilute solar power is the answer all they need do is play around with the output and demand graphs of one tech savvy household.

    Zero, zilch, nothing at night and then that extreme variability of output during whatever sunlight hits the panels during the day as the sun traverses the sky and variable cloud conditions impact. What poignant data stares rational intelligent people in the face will of course have no impact whatsoever on the Flannery heads. It’s an emotional feel kinda thingy rational folks.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    It being Doha week ABC Newsradio had a puff piece on a certain geothermal company this morning, one that Prof Flannery might have heard of. They went on about how they were investing in a geothermal project for Honiara of a staggering 20 MW (which is not much) and how they plan to drill 4 km down for hot rock geothermal here in Oz. Which is deeper even than their share price has fallen.

    The absolute irony is yesterday the same ABC said:

    It’s been a difficult year for the geothermal industry, that generates power from hot rocks below the earth’s surface. Until recently geothermal was expected to be generating 23 per cent of our electricity by 2050, but this month, the Federal Government officially downgraded that to just nine per cent. Meanwhile, two major utility investors Energy Australia and Origin Energy have just withdrawn from some of Australia’s only active geothermal projects. So what’s gone wrong?

    That last question would be a nice one to ask Tim about, also how his unicorn breeding project is going.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      ExWarmist

      BoN says…

      That last question would be a nice one to ask Tim about, also how his unicorn breeding project is going.

      [1] The Fairies all went out on strike for more flower nectar and less work.

      [2] The pigs have all been grounded for ongoing repairs.

      [3] The Unicorn Poo Processing Plant (UPPP) is currently still on the drawing board, as current designs have been rejected by the Dwarfish manufacturing subcontractors as technically infeasible. The Elvish designers are complaining that the Dwarfs are talking through their beards as the computer models show that a UPPP would absolutely work just fine assuming that each Unicorn would produce half it’s body weight in poo per day.

      [4] The Unicorns have read the Elvish design for the UPPP and are now on strike for double rations of Golden Hay. They are claiming that they will only produce if paid in a hard currency that you can also eat.

      [5] In an unrelated report Noddy is upset with Big Ears for selling all their jointly owned shares in geothermal power at a loss…


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Tim

      I’m still looking for that Market Research Analyst job that advertises:

      “Exciting opportunity to earn six figures. Our special bonus system actually rewards incorrect predictions. You will control a limitless budget and the more you get it wrong-the more we pay! Guaranteed tenure and top title to the right graduate of any discipline.”


      Report this

      10

  • #
    observa

    Woops! Seems our tech savvy household is offline for roof renos, in June. Pity but you’ll still get the gist of it from that first 6 months graph. One to bookmark for when he’s back online in order to show the true believers, not that it will make any difference to them. Solar feed-in is just ‘reshiftable’ energy where you shift the costs to your neighbours.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Angry

      “observa”,
      Hopefully you haven’t been sucked into installing solar on the roof, which is a waste of money…..


      Report this

      42

      • #
        Harry

        Hey Angry

        I put solar on my roof. Not cos I’m a tree hugger. And I waited until after the feed-in came down to sensible (getting 50c / unit for power generated is nice, but immoral).

        But for me, I assumed the feed-in is worth 0. Then looked at my power bills and the cost of staying cool here in an Adelaide summer. So today will be 37 degrees, and tomorrow 39. My a/c will be run off my solar and cost me close on nothing. I’ll be cool, and I’m helping to take the heat out of the bullshit about power prices being high because of the “5 days a year” and “gold plated power networks”. (Yes I know is BS but it does reduce demand on the network… a bit).

        However, its all about $.

        Even assuming a feed-in of $0, my calculated pay-back period should be about 6 years. Thats a 16% return on investment, pretty much risk-free. I can’t get that anywhere else.

        And thats for power costing $0.37 / kW-hr. It’s still projected to rise further, so the pay back is better.

        Depending on where you live, rooftoop solar – at the right capacity, with the right orientation, and the right installed cost, CAN make sense. But you *must* do your homework.

        Oh… and if the Chinese govt is paying subsidies to panel makers to let them dump on the world market then I’m quite happy to take advantage of that. Its a form of wealth transfer from China back to Australia which helps compensate for all the other tranfer going from Aust to China… So I just see that as getting back a little of what we’ve donated.

        (Strangely enough, the economics / cost side of things is pretty meaningless to my greenie friends who think the world will be all ok by sitting around singing Kum-ba-yah, and who like to preach w/o actually spending their hard earned dosh. I’m an engineer who thinks that solar is madness, and greenie polices are complete lunacy. But I put my $ where it makes economic sense. Arguments about $ are all a bit impure for greenies.)


        Report this

        113

        • #

          It would be foolish to not go with the most cost effective energy and if a solar panel is what turns out to be the cheapest, one goes with it. Alternative power sources are not inherently bad. It’s just a problem when they are crammed down our throats and cost/benefit is never considered. I have a cabin where we use solar and DC equipment mostly. It works for what I need. This is about sensible energy and choices.


          Report this

          61

        • #
          • #
            Harry

            Angry – I’m well aware of all that.

            I looked into Solar for > 2 years before doing it.

            It comes down purely to $.

            Our glorious govt have made electricity very expensive.

            The rationalist in me says that eventually sanity will prevail, various subsidies and eco-loony thingies will be removed, and power from gas / coal / etc will drop.

            But… will this happen any time soon (being next 2 .. 5 years). I don’t think so.

            Even if Joolya is tipped out, the libs policies won’t cut electricity bills in half. If Turnbull ends up being pm it will be more of the same for a long, long time (same as in UK – choice between tweedle dum and tweedle dummer).

            In the meantime, paying > $1000 / qtr for power so I can survive an Adelaide summer, whilst feeling technically engineeringly smug and superior is all very nice but it merely takes bread off the table.

            So my investment will pay me back in $ terms, whilst doing all manner of nasty enviornmental harm. I can live with that. At least I have my eyes open. My green buddies are blind to all the side effects and harm. (Smug in their ignorance.)

            I’ve only done it for $…. nothing else.

            Read some more Watts Up With That. You’ll find he’s done the same thing. I’m in intellectually honest company :)


            Report this

            31

          • #

            And yet, Harry, you are still a net consumer of electrical power from the grid. Your rooftop system covers your daylight power consumption needs, and some is fed back to the grid. Then, after hours, you consume two thirds of your total residential power consumption, all of that supplied by the grid from traditional sources.

            The FIT that they pay you for the small amount you return to the grid is paid to you from the pockets of every other power consumer, due to the increase in electrical power costs for all of us.

            You may have done it for the dollars as you have said, but they are our dollars that we pay you.

            Tony.


            Report this

            140

        • #
          Angry

          Obviously this “Harry” thinks that it is acceptable to rip off other Australians to pay for his electricity.

          Not a very Australian attitude……..


          Report this

          31

          • #
            Crakar24

            Obviously this “Harry” thinks that it is acceptable to rip off other Australians to pay for his electricity.

            Not a very Australian attitude……..

            ——————————————————————————–
            What a silly statement, who created this stupid scheme, Harry? No of course not so why blame him? South Australian power prices are so high due to policy making not people trying to reduce their power bills FFS.

            By the way if you want to lay the blame at someones feet then here is a clue, they removed the sign “Welcome to South Australia” and replaced it with ‘Welcome to Rannistan”.


            Report this

            31

  • #
    cohenite

    Great post by TonyOz, although I think he is too polite when he says:

    Flannery, to put it politely, is just gilding the lily.

    Flannery, to put it realistically, is either a loon, bog ignorant or a liar.

    Installed capacity [IC] is what wind and solar would produce as usable electricity if they were 24/7; capacity factor [CF] is what power they produce, averaged, usally on an annual basis, as a % of the IC. The reliability point [RP] is the probaility of the CF occurring at any one time; the RP is crucial because it shows the intermittant nature of wind and solar; a comparison of the 3 IC, CF and RP, is shown here at Table 1.

    Taking the example of Cullerin Range, a windfarm in NSW:
    it has an IC of 30MW, a CF of 34%, or 10.2MW but an RP of 3%.

    That means at any one time there is a 3% chance that Cullerin will be producing 34% of its IC.

    How can you plan for that; how can you have reliable baseload when your source has a statistcially insignificant chance of producing power at any one moment.

    Put another way; if you wanted power in the future at a particular time, there is a 97% chance you would have only 34% of the power output from the installation.

    With the power output so unreliable you cannot produce electricity from this source; this is why all fossil fuels power sources have to be kept running to provide continual back-up for wind and solar power sources.

    In effect every dollar spent on wind and solar is wasted, spent for NO effect because, if you want power, the fossils cannot be replaced and shut-down.

    This is why, along with carbon tax, which is a direct impost on the fossils, electricity prices are rising; the carbon tax and the RET have no benefit; they are direct costs with no benefit.

    That Flannery extols this means, as a say, he is either a loon, bog ignorant or a liar.


    Report this

    180

    • #
      cohenite

      Put another way; if you wanted power in the future at a particular time, there is a 97% chance you would have only 34% of the power output from the installation.

      That should read:

      A 97% chance you will NOT have at most 34% of the IC.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Streetcred

      FlimFlammery is PAID to lie … by ju-LIAR, the feral sub-prime minister.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      joe V.

      Well I just hope these Grid balancers know their probability & stats. a lot better than your average Climate Scientist.
      Even then, it seems it can still take only one trip in the wrong place at the wrong time to set off the others like dominoes.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Flannery, to put it realistically, is either a loon, bog ignorant or a liar.”

      Why use “or” when you should use “and” !


      Report this

      40

    • #
      ARP

      I think the actual quote is “to gild refined gold” but calling Flannery those things is an insult to loons, liars and ignoramuses everywhere


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Tim Flannery says renewables will run the economy:

    I guess the verb, to run, is spelled R-U-I-N now. But I think that’s OK in a world where Flannery is spelled J-A-C-K-A-S-S. Don’t you?

    :-(


    Report this

    130

  • #
    David

    I do not claim any “science” qualifications but I am a keen sailor with a Master’s ticket. On my vessel I use the sails for primary propulsion but let me tell you it doesn’t always work due to a lack of wind. I took the wind generator off because it couldn’t keep up with the electronic navigation equipment and the solar panel [made in China] was bloody useless. Without my big six cylinder diesel I’d be stuffed. Flannery you are a fool.


    Report this

    210

    • #
      Bite Back

      David,

      Get Flannery and his crew of blowhards on board and they’ll be able to blow into your sails when there’s no wind. That should help you out and keep Flannery out of trouble at the same time.

      How can you lose?

      :-)


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Sonny

    “Flannery will get you nowhere.”
    Sonny 28/11/2012


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Sonny

    People need to stop assuming that because what people do LOOKS stupid means that they are stupid.

    The number 1 goal of the Climate Change Revolution of Death is to depopulate and deindustrialize the world. One effective way to do this stealthily is to cut the lifeblood which is cheap reliable energy. – hence expensive unreliable energy like wind.

    People need to wake up and realize how seriously screwed we all are.
    Enjoy your life NOW.


    Report this

    140

  • #

    I just wish people would realise that the word Baseload is not an adjective used to describe coal fired power, as if it’s almost a swear word.

    Base Load is two words and is an actual physical requirement.

    You never see it shown as such anywhere, because if it was ever explained correctly, this whole renewable debate gets shot to shreds.

    In my text above, I mentioned it as 17,000MW, as an arbitrary line drawn horizontally across that chart.

    I’ll show it to you.

    At the third link Joanne provides there, the Image reference source of that graph, well that is the site for the daily Wind Performance for those 25 Wind Plants. Take the link and you come to the top of the page for that site. This is for the most recent day, the day prior to when you take the link, so, today will show the total output for yesterday, and tomorrow you will see the output for today.

    Now, scroll down to the third graph on that page. Note how this is moving towards a typical Summer graph, with just the one extended hump in the middle, whereas a Winter graph has the two distinct humps, one in the early AM, and the other from 5PM through till around Midnight.

    Now, on that graph, look at the low point. In this case, as in every case, it is around 2 to 4 AM, while everyone is neatly tucked up in bed.

    That is the lowest total demand across those 5 States. The same applies for small towns, cities, Capitals, States, and even Countries, and it would even look similar right down to the household level.

    On this particular graph, Total demand for those 5 States never falls below that level, in this case, 18,000MW.

    It is exactly the same for every day of the year.

    17,000MW to 18,000MW.

    Everything below that on the graph is BASE LOAD (two words).

    It’s not some arbitrary output from large scale coal fired plants that keep running 24/7/365.

    THIS IS ACTUAL DEMAND, and I’m sorry to shout, but this electrical power is actually being consumed.

    Where?

    Industry, the rail system, inner city transport, buses, trams, every building taller than 2 stories as those compressors pump conditioned breathing air into them, hospitals, traffic control, street lighting, and I could go on, even adding the small amount(by proportion) of every fridge in every home, and their hot water systems.

    17,000MW to 18,000MW. All day, all night, every day.

    An actual physical requirement.

    That will still need to be supplied, and note here that this also is for the dark hours, so rooftop solar provides none of that.

    That is what Base Load is.

    Now at that link, you can easily check up on me by changing the dates, with that tab at the top right there titled change date, but beware here, as you can only go back one Month, or so they would have you believe.

    Note on the address line at the very top of the page that gives the address of the current page you are on. Now see at the end of that address, is the date, shown in Year month day format. Just change the date there and you can visit any day, any month, any year.

    You’ll see that those total demand graphs are all similar, all with the low point around that figure of 17,000MW to 18,000MW.

    Well, some might say, we need to lower that Base Load.

    You pick, Which buildings do you close, what industry do you shut down, which hospitals do you close, which rail systems do you wind back. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

    Renewables will never be able to address that.

    They won’t mention that dirty little secret though, will they?

    That is why large scale coal fired power will be running long into the future, and I mean long.

    None have closed down in almost five years I have been looking, and none will be closing in the foreseeable future.

    CAGW is referred to as Junk Science.

    Renewables are junk engineering.

    Move away from traditional sources of supply, (large scale coal fired power) and to renewables, and that ABSOLUTE minimum will still need to be addressed.

    Now look at the main graph above again, and look at that absolutely pitiful blue line, and do the sums yourselves as to what is required.

    Tony.


    Report this

    350

    • #
      Heywood

      G’day Tony,

      Thumbs up x 10 from me.

      A quick question if I may.

      Obviously for renewables, lets just say wind for ease of the discussion, you would need something in the order of 25 times the number of the current number of wind farms just to meet the base load requirement for the average news.

      Obviously the cost of this would be prohibitive. I have tried to do some research as to the construction/capital costs of these facilities only to find rough approximations for about half of them. These figures are mainly sourced from wikipedia which we all know is unreliable.

      Do you have a good source which details the real cost of these wind farms, as well as the large scale solar programs in Australia?

      Just from my rough calculations based on the figures I have obtained, it would be in the vicinity of $85 Billion (yes, with a ‘B’)just to build enough enough wind capacity to meet just 70% of this base load requirement.

      I reckon $85B would go a long way towards a few modern nuclear plants, with a much greater efficiency and less environmental damage.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        ExWarmist

        4th Generation Nuclear power summary


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Heywood.

        No firm source unless you believe LCOE, and if you believe that to be the truth, then I have this bridge…..

        I base all my costings not on that, but what actual recently constructed Plants are costing, and having visited literally hundreds (plural) that adage that the more they construct them, the cheaper they get is so much bovine waste product.

        Those 25 most recently constructed plants here in Oz have cost in the vicinity of $7.5 Billion, and keep in mind this is from past tense dollars from their dates of construction, dating back some time now.

        Going on current costings for actual wind plants, $1.2 Billion will get you around 400MW Nameplate Capacity, so for the required Base Load figure of 17,000MW, that comes in at around 45 Wind Plants or around $54 Billion.

        Now keep in mind that is for Nameplate Capacity, and these plants run at around a 30% Capacity factor, so that now means that for the same delivered power you will need 150 of these Wind Plants at a cost in today’s dollars of $180 Billion.

        Again, these costings are conservative.

        So, 150 Wind Plants by 2025 extrapolates down to 12 new Plants a year costing around almost $15 Billion a year.

        It doesn’t stop there though as these plants only have a life span of 20 to 25 years (at the conservative best case), so that construction would need to continue at the same rate ….. forever.

        Now, see how easy 140 wind plants (around 35,000 towers and turbines) just rolls off the tongue.

        The whole concept is ridiculously absurd in the extreme.

        I know that Cape Wind is an offshore plant, mooted for Nantucket Sound, off Cape Cod in Massachusetts, but that plant first mooted in the late 90′s and still not even started, has gone through five cost changes. It started at $650 Million, and if it ever gets completed, they project the cost to be between $2.5 and $3 Billion, for 130 towers producing 454MW at a 30% Capacity Factor, hence around 140MW in total.

        Tony.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          ExWarmist

          TonyFromOz says…

          It doesn’t stop there though as these plants only have a life span of 20 to 25 years (at the conservative best case), so that construction would need to continue at the same rate ….. forever.

          General Electrics Business Model in action…

          And just who is a big funder of US (including Potential) Presidents

          Obama

          and

          Romney

          When you bet on both sides winning – you can’t lose. Legislative Co-Option is the name of the game for large, entrenched businesses like GE.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Tony,

      As usual talks a lot of sense.

      Cheers ExWarmist


      Report this

      30

    • #
      ianl8888

      @TonyfromOz

      Tony, you are aware that I agree with your analytical posts on this critical issue. As I’ve noted, base load requirement is the Achilles Heel of the CAGW meme. Actual demand numbers (GWh) is simply not mentioned

      But your comment:

      ” … and none will be closing in the foreseeable future”

      is inaccurate. Hazelwood Power Station in LaTrobe is on the brink and will not see the next 12 months out, I believe (the CO2 tax is the quite deliberate cause). I’m reliably informed that Loy Yang has the capacity to soak up displaced demand at current levels. If demand increases with some significance, Melbourne’s base load requirement is in jeopardy

      Amongst your non-exhaustive list of those goods and services dependent on base load, please include the frozen foods sections of supermarkets (city dwellers cannot feed themselves), petrol pumps at service stations and ATM/banking facilities (wherein without power one cannot in any case access one’s money to buy food or petrol)


      Report this

      40

      • #

        ianl8888,

        thanks for that.

        Won’t all hell break loose if Hazelwood was to close down. It supplies 25% of all Victoria’s Power, and in fact 5% of Australia’s power.

        I cannot envisage it going to the wall in 12 months.

        The Legislation for the CO2 Tax has specific provisions in it to keep plants open if the imposition of the Tax places them in a problematic situation.

        No matter what the Government says about it, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that they will allow Hazelwood to go to the wall, because the resulting anarchy will kill their CO2 Tax stone motherless dead.

        If it does fall over, just wait and see the anarchy that causes.

        One thing to be realised here is that Bracks sold off Hazelwood with a cast iron guarantee to supply power for 40 years in 1996, and there’s still 500 years worth of coal to supply the plant.

        If the plant is forced to close because of the CO2 Tax, then I’m certain that the operators would have a good case for compensation for the power they would still be able to supply out to that 2036 time frame.

        Still, if it is forced to close, watch what happens, and it will not be pretty.

        I live for the day that One, just one, power plant operator has the cojones to shut all his generators down for maintenance at the same time. It would only take a week. Just a short preview of what this clean green future would look like.

        And hey, I know you’re on my side.

        Tony.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          ianl8888

          @TonyOz

          ” … the operators would have a good case for compensation for the power they would still be able to supply out to that 2036 time frame”

          And that’s where the vitriolic squabbling is right now. But don’t doubt how wobbly this situation actually is

          I see where it is reported that the German Govt is considering legislation to force coal-fired power stations to continue operating at a loss (I really hope this report is not true), but I would expect the Gillard Govt in-extremis to edge up to some similar idea. What that would do the power station bank loan covenants is truly wunderbar to consider

          As I noted, Loy Yang (and to a limited degree, Yallourn) has the capacity to pick up displaced demand at its’ current level, but not if there some significant demand increase – such as construction ramping up again

          My only critique of your posts (and Jo Nova’s, for that matter) is that the propaganda war on AGW is lost – a majority of the populace now believes it to be accurate. Wasting time and energy on that issue is pointless. What to do about it however is a needle-precision point of utter anguish for the AGW meme. Such people are both scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate … so they HATE applied scientists and engineers asking these questions


          Report this

          40

  • #
    amcoz

    Flannery, to put it politely, is just gilding the lily.

    Anton; you are such a generous person.

    There is absolutely no way Flim-flammery is ‘gilding the lily’; I would suggest the lily is really a noxious weed that needs glyphosate to eradicate its parasitic presence from the landscape.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Robber

    Have just been down in the Portland area of western Victoria and probably saw 100 or more of those spinning windmills (with several shutdown) and wondered about how much of a subsidy we are all paying for this feel good “green power”.
    Meanwhile in the real world, what we should really be getting concerned about is Australia’s lack of competitiveness. From Bolt’s blog “More investments at risk from carbon tax and other costs” on Nov 26 “The local head of US energy giant Chevron, the biggest foreign investor in Australia, has warned $100 billion worth of projects are “hanging in the balance” due to soaring coats and declining confidence in the federal government’s policy settings…
    Chevron Australia managing director Roy Kryzwosinski said resources projects in Australia were 40 per cent more expensive than in the US and its workforce was 60 per cent less productive than the US
    Less competitive than the US!! Are we competitive with anyone in today’s world?

    We desperately need a major change in Australia’s policy settings.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Streetcred

      We’re competitive with Nigeria for scamming :)


      Report this

      20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Robber

      Your exclamation “Less competitive than the US!! ” suggests that you have a low opinion of the US work capacity and organizational skills.

      They have been through periods when they “had” to find ways of being productive.

      Staff and management work together to get things moving and “create jobs” for themselves.

      The old Australian Union system does little for workers, as I found to my cost, and does nothing to keep Australian industry productive. This begs the question as to why anyone bothers with unions any more.

      With an emphasis on conflict and threat the unions here are losing jobs to Europe and the US where a more cooperative style of engagement exists in many work places.

      That’s not to say there are not a lot of individuals who do a hard days work; no doubt about that but working hard is not always the same as working smart and Australia needs to get woth it.

      KK :) .


      Report this

      10

  • #
    handjive

    The following video makes it clear why Peter Elliott Shumlin is one of the dumbest, if not the dumbest, governors in America.

    Shumlin thinks that reducing Vermont’s fossil energy consumption (which is not even measurable on a global scale) by a couple of percentage points will lead to a gentle climate for his state and prevent flooding there (2:25).

    Today the tiny state of Vermont is busy permanently altering and industrialising 200 miles of mountain ridgelines with 500-foot wind turbines – thinking this will rescue the planet.

    The problem with the wind projects is that, not only are these areas going to be stressed from climate change, they’re now going to be further stressed by the roads that are going to be constructed.

    So essentially, by installing these long roads, your completely diverting the water and changing the hydrology of the mountain.

    One of the other problems is these windturbine projects, because they’re removing a lot of that soil and that material that actually held rainwater, and stored it on top of these mountains, when you get one of those rain events now, that water is going to come rushing down the hill.

    They were all conned by Al Gore’s AIT film.
    They were all suckered by the “consensus” science that never was.
    They were manipulated by the media and politicians.

    What will Vermonters gain from it all the sacrifice?

    A theoretical cooling of the global climate by 0.0000000000041°C over the next 100 years.

    They’ll still have to buy flood insurance.

    .

    May, 2011- IPCC report: Renewables can never meet energy demand:


    Renewables will only ever provide above half the world’s supply in some grim future where the great majority of the human race is either wiped out within a generation or remains in grinding, miserable poverty.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Wind eh …

    AIMS (Australian Institute Marine Science). At Cape Ferguson, NQ.
    For no particular fault of their own, with an annual budget of around $A90m they are dependent on the gravy train, so a lot of what they say has the expected slant.
    They have a research station, laboratories, accommodation. Probably the energy demand of a small township?
    They asked SLR Consulting (http://www.slrconsulting.com/) to advise on the potential for wind power generation.
    Cape Ferguson sticks out into the Pacific Ocean. The cape rises up to 44m above sea level. Directly in the path of the north-easterlies that blow in with a 60% probability. Probably one location where the turbines would always turn? No neighbours nearby, afaik federal property.
    Surely a place where wind turbines would work?
    SLR’s opinion? Not cost-effective.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      People say the same thing about Wyoming–there’s so much wind it must work here-the wind blows over semis. First, in spite of the hype, the wind does NOT always blow. When it does blow and topples semis, that’s TOO MUCH wind. Last summer, in the 90 degree heat, the wind blew less than 10 mph most of the summer. Many places that people think wind will work actually have “feast and famine” (since wind is basically hunter-gatherer energy anyway–we build traps for it) The blows 60 mph or 5 mph. If people check out wind turbine power curves, there is a maximum output around 25 to 30 mph and then the power stays level until the turbine cuts out due to too much wind (45 to 60 mph). There is a very small window for maximum output. Plus, in Wyoming, yesterday there was maybe 5 mph wind. I can hear it howling already and the sun isn’t up yet. So yesterday the power lines got zip for wind energy in central Wyoming. Today, they may be maxed out. There’s a reason those home turbines have controllers (that burn out frequently) to avoid permanently destroying the battery storage. This is what makes wind so very, very impractical.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Sonny

    The magnetic poles are moving at an accelerated rate. This is acknowledged by all scientists.
    We could well be in for a full geomagnetic reversal in our lifetimes which could potentially be the biggest population killer in history. You cannot prepare for this. Enjoy your life! Make love regularly!


    Report this

    72

  • #
  • #
  • #
    TonyO

    People like to say that the cost of all this wind/solar power is “prohibitive” – it isn’t if the Feral Government gets its hands on our superannuation money….


    Report this

    30

  • #

    Hmmm … Renewable Poster Child Germany was looking forward to an especially-bleak winter, relying on the 27+GW of nameplate wind and around 22GW of peak PV solar to fill a base load of about 50GW and the peak load in excess of 80GW.

    Total (on paper) installed capacity for all energy sources used to be over 100GW. Then the German government decreed the immediate shutting down of about 8GW in nuclear plants (with more to follow). There are a significant number of older, coal-fired power stations which no longer having permission to operate. Many of those older stations are started from cold to prepare for short-term operation to fill anticipated demand-holes left unsatisfied by “renewables”.

    Historically, that 27GW of wind power has supplied as little as 300MW (0.3GW) for several days running; especially mid-winter and mid-summer. PV solar supplies ZERO GW for about 14 hours a day in winter. Operators accept that “renewables” require over 90% of shadow capacity provided by reliable means; coal, oil, gas, nuclear and, in a very limited capacity, hydro.

    The distribution grid is lacking about 3000km of high-tension power lines to feed “renewable” energy into the energy-hungry South of Germany, which was previously exporting nuclear-generated electricity. In past years, they tried to sneak it through Poland’s grid but due to the instabilities produced, Poland took technical measures that prevent such exploitation.

    Industry leaders are calling for the restoration of reliable and affordable energy supplies. A senior official of the rail network in Germany, responsible for the most-populaous State of Northrhine-Westphalia, warned in late October that the shutting down of the coal-fired power station in Datteln (near Dortmund) at the end of December would result in cutbacks in regional train services as that station provided 30% of the system’s electricity requirements in the region. The plant also provides district heating.

    The plant’s operator (E.On) said that the government and environmentalists had blocked the completion of construction of new (cleaner and more efficient) generating plant at the site; the government with zoning changes and locals with unfounded claims. Construction had started in 2007 but the earliest completion possible would now be some time in 2013. The plant generates traction power directly; at 16.7Hz compared to the normal consumer grid’s 50Hz. Partly due to that, it can supply electricity to trains up to only about 80km from the plant.

    As a result of the publicity (and perhaps the prospect of collecting the frozen corpses of New Year’s revellers from railway embankments), governments granted a special licence to allow the plant to ooperate into 2013. But it’s still not clear if the part-constructed generating block will be allowed to be completed.

    Even Germany’s WWF have seen a problem and are calling for the urgent construction of new coal-fired power stations to fill the energy gap. That’s right: WWF

    Unfortunately, press reports of the subject often contain substantial falsehoods. Even Forbes. (Some real thigh slappers in that one, Tony!)

    Germany’s federal environment agency publishes maps of generating plants and the HT grid. Compar 2008 to 2012 (PDFs) Note that the wind and solar “capacities” are nameplate. There’s an independent, interactive wiki map also available.

    Pierre Gosselin reports that Chancellor Dr Merkel is having a spat with her version of Flannery.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Sonny

    How much of any climate change we have observed in the last 20 years be attributable to our magnetic north pole moving at an unprecedented rate of about 40 miles per year?
    Will we do a nasty flip in our lifetime? Will earths magnetic shielding be compromised?

    Ofcourse NASA will tell you all I fine. Just go back to America’s got talent…
    Could all the hysteria around climate change be justified but due to natural causes?


    Report this

    61

  • #

    [...] Tim Flannery – Baseload is just a “coal” industry idea (Yes and darkness is a &#82… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    New 600 MW Wind Farm Factory to be constructed on King Island.

    Isn’t this great – on an island of 1,100 sq kilometers and with approximately 1.5 MW per square kilometer – they’ll cover over 1/3 the total island area? And they want to run a cable to the mainland & Victoria to suplly excess electricity.

    Environmental impact study will be done and everything proceed as per normal like all the other Wind Mill sites in Tasmania. Stuff the orange bellied parrot, scrubtit, brown thornbill, yellow tailed cockatoo and green rosella. Plus the eagles etc that will soon be mince meat. Most of the above are already threatened.

    Plus they’ll need some 200,000 cubic meters of concrete just for the turbines and another 150,000 cu meters for the power lines. Plus the reinforcing steel, the towers and the turbines (all from China no doubt). And unless they have a secret stash of cement, sand, lime, gravel etc – all this has to be barged or shipped in. And all for only $2 billion. Reckon this one will blow out drastically in cost.

    Flannery 1 – Birds 0

    But Wind Mills are GREEN and all the Greenies don’t give a stuff about the environment.

    Only GREEN Energy allowed – F%(^ the birds, plants & people.

    Good bye KING ISLAND – it’s now off my list of places to visit.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      Note the cost here and refer it back to my earlier comment at 32.1.2, made prior to this press release.

      $2 Billion.

      Even more than I conservatively costed them at.

      This is for a 600MW (Nameplate) plant of 200 towers, claimed (in theory) to operate at 40% Capacity, hence 240MW.

      I heard the story on The World Today a couple of hours back now.

      This is the link to the transcript of that segment.

      Note specifically the wording of the third paragraph where the programme’s talking head, Eleanor Hall introduces the segment. and she specifically says and I’ll include the quote direct from her mouth.

      The $2 billion project is expected to produce enough electricity to power half a million homes, as Felicity Ogilvie reports.

      This is misleading in the extreme, and a ploy that has been used by proposers of these schemes since they first started hyping them.

      At no stage ever will this wind plant be connected to half a million homes, as they are connected only to the grid. Even so, they would not provide 24/7/365 power to those homes even if connected. It is specifically used to make people think that Wow! This really can supply huge amounts of power.

      They know the Nameplate Capacity. They have a theoretical Capacity Factor, so, using the industry standard formula, NP X 24 X 365.25 X CF, they can then calculate the theoretical total power delivered over a year. They know the total consumption of the ‘average home’, and they divide the total power by the home consumption figure giving ‘X’ number of homes.

      In this manner, when detractors mention that hang on a minute you didn’t say this was going to deliver this lesser amount of power in the proposal, those who write the blurb can point to those ‘X’ number of homes and say, We told you that right up front from day One.

      It’s just another part of their con.

      240MW.

      Judas Priest! What do they take us for?

      Everything, it seems!

      Tony.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Thanks Tony,

        If they run a submarine cable to Victoria (over 100 miles) current costs are around $2.2 million per mile for HVDC cable excluding inverters, equipment on each end (around another $80 million total) to give a grand total to sell GREEN KING ISLAND power to Victoria of

        $300 million extra. (just guesses from other cable projects)

        This project will be over $5 Billion by the time its finished – for what 240 MW???

        This will be labeled “Certified King Island Organic Green Power”!


        Report this

        20

        • #

          I wonder if anybody’s done checks on how the noise affects livestock, if at all, because King Island Blue Vein Cheese is (IMHO) one of the nicest blue cheeses around, and their Brie is also yummy.

          There, I guess my little sins are showing through a bit here.

          The menu is down the left side of the linked page.

          Throwback to may days in the Air Force at the Sergeants Mess, and all their lovely Cheese Platters. Get some strange looks these days when I ask for a cheese platter instead of sweets.

          Say, while I’m off the topic, I’m chasing a Port. It’s called Artillery Port, and I think it’s from a NZ company, Robard Butler, not sure, but blowed if I can find it anywhere, even on the net.

          Without any fraction of a doubt, the best Port I have ever had, and now I can’t find it anywhere. Perhaps my NZ friends may have a better handle on that. Pity, find something (spectacularly) good and it soon disappears.

          Tony.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Dave

            .
            The reply is still in moderation – the website for the port is here
            http://www.pernod-ricard-nz.com/brands/other-beverages/index.php


            Report this

            10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Tony

            “I wonder if anybody’s done checks on how the noise affects livestock”

            Good point Tony.

            Noise pollution is only examined in third world countries like the old Eastern Bloc – Russia and Cuba.

            There is a reason for this. They do not have functioning worker safety legislation and so it doesn’t matter if the truth comes out about damage to hearing or in the case of wind turbines worse.

            The low frequency beat from turbines is particularly insidious because it works on the heart – Lung system and and can make you very ill, as people near mills have discovered.

            Of course they can’t sue anybody because there is no research on this topic in the West; do you think that may be because of the industrial safety laws we have here.

            Other occupations at risk are train drivers and road haulage drivers ; care needed.

            The only paper on this topic in the West was one by NASA looking at VLF vibrations in space travel; apparently on the way to say Mars, there can be substantial and damaging vibrations that need to be sorted out for the health of astronauts.

            Yes Virginia, VLF vibration – pulsing from windmills is not the “harmless” things that warmers try to make out.

            People who advocate this sort of damage on other human beings are just Thugs.

            KK :)


            Report this

            40

          • #

            Dave,

            Oh thank you thank you.

            I’ve been searching for that since the early 90′s.

            We had it at a Mess Single Dining In Night once while I was Amberley, and Twice at Wagga Wagga, and I traced one bottle in the early 90′s but no one has heard of it since. Was hugely popular for those nights, and everyone always asked for that when the selection choice came out.

            Now, sourcing it here in Oz is another question altogether.

            Again, many thanks.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            KinkyKeith,

            VLF vibration was a big thing in the Air Force, especially for Engine Runs on the Mirage, and that VLF vibration was around that deadly 7 Hertz area. The aircraft’s generators and alternators had to be checked throughout the range both in Mil and in both levels of AB, and man, that really is noise, and full checking took anything up to half an hour at a time. We weren’t allowed in the Engine Run revetments (far removed from everywhere else on the base) without a tightly fitted and quite wide Kidney belt.

            The low frequency noise impact of Wind turbine blades is slowly becoming quite a serious thing.

            I just wonder about livestock.

            Tony.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      ianl8888

      I’ve worked on King Island, quite recently

      There are already operating windmills there, but there is also a backup diesel-fired generator. The locals told me that the diesel runs almost constantly to prevent uncontrolled power losses in even this tiny community

      One of their “worry” issues is running out of diesel fuel with the weather too harsh for a supply boat to dock. I watched a docked boat escaping to sea in a sudden storm, away from the possibility of smashing against the dock. It was a close-run thing


      Report this

      50

  • #
    PaulM

    I don’t know about the rest of you but the Climate Religon get more bizzare every time one of them opens their mouth.

    Take the latest effort,

    The UN says that thawing permafrost will lead to faster hotter cataclysm and is further proof that we need to reduce antropogenic CO2 emissions.

    The scientist talking on this says that 80% of the carbon that will be released will be from the breakdown of frozen organic matter.

    OK so where there is now permafrost there was once a thriving ecosystem, ergo, higher average temperatures.

    Now according to those believers dedicated to saving the planet we must reduce anthropogenic CO2 because of an increase in cyclical CO2, ergo we must now compensate for/stop a natural cycle.

    More and more there is an anti-progress bent to these arguments using pseudo science as their vehicle.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      macha

      PaulM, Yeah I saw lots of MSM reports about raidly thawing permafrost and that the top of the planet is melting, then to still blame it on man-made climate change from CO2.

      When global CO2 is reportedly fairly equal in concentration between hemispheres and natural influences 9suppeedyl) over-ridden by a gas that cannot even change phase (like water’s latent heat), why only the top of the world melt?

      Also, with this new round of UN talks, MSM still refers to tipping point averted by limiting global warming to less than 2C to “prevent” climate change. Whatever the cause, I’d like to know how anyone can prevent climate change!!


      Report this

      30

  • #
  • #
    Graeme Bird

    There are only two types of electrical generators common today, that can be revved up and down in a hurry, to fill the dips and surges in demand and greenie supply. By greenie supply I mean energy sources that can never be economic and are promoted for this very reason. Energy sources that are intermittent in nature. Only two sources can balance the greenie requirement for the rest of us to half-slash our wrists.

    The two electrical generators that can be racheted up and down quickly are hydro and methane. The problem with relying on hydro for this purpose would seem to be pretty obvious. The thing with methane is its so low-cost ON-LOCATION. Its not cheap to transport unless you’ve already set up a pipeline. A pipeline, with what amounts to JET ENGINES pushing the methane long distances is efficient for sure. But the setup costs of the pipeline can be costly. Our monetary and tax system, and our fiscal habits would seem to make this a rather hard ask. We don’t have the best of all monetary/banking systems for capital accumulation.

    Where methane is sourced on location, put through a generator, and sent straight into some remote mains supply …. for descendants of calvinists…….. this is a beautiful thing for its frugality and cost-effectiveness. You go to the (near)third-world and where gas is sourced locally, LPG to fill up the automobile can be astonishingly cheap.

    They used to transport gas or liquified gas in boats that had tanks on them. Now, in some cases, the entire vehicle becomes the tank. But as much as an improvement as this is, sea transport of methane, can never be as cost-effective as the giant super-tankers that move oil around. Or better still if even larger supertankers were supplying endless gigalitres of thorium-energy-enhanced synthetic-diesel, to the third world. This ought to be the goal of a country like Australia. To supply the under-developed parts of the world with gigalitres of this synthetic diesel. And really its our duty. This is the real foreign-aid. This is the good stuff. The fair dinkum helpfulness. We have the power to make the Saud family small beer in the world of energy.

    So the problem for baseload is that hydro-power cannot really be moved to where you need it to meet problems greenie supply and consumer demands. Methane generation CAN ………. but its not always cost-effective to be moving the methane around. It depends on the situation.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Alan

    Tony

    As they say about the game of life “Facts trump BS”. Thanks for this timely article

    I followed the link to the wind performance site and then onto the AEMO site linked on the right hand side, and right there, 2 tables down is an electricity demand and price table.
    Interesting to note that the price for South Australia ($93.2/MWh)who are pumping themselves up as the “wind capital” is some 20% higher than NSW ($74.18/MWh. Tassie is the lowest but I am assuming that is due to their hydro.
    Are these figures as simple as they sound (or read)?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Paul

    :) “Gilding the lily”? The appropriate idiom is probably “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sonny

    I want to make a point, as I often do, that there has been no serious refutation of any of the points Jo has raised. Apart from one or two “James
    On liners”, none of the other trolls are here to cmoment… How very strange!! No John Brookes, no MattB, no Catamon!
    It’s as if they AGREE that wind farms are a complete and utter FARCE and present the most monumental WASTE of tax payer money!
    Yet they were literally all over the previous thread defending the comparison of skeptics to pedophiles. I suppose, that like their heroes have needed to fall back on the last vestige of the desperate and scoundrellous LIERS – Vile defamation and ad hominem attack through the completely unscientific argument by analogy.


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Sonny,

      Mattb did come in and leave a favourable Comment at 1.2.1.1 and still gets a Thumb down for that, not from me though.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mattb

        3 thumbs down no less! I think they are all from Sonny’s split personalities mind you. Anyway I thought they were points Tony raised not Jo?

        I don’t strictly “AGREE that wind farms are a complete and utter FARCE and present the most monumental WASTE of tax payer money!” but past a certain point of grid % they most likely are from what I’ve come across. Back in 1988 no less I did a year 10 social studies assignment in to wind power and concluded that 10% of the grid was about as useful as wind may turn out to be. Funny how some things don’t change much. Should add that was more en engineering realities rather than whether that is an economically sensible 10%.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    It’s the same in the UK. See http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    altho we can’t depend on any of the pollies to stand up and say we are going to build more coal power stations – which would be a vote winner as far as i’m concerned – it seems THE CLIMATE is going to bring down the CAGW crowd sooner rather than later:

    28 Nov: Daily Mail: Now SNOW is set to fall as Britain faces coldest winter for 100 years
    Temperatures to plummet to minus 3C this week and could fall as low as 20C in December
    Fears that snow blizzards could close roads and shut down rail networks as winter takes hold
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239556/Now-SNOW-set-fall-Britain-faces-coldest-winter-100-years.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    ABC 1 News tonight, permafrost melting, disaster approaching, global warming causing a climate change faster than expected, scientists very concerned, comments from a University of NSW person, picture of room almost empty of concerned people, how pathetic is the High Church of Climate Change.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Here is the concentration of methane in the atmosphere at Cape Grim.

      Recall that CSIRO disappeared the values after 1990 in one of their climate updates when the obvious plateau (and gentle fall) was becoming embarassing. Since 2005 it has started to increase again at a slow rate, almost certainly beause of the increased development of natural gas and now CSG and shale gas.

      In other words ABC is regurgitating crap again. Not supported by the data.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dennis

    Meanwhile, around the world, evidence of cooling. In my backyard, on the mid north coast of New South Wales, moss covers the black sand around my 1880 m2 of property following a cold winter, moss I have not seen before covering so much area, and still there near the end of November. And Ants, everwhere, nesting in the grass, bare patches expanding, lawn mowing contractor’s mower collapsed nests today. Colder climate is obvious.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    Mould on outside of timber former farmhouse, mould inside on southern side, no blocked gutters evident.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Amfortas

    #Anton: “”two thirds is Hydro, (thanks to the Snowy Mountains Scheme)”"

    Er…. how much of the hydro does the Snowy Scheme add MORE than Tasmania????


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Amfortas

    Thanks, TonyfromOz


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Amfortas

    The Hydro Annual Report 2011 gives 2615 MW


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Then I stand corrected.

      I probably need to do even more checking at times, and not rely solely on one or two references.

      All up Australia has 7800MW Nameplate Capacity of Hydro from around 100 Hydro power Stations.

      In China, the huge Three Gorges complex of itself totals out at 22,500MW.

      In China they already have just a tick under 200,000MW of Hydro.

      In China, already in the build stage, they have a further 66,000MW of Hydro.

      Tony.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Cookster

    The problem for baseload in Australia with nearly 3 Million square miles of area and less than 25 Million people. What happens when the East of Australia with the bulk of population has calm conditions and it’s middle of the night? I suppose Tim Flannery or his fellow carbon cahoots would say this demand could be met by transmission from Wind Farms in South or Western Australia. The transmission losses over this distance would be huge further adding to the prohibitive costs of investment. Then what if wind is also relatively calm in South or Western Australia? Sorry but like Bob Hawke’s “no child in poverty by 1990″ claim this sounds like another pipedream detached from reality and more designed to capture unthinking people’s emotions.

    BTW, it’s not just Flannery and the Climate Commission spouting this nonsense but Low Carbon Australia. I recently had the displeasure of listening to their chairman Martijn Wilder also making these claims. The most misleading claim is that renewables will be similar in cost by 2030. That is only possible by hugely taxing Fossil Fuel generation. What on earth will I be paying for electricity by then if Flannery and Wilder get their way ?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Cookster

      Those who engage in wishful thinking are usually challenged by real facts. They then come up with further wishful “thinking” to back their original blunder.

      Thus the claim when it is proved that wind isn’t reliable, predictable or cheap (or that it doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions very much) then the old “it wasn’t tried strongly enough” bovine waste product (thanks Anton!) is the response.

      As I noted above (No.4) “renewable” energy is NOT an alternative, just an occasional substitute. The subsidised producers can only sell it when they are producing, which is very much on the spot market, i.e. they can dump it at a lower price to make it attractive or persuade politicians to make it compulsory to use at its real higher cost (Renewable Energy Target etc). In either case they reduce the profitability of the standard producers. Practically all costs apart from installation of the towers/panels, are dumped onto those standard producers. Things like transmission lines, transformers, extra generating equipment to cover rapid changes in “renewable” output. All this raises the cost to the public, it is not just ‘gold plating’ (although much of the recent hikes are due to State Labor Gov. neglecting maintenance/up-grading to get bigger ‘dividends’ from the electricity suppliers).

      It doesn’t matter how much renewable capacity you install, it will fail one day or one week etc. To maintain supply you must have available enough conventional generating plant to supply demand. If you don’t, then the grid collapses, and getting it going again is difficult, very difficult. This is one, if not the main, reason for smart meters. Once the system ‘falls over’ most of the users have to be switched off, else when you attempt to start up, there is this huge surge of demand from all those appliances left switched on. So the start up will be carefully done stage by stage, and you will be without power for a lot longer than you think.

      The nonsense about the smart meters being there “to help consumers” is, to quote Anton again, is so much bovine waste product. Anybody with any knowledge of arithmetic can work out that replacing $40 a MWh (coal) or ~$65 (gas) with wind ($110-140 a MWh) or solar ($175 without feed-in tariff, $440 or more with tariff) is going to force up the cost.


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Graeme No.3,

        I was just wondering about those smart meters with respect to what you mention.

        If the grid, umm, falls over, I know that one of the major problems in getting it back up again is the load when switching back on.

        I’m wondering if they can isolate (turn off) all those smart meters without the power being there to do so.

        Haven’t checked myself, but I can’t envisage that.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          TonyfromOz:

          Good question. I think possibly a fail safe condition as on solar panels, which shut down when there is an interruption, and then start up after a delay. Once there is power then the smart meters can be “instructed” to switch off (handy for the electricity supplier if you can’t pay those higher priced bills).


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Have either of you thought about how Smart Meters might be able to reduce the amount of credit for solar or wind produced at any or all “sustainable” installations? Once the government gets tired of paying way high per Kw price rebates, they could easily dump this production by simply shutting off the meter during peak production.

          Just saying.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Not sure what you mean.
            Firstly, the Government (in Australia) doesn’t pay anything. The rebates for solar PV that figure in all the ads are ‘paid’ by the electricity supplier, who just raises the cost to everybody.

            Secondly, those solar rebates are decided by the State Governments, which are busy reducing them (because of feedback polling about the rising cost of electricity). If you refer to the Federal Governments RECs these are merely paper issued by the Gov. backed by threats.

            How the new Renewable Energy Target works

            The government has implemented a target of 20% renewable energy sourced electricity by 2020
            The current RET requires 9500 GWh of renewable energy to be delivered by energy companies
            The 20/20 target requires 45000 GWh
            1MWh of energy equals 1 REC, so 45,000,000 RECs will be generated to meet the 2020 target
            To meet the target, energy companies must surrender RECs into their holding account at the end of every calendar year at an amount representative to 20% of their market share
            If energy companies don’t put sufficient RECs into the holding account, the company is fined at a rate much higher than the REC value.

            And where do these RECs come from? The Federal Gov. issues them to people installing ‘renewable’ energy schemes. Favoured schemes, such as household solar PV, may get 2 or more certificates for each MWh they will deliver.

            Thirdly, on the Grid supply and demand must be equal. Shutting off the meter during peak demand will penalise conventional power plants as one of the problems with ‘renewables’, especially wind, is that they don’t supply power when it is most wanted.

            Fourthly, shutting down the meters arbitrarily will annoy the public immensely, leading to the politicians responsible losing office (salary, perks, expenses, invitations to junkets etc.), something which doesn’t appeal to said politicians.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Cookster
      what will you be paying? Quite a lot, if you can get electricity.

      Lately in S.A. there has been a campaign to replace the semi-obsolete Playford B station at Port Augusta with a solar power station. Solar is extolled as cheap, clean and capable of supplying power 24 hours a day. This latter claim is based on the performance of a Spanish solar tower (Torresol Energy Gemasolar) supplying power for an uninterrupted 24-hour period, thanks to its molten salt storage. The Solar tower, which started up in April, comprises 2,650 heliostats on 185 hectares (457 acres)—all facing the top of a 140-meter tower, concentrating solar radiation at a ratio of 1,000:1.

      NOTE that instead of supplying a peak of 20 MW, it had to reduce this to 11-12MW (the rest was ‘drawn off’ to extend generating hours. NOTE also “the high performance of the installations coincided with several days of excellent solar radiation, which made it possible for the hot-salt storage tank to reach full capacity”.

      Playford B is mostly unused these days, being brought into production to help with the summer peak demand. Its capacity is 250MW (ACTUAL).

      The Gemasolar figures indicate that those mirrors collect 1.1MW per square kilometre, which is quite good, but would only apply for about 5 hours a day when the sun is overhead. When the solar rays are slanting through more atmosphere then the output will be less. No figures are available for winter production.

      Scaling up those figures means that a replacement solar tower would have to occupy 420 sq. kms. at a minimum. Actually far more, as the further the mirrors are from the tower, the greater the radiation losses in the atmosphere (dust, heat eddies etc.).

      You are constrained by the need for access for maintenance (those mirrors have to be wash sparkling clean to maintain maximum output) power lines etc.

      And the cost of this CHEAP, CLEAN electricity? try $250 per MWh, compared with coal around $40! And a coal fired station will work if needed at night or in winter.


      Report this

      11

      • #

        Graeme.

        If I might add something here to head off what may be a misconception for people who have no real understanding of how the Concentrating Solar (CS) Plants work.

        That figure of 1.1MW per square kilometre is theoretical, and people will incorrectly scale that up to the required power levels for X number of MW, hence some might get the impression that a plant may be scaled up to a size of, as you mention, 420 sqKm, and while that is theoretically correct, people who have no real understanding might perceive of ONE CS plant of 42 sqKM in size, all covered by mirrors.

        I’m linking to my own Post, at this link here, not to boost numbers, but because it has two images. The second image, when you scroll down is the one I want you to look at, and while it may be small, if you click on the image, it will open in a larger window for a better perspective.

        As you can see, there are 2 plants there. This is the way they scale up that area you mention, not by having a vast area covered with mirrors, but that smaller area, and then separate plants. Those mirrors are mounted on heliostats, moving frames that track the path of the Sun across the sky, focussing the light onto the specific point at the top of the tower. The salts compound is passed through that focussed area and it gets to a molten state. The molten compound boils water to steam, the steam drives the turbine and the turbine drives the generator.

        Now, go back to the first image up the page which shows a series of graphs, and I explain that in the text below that graph.

        A CS solar plant can heat the compound during the day, and the molten salts etc etc.

        However, if there is heat diversion, the instead of the full power being generated, the molten salts are diverted so they stay molten for periods after sunset, extending the generating period of time.

        That plant in Spain that has actually made the full 24 hours of power generation has a Nameplate Capacity of barely 17MW, and the year round Capacity Factor is barely 65%, which makes an average daily generation extrapolated over the year of 15.6 hours.

        So, now let’s replace PlayfordB with these units.

        250MW will mean 15 of these CS Plants, and even then it will only give on average 15 hours of power a day, so yes, backup will need to be in place.

        Now, CS power tower, as in the image, is the most expensive version of CS, made more expensive with heliostats, made more expensive with the capacity to divert the molten salts keep them molten for as long as possible, etc etc, so a Plant of this nature could cost in the vicinity of what the Spanish one cost, keeping in mind this is in 2010 Dollars, that could be around $600 million, so 15 of them comes in at, umm, $9 Billion.

        Read the explanation of that graph which looks technical, but I’ve tried to make it as readable and understandable as is possible.

        And still power for only 15 hours a day.

        Yes, this most definitely is the direction for the future. (/sarc)

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Agreed. I cut my reply short.
          That 1.1kW per sq. meter works out at 1MW per sq. km. but only for 5 hours a day. So a Playford B replacement would need 250 sq. km. or 1200 sq. km. if you want to supply 24 hours. (I know usage drops during night time but there are also heat losses).
          Expensive mirrors can increase the amount of energy gained, reducing the necessary area, but not pro rata because of longer path through the atmosphere. It is always amusing to my warped mind that the believers in AGW always insist on the atmosphere absorbing radiation except when they talk about using it.

          As I pointed out, the area has to be doubled because of access etc. so now we look at around 2,000 sq. km.

          But wait, there more! Those hot salts are used to boil water to drive a steam turbine. There are inefficiency losses to be considered there, also the energy to pump the cooling (sea) water to the condensers. Also the water to wash all those panels, because Port Augusta can be quite dusty (from being on the edge of a desert).

          The whole idea is ludicrous, but I understand that there are 2 consortiums interested in the project. It is just a question of subsidies. Unfortunately for them, the State Labor Gov. has run out of ready money owing to previous schemes requiring subsidies. Indeed they are struggling to find $42 million for a foot bridge to fit in between 2 existing bridges about 450 metres apart.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            What always amazes me is the way proposers of these CS plants expect people to believe that ONE solar plant will replace the one Coal fired plant they wish to close, and the people fall for it, hook line and sinker.

            If this all singing all dancing solar plant can indeed do what it claims, then you’re looking at 17MW, and the theoretical hope is that some time in the future, they may be able to manage 50MW from the one CS plant with heat diversion.

            Playford is 250MW, so just going on Nameplate alone, you’ll need at least five of them, if they can actually get the 50MW generator to work, and at the current 17 to 20MW, you’ll be needing 12/13 of them, and you still only get 15/16 hours a day of power extrapolated out over the whole year.

            It all comes back to the weight of the generator’s rotor. From that they can calculate the size of the driving turbine, and from that they know how much high temperature high pressure steam is required to drive that turbine. The problem then is keeping the salts compound molten enough to make that steam, and then keeping it molten enough for as long as possible. That 17 to 20MW Spanish plant is the best they can currently do.

            You’ll see 250MW CS plants, usually with no heat diversion, solar trough types etc, and these are usually running 5 X 50MW generators. With heat diversion they hope to be able to run one 50MW generator, so you can see the payoff required for that heat diversion capability, and the cost for that heat diversion exponentially increases the cost of the plant. Those 250MW plants without heat diversion barely manage to average 4 to 5 hours a day averaged over the year, because it takes time for the compound to reach that molten state and stay there.

            People cannot see any of this even when I explain it, and because of that, I’m the one who’s lying.

            I had a classic response at another site that I have mentioned here previously.

            They wanted to replace Bayswater with one of these CS plants.

            I replied that Bayswater generated 2640MW and this hoped for replacement generated 17MW.

            The reply was ….. “So.”

            People quite literally have no idea.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Michael Ozanne

    “The idea of ‘baseload’ power comes from fossil fuel electricity generation. Traditionally the cheapest source of power has been from coal‑fired power plants designed to operate continuously. This constant source of cheap power is called baseload power.”

    So on the basis that he doesn’t know what “baseload” is, people take anything else he says seriously???


    Report this

    21

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    I’m sure that what Tim really means is that all generated ‘wind power’ will go to the ACT and they will have no need for filthy coal.

    Government is the economy after all.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Anton Lang,

    A cost that is often omitted in comparing technologies are the grid-level system effects.

    “Grid-level system costs are the costs above plant-level to supply electricity to the grid. Broadly these comprise costs for additional investments to extend and reinforce transport and distribution grids, as well as to connect new capacity; and the costs for short-term balancing and the maintenance of long-term secure electricity supplies.

    The study considers six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies – coal, gas and nuclear – have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar.”

    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Levelling_the_playing_field_of_grid_cost-2911128.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] Nova also skewers Flannery here: Tim Flannery – baseload is just a “coal” industry idea (Yes and darkness is a “renewable” … » Share this:ShareDiggEmailRedditPrintStumbleUponTwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Graeme.

    If I might add something here to head off what may be a misconception for people who have no real understanding of how the Concentrating Solar (CS) Plants work.

    That figure of 1.1MW per square kilometre is theoretical, and people will incorrectly scale that up to the required power levels for X number of MW, hence some might get the impression that a plant may be scaled up to a size of, as you mention, 420 sqKm, and while that is theoretically correct, people who have no real understanding might perceive of ONE CS plant of 42 sqKM in size, all covered by mirrors.”

    This is really one of the key points isn’t it? My conception of energy is closer to the standard view of “energy-flux-density.” I’m not buying into this further Einstein fantasy as envisioned by the famous formula. But all controversy aside, at the very least we can say that USEFUL ENERGY, energy that is useful to humans, has a strong “energy flux density” component. And so scaling up from an array of solar panels and mirrors is never going to work. If it did it would blow out silver prices, and become uneconomic all over again, even further to the extent that it was uneconomic for starters.

    The combination of Tesla Towers and Dyson-Harrop satellites could provide electricity directly and particularly to tropical third world locations. But this would be ridiculed, while technologies that are never going to be economic will be lauded. Why is this so? For the very reason that they will never be practical. If solar panels became practical they would be derided and socially stigmatised. The lie is different at every level. Its no use blaming the left. The left are only people more open to manipulation. Ergo more effort is put into manipulating the conservatives. The left are willing house-slaves.


    Report this

    00