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



The free market strikes back. Renewables Investment plummets 22% in first quarter of 2013

What the government giveth, the government can take away. So it came to pass that the glory of green investments fell over its peak and started to slide — a slide we hope will continue forthwith with speed until such day that Renewables Actually Work.

Weakest quarter for clean energy investment since 2009

 [Bloomberg] 15 April 2013

Investment worldwide in the first quarter of 2013 was $40.6bn, down 22% on a year earlier, due to a downturn in large wind and solar project financings London and New York, 15 April 2013 – Global investment in clean energy in the first three months of 2013 was lower than in any quarter for the past four years, according to the latest figures from research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

2013 Q1 is not marked here (except with a dodgy red star thingy). It s somewhere around 22% below Q1 2012. :-) [Graph: Bloomberg]

Remember in the land of warmer-investments, this is just a global pause. It’s the fourth highest first-quarter investment. Ever. (!)

The US leads the way. Europe is following. Australia is too irrelevant to mention.

“Among the key details of the first quarter 2013 data were a 54% year-on-year fall in US clean energy investment to $4.5bn, a 15% setback in the Chinese total to $8.8bn and a 25% drop for Europe to $13.4bn. The rest of Asia, outside India and China, bucked the trend with a 47% jump to a record $10.1bn, led by a surge of investment in Japan to $8.2bn.”

Among different types of investment, the largest decline was in the asset finance of utility-scale projects such as wind farms and solar parks – this fell 34% to $19.3bn.

Why the fall? …  Capricious governments (It doesn’t help that Mother Nature is not making “free” energy easy-to-get)

Policy uncertainty played a part in limiting asset finance in the early months of this year – in particular, wind farm investment halted in the US during the winter because a key incentive, the Production Tax Credit, appeared to be heading for expiry at the end of 2012. Ultimately, the PTC was extended but the uncertainty about its status had already front-loaded financings and construction of US wind into calendar years 2011 and 2012. Relatively little new wind project construction is expected in 2013…

If only those renewables had been competitive, it could have been so different.

Spain loses 96% of it’s renewables investments

Europe saw a decline in small-scale project investment, fuelled partly by the sharp falls in solar technology costs. Nevertheless, Germany and the UK experienced modest growth in overall investment in Q1 2013, of 8% and 1% respectively compared to a year earlier. Germany reached $3.9bn in the first quarter thanks in part to the Butendiek transaction, and the UK figure was $1.8bn. Investment in Spain in Q1 2013 was less than $100m, down 96% on the first quarter of 2012. Italy and France also dropped off, reaching $1.5bn (down 61%) and $0.9bn (down 33%) respectively.

Total new investment in clean energy worldwide in 2012 was $268.7bn (*), down from a peak of $302.3bn in 2011 but still more than five times the total in 2004.

Good news, if the current trend continues we’ll only waste 200 billion dollars on renewables in 2013. But we might get lucky…

Read the whole article: Bloomberg

 

H/t GWPF, and Pierre

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (70 votes cast)
The free market strikes back. Renewables Investment plummets 22% in first quarter of 2013, 9.3 out of 10 based on 70 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m2oeqdf

156 comments to The free market strikes back. Renewables Investment plummets 22% in first quarter of 2013

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …until such day that Renewables Actually Work.

    Does anyone expect such a day? Seriously, can you foresee it from present evidence? :-)


    Report this

    210

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      But maybe we can redefine what “works”!? ;-)


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Hydro-electricity is a “renewable” and it works. Whenever the green left point to the energy created by “renewables”, over 80% of it comes from hydro-electric schemes but they do not want damns built. As if a fresh water lake is such an environmental disaster.

      Hypocrisy anyone?


      Report this

      450

      • #
        Ace

        They dont want anything that permits our industrial society to continue. The fact wind madness is futile is why it appeals to them. that is the basic story.


        Report this

        280

        • #
          A. Sceptic

          What data do you have that supports this “futile” assertion?

          My information is that wind power is now cheaper to invest in than coal, per MWh.


          Report this

          027

          • #
            Ace

            What data do you have to assert that I exist and “Ace” is not a comment-bot?
            Pillock.


            Report this

            100

            • #
              Ace

              …lets make the point clearer;
              What peer-reviewed scientific papers can you cite that support the contention that WW2 actually occurred?

              Some things are so obvious that only a complete idiot asks for “data”.


              Report this

              100

            • #
              A. Sceptic

              Nice contribution, Ace – I’ll take your instant descent into abuse as an admission of failure on your part.


              Report this

              011

              • #
                Ace

                Having been continually compared to Neo-NAZIs (“deniers”= Holocaust denier) for a decade I think we are entitled to use any epithet we wish towards your lot.

                But that wasnt an insult…it was an accurate description. You are a pillock.

                In all likelihood you have never studied philosophy but I HAVE studied philosophy. And my response posed a legitimate dispersal of your rhetorical posture (“show us the data”).

                To re-phrase it again: when something has reached a certain level of obviousness that the information environment is flooded with examples then only an idiot asks for “data”. Do I need to prove to you that most people have two arms before asserting thata man with one arm is unusual? Are you thick? Or what?

                To put it another way, show me the peer-reviewed studies that “prove” that there really was such a person as queen Victoria.

                Until you can do that then you are demanding of others a level of “proof” that you do not abide by yourself.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                A. Sceptic

                “Denier” is a term used in psychology. Look it up. It has nothing to do with Nazis, unless those Nazis are in denial about something.

                Back to the original point: you assert that your assertion is a self-evident truth. And yet real people in the real world continue to generate electricity from the wind. Real investors in the real world continue to invest in wind power. Real governments in the real world continue to regard wind power as a concrete reality within their energy policies.
                Apparently, your self-evidence truth isn’t evident to power company operators, investors, governments, nor to sceptics like myself. Looks like it is evident to pretty much nobody but yourself – that makes it less of a truth and more of a delusion, but of course you should be sceptical so don’t take it from me – consult a professional on the matter.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                “Denier” is a term used in psychology

                I think if you really looked it up you’ll find “denial”. We’ve covered the subject here at great length. Look it up.

                What I can conclude is that only a rude ass would continue to use such a term in the presence of people that already made you aware that they find it offensive. So “N” word Ass Septic, keep it up.

                The rest of your rant is funny. You appear to think that investors make up the smartest of people because they keep investing. Look up the word “bubble”. The fact is, wind power IS uneconomical, only by subsidization does it appear to be worthy of investment dollars.

                Real governments in the real world continue to regard wind power as a concrete reality within their energy policies.

                Righto dumbass. Where do the subsidies come from? Bonus question: Where do the campaign donations come from?


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Curious, Mark D. is berating A. Sceptic on account of Ace’s introduction of the “D” word into the conversation.

                Would the “dumbass” accusation he has made against A. Sceptic perhaps be a case of projection?

                I think the subsidy/donations question is a good one:
                I wonder who Mark thinks gets the most subsidies (fossil-fuel/nuclear/renewable) and which indutry makes the most donations (fossil-fuel/nuclear/renewable).

                I’ll make a brave prediction: I reckon a “dumbass” might believe the investors in wind power are donating more money to political lobbies than the fossil-fuel or nuclear industries.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Ahh Margot, you must know A.Septic. Doesn’t surprise me, peas in a pod right?

                So, Margot, do you think that investors make good indicators of viability over competent engineering and economic analysis? Do you have something to offer that justifies wind power? Come on, impress me that you know more than ASSceptic.

                Then you make a nice strawman. Did I say that I support government subsidies in fossil fuel or nuclear? Or did you just make that up?

                Peas in a dumbass pod no doubt.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Joe V.

            The naivety of some. Bless.

            My information is that wind power is now cheaper to invest in than coal, per MWh.

            What does that even mean ?


            Report this

            150

      • #

        The reason hydro doesn’t count is lack of subsidies here in the USA at least. Plus, hydro has limits as to the water available. Eventually, if the madness does not stop, turbines will reach the same level. Solar can only cover so much, especially if we want to use rooftops for gardens, etc and that will compete with the solar. Then there’s the storage problems. Hydro works because there’s a dam on a reservoir or river. It’s huge storage, but it’s also multi-use. Wind and solar will need either hydro in conjunction or some large, single use storage vessel.
        Hydro and geothermal have both been used for decades, but we were smart enough then to acknowledge the limitations. Not so with wind and solar.


        Report this

        100

    • #
      Dennis

      My blanket works.

      LOL


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It’s cheep, reusable, lasts for years, uses a sheep product (sustainable), and trasportable.

        I don’t know what’s not to like.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Fred from Canuckistan

    Hmmmmmmm, seems when the government stops shoveling other people’s money off the back of the truck to get people to “invest” in greenie scams, there is not nearly as much appetite to risk ones own money.

    Very strange.


    Report this

    470

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Jo,

    It looks as though the word thief has struck again …

    (It doesn’t help that Mother Nature is not …?

    … read the memo, perhaps?


    Report this

    31

  • #
    TheInquirer

    What about the people with jobs in that industry?

    Stupid, childish, callous post.

    Not the least bit surprised.

    —————
    REPLY: Cruel and callous are governments which set up industries destined to fail. The poor sods who “follow” the government dollar ought to have been taught in school how fickle and false any market is that relies solely on government handouts. They should have done the research on the need for solar or wind and not bet their career on what the ABC told them. The free market is kinder than the vicarious whimsy of a fake market.- Jo]


    Report this

    36

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The Inquirer; look up “Broken Window Fallacy” on wiki.

      If such a huge sum hadn’t been spent on a fabricated economy, a real economy would have broken out.

      All of jobs currently in solar and wind, would be active in a more constructive industry. Zero harm, more good. Net benefit to all.

      An industry like wind that costs more for electricity than coal, is full of corrupt money, and has not gained any more reliability or production despite the billions spent on research and development; is a failed industry.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    TheInquirer

    And your mate Watts is a beneficiary an’ all.

    Still he can also resort to holding cap in hand to ask for money for new computers and the like. Funny how you guys go on about the grants gravy train but are happy to take the spoils of the contrarian industry. And you’re all selling something: books, guides, advertising, solar kick-backs….
    —————————-
    REPLY: “Solar-kick-backs?” This battle for honest-science has cost my family thousands. Invented ad hom attacks tell the world how weak your evidence is – Jo


    Report this

    36

  • #
    Manfred

    So it came to pass that the glory of green investments fell over its peak and started to slide — a slide we hope will continue forthwith with speed until such day that Renewables Actually Work

    Black clouds and silver linings – the GFC appears to have deprived the Green-agenda driven zealots of the necessary economic cushion to continue their senseless extravaganza.
    Saved by the bell?

    There’s only so much an economically punch drunk public can cope with. Argument by policy loses its conviction when the money runs out, made all the more obvious when devoid of compelling scientific merit.

    A perfect storm for the C/AGW devotees isn’t it? The funding junket collapses, the climate doesn’t comply, the science gets better and ‘best’ of all, the battered and increasingly impoverished public appear bored to death by the relentless PC barrage.

    The MSM grow to appreciate the implication to their bottom line, just as the public have been forced to do by the growing numbers of unemployable bureaucrats and politicians who are learning that their previous activities add nothing to their résumés.

    And to think how humanity might have benefited from the largesse wasted so vacuously over the last two decades by vested ignoranace.


    Report this

    500

    • #
      Brett_McS

      Indeed, we are being (mis)governed by the equivalent of indolent teenage wastrels of formerly rich parents who can’t believe the money is running out.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Manfred, Have you ever considered your history the other way round? Have you ever studied whether Global Warming growth precipitated the GFC? I think a fair case can be made, especially starting in Germany.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    “Remember in the land of warmer-investments, this is just a global pause. It’s the fourth highest first-quarter investment. Ever.”

    Jo – you are brilliant!

    So Gore and Suzuki and Rudd and everyone should be jumping in to the Green Technology since everything is going to get going again.

    Ha!


    Report this

    220

    • #

      Remember in the land of warmer-investments, this is just a global pause. It’s the fourth highest first-quarter investment. Ever. (!)

      A curse on you Doug Proctor! I wanted to be the first to spot that and comment on it.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Bulldust

    Such waste makes me weep as an economist. By all means spend money on renewables research to make them competitive one day, but that day is not today.

    I know it is fighting dirty, but I think some ground could be recaptured by attacking the ‘clean’ association with green energy. Let’s see some serious coverage on the environmental catastrophe that is the tailings disposal from Mongolian rare earths processing plants … these are vital for the production of the magnets in windmill transformers. This is just one example.

    The fallacious association of clean and green needs to be broken.


    Report this

    340

    • #
      Speedy

      Too right Bulldust. The greens tend to be a little selective in their exposes. We need to help them.

      Cheers,

      Speedy.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Let’s see some serious coverage on the environmental catastrophe that is the tailings disposal from Mongolian rare earths processing plants … these are vital for the production of the magnets in windmill transformers. This is just one example.

      The fallacious association of clean and green needs to be broken.

      Yes, the hidden tragedy! And this legacy will remain poisonous for a long time, having already begun its inexorable seepage into the ground until it reaches the water table. And it may already be there.

      Solar cells present a similar problem, as do all the electronic devices we now depend on every day.

      Ironically the same people who push this clean green energy will object to nuclear for — among other reasons — the fact that the waste product of nuclear energy is toxic and remains so for decades. How do you spell hypocrisy? G-R-E-E-N or C-L-E-A-N, take your pick.

      Don’t you wish you could bang some heads together?


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Ace

      Id rather we talk about the 250 million plus deaths from Malaria since Greens obtained the restriction of DDT use.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Yes, there is that abomination too, isn’t there?

        The list is so long I can’t track it all.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        A. Sceptic

        DDT had to be replaced by alternative pesticides as it lost effectiveness as a result of overuse in agricultural applications. The “Greens” lobbied to have its agricultural use restricted. By then it was already proving ineffective in its anti-malarial application as the insects had developed immunity.

        Maybe in future be a bit more sceptical of the stuff you read on blogs on the internet? Some of them peddle misinformation invented by anti-environmental lobby groups, such as this classic DDT-fiction you have repeated.


        Report this

        015

        • #
          Ace

          This is complete b$%^&*.

          The facts are that DDT was eradicating the malarial vectors so fast that by the early sixties there would have been no Malaria outside of laboratories. As was later achieved with smallpox.

          By restricting the use of DDT that allowed the flies to continue to thrive and thereby evolve resistance. Had no restrictions been imposed they would never have had that opportunity. An extinct species (of fly) can never develop resistance. You obviously dont understand very much. For example the circumstances under which immunity can evolve.

          The restriction of use of DDT was PRECISELY because the Greens wanted to prevent the extinction of various insect species. It was Rachel Carson who argued that DDT would soon render those species extinct and that was how the virtual ban on DDT came about.

          You cannot have it both ways. If DDT was not going to render those insect vectors extinct then Carson / The Green claim it would becomes hollow. If it was going to achieve the extinction of these insects, then they would never have had the opportunity to develop immunity.

          However, DDT remains effective and its use only restricted to protect insect life, because it is effective.

          The rest is simple maths. The number of people who directly die from Malaria each year multiplied by the number of years since the then projected extinction of Malarial vectors. About 250 million dead as a direct result of “environmentalist” policies.

          Dont you think, folks, that this “septic” boy is like one of the pimply members of the Hitler Jugend, speaking up in support for the glorious leaders of the ideology to which he is devoted, quoting the propaganda points programmed into its little sheep-like “brain”, clicking its heels as it denounces us who it would prefer in a camp somewhere “for the planet”.


          Report this

          110

          • #
            A. Sceptic

            Not sure where you get your information (not a trustworthy source, clearly), but it is so wrong that even the basic info obtainable from Wikiopedia can point you in the right direction:

            widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased.[26] The program was successful in eliminating malaria only in areas with “high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission”.[27]

            DDT was less effective in tropical regions due to the continuous life cycle of mosquitoes and poor infrastructure. It was not applied at all in sub-Saharan Africa due to these perceived difficulties. Mortality rates in that area never declined to the same dramatic extent, and now constitute the bulk of malarial deaths worldwide, especially following the disease’s resurgence as a result of resistance to drug treatments and the spread of the deadly malarial variant caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The goal of eradication was abandoned in 1969, and attention was focused on controlling and treating the disease. Spraying programs (especially using DDT) were curtailed due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation, but mostly because mosquitoes were developing resistance to DDT.

            and

            In the 1970s and 1980s, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries, … Vector control use has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.

            The Stockholm Convention…restricted DDT use to vector control. …public health use is exempt from the ban pending acceptable alternatives. Malaria Foundation International states, “The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations.For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before.”

            Despite the worldwide ban, agricultural use continues in India,[35] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[15]

            Today, about 3-4,000 tonnes each year are produced for vector control.[14] DDT is applied to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitoes. This intervention, called indoor residual spraying (IRS), greatly reduces environmental damage. It also reduces the incidence of DDT resistance.

            As you see, you’ve been fed something smelly. Luckily, you can now be sceptical of the information you were previously provided with.


            Report this

            01

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Maybe in future be a bit more sceptical of the stuff you read on blogs on the internet? Some of them peddle misinformation invented by anti-environmental lobby groups, such as this classic DDT-fiction you have repeated.

          Says A. Sceptic.

          OK! But now I’m entitled to ask, what is your preferred source of information on the matter? That’s an honest question with no hidden agenda. You imply a better source and I’m entitled to ask what it is.

          I await your answer.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            A. Sceptic

            In this case, there is on the one hand the comments by somebody calling themselves “Ace” on blog comments, and on the other hand the referenced information presented in Wikipedia.

            Clearly, if the above do not agree, then it is “Ace” that must be discarded – he supports his arguments with insults, and seems to confuse flies with mosquitos, among other indications of unreliability.

            As I am sceptical, I don’t trust Wikipedia either, and I chase up their references to see if they are reliable sources, or simply rubbish written by journalists and published in newspapers.

            Seeing as some of those references refer me back to primary material, I can use similar judgment to decide whether those primary sources are reliable or not.


            Report this

            02

      • #
        sophocles

        I’d rather not see it re-introduced. It has unacceptable levels of
        human toxicity. A number of studies from Sweden, Canada and
        the US have linked DDT and DDE levels in the environment to the
        prevalence of Diabetes in the population. I have Diabetes, and, in
        my childhood, I was exposed to DDT. I have no evidence of a
        causal connection between the two, however, a number of papers
        in the literature indicate a possible link, which is not surprising,
        given it is fat soluble. A couple are:

        Jones, Oliver AH; Maguire, Mahon L; Griffin, Julian L (January 26, 2008). “Environmental pollution and diabetes: a neglected association” (PDF). Lancet 371 (9609): 287–8.

        Turyk, Mary (March 6, 2009). “Organochlorine Exposure and Incidence of Diabetes in a Cohort of Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumers”. Environ. Health Perspect.

        The adverse effects of Chlorinated Bi-Phenyls
        (DDT = DichloroDiphenylTrichloroethane)
        are documented in other papers from Sweden, Canada and the US.
        There are a sufficiency of others to suitably support the moratorium
        (it’s an outright ban in some countries) on DDT manufacture and use.

        Exposure to DDT has been linked to child developmental problems.
        In a review article in The Lancet, the author(s) states, “research has
        shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in
        malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning …
        toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties;
        human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality,
        menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation.”[28]

        Other studies also allege decreases in semen quality among men
        with high exposures. So if you want to throw a monkey wrench
        into your germ cells, and your children’s growth and development,
        then that is your right, but please respect the rights of others to
        not suffer such monkeying.

        Exposure has also been linked to cancers of the liver, pancreas and
        breast in several recent epidemiological studies.
        (see: Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). “Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)”. Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73

        and:Eskenazi, Brenda (May 4, 2009). “The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use”. Environ. Health Perspect.

        to mention only two of them. )

        DDT is best left out of our lives. The Pyrethroids are still pretty
        effective for most of our insect pests. Even if the common house
        fly is starting to show some signs of resistance, it will never resist
        a good swatter.

        If we are going to have a long period of cold this century as some
        of the most recent solar research papers are predicting, then that
        will help reduce insect pests from pestilential to easily tolerable
        levels better than any insecticide. Even cold can have a beneficial
        outcome!

        DDT’s biggest hangover is its environmental persistance. Once in
        the soil, it doesn’t decay at all rapidly. It ends up in the seas and
        in the food chain, with startlingly large quantities appearing in the
        top predators. So exposure is going to be with us for quite a while
        yet.

        Given the health problems it is alleged to cause, let’s not increase
        its concentrations. At present it is licensed for manufacture and use
        for (strictly controlled) malaria control. Let’s leave it at that.


        Report this

        17

        • #
          Ace

          Correlation is not evidence.

          The things you refer to are broadly analogous to the claims that vaccines are harmful. Would you prefer vaccines are never used? There is a price for everything. five million deaths from Malaria every year (and the destruction of the lives of at least ten times that number) is a very high price to pay for allaying fears that a chemical; MIGHT cause SOME harmful effects on a tiny minority of the population.

          In any case, had the extinction of Malarial vectors continued fifty years ago there would have been no further need to use DDT in such quantities.


          Report this

          90

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Sophocles,

          I’m truly sorry to hear that you’re diabetic. I know from firsthand experience what a tough disease it is.

          All insecticides have bad effects on humans. So DDT’s problems don’t necessarily bother me. And if you’re relying on Rachel Carson’s hit piece, Silent Spring, or anything like that, I don’t think you’re getting honest information. Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked and repudiated.

          It’s time for an honest risk/benefit analysis of a lot of things, including DDT. I hope that someday rational thinking can get the upper hand again. In the meantime, millions do die of malaria who might easily be alive today but for the lack of DDT.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            sophocles

            Thank you Roy, no it’s not fun, but it’s managable.

            I have never read Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring.” (1962).
            I probably never will. I have read a lot of the
            research papers and epidemiological studies published over
            the years. There is always a possibility they could have a
            similar hysteria to the present GHG hysteria.

            Concerns about the undesirable side-effects of DDT predate
            Carson by over 20 years, and the US government began applying
            regulation to its use in the early 1950s. It’s probably not
            widely known.

            But I doubt there is any hysteria. More and more recent papers,
            track problems which are appearing in those who were exposed many
            years ago. The big problem with DDT, which is not shared by CO2
            and alleged GHG’s is it’s persistance. DDT is a particularly
            stable molecule. Yes, it is a superb contact insecticide but:
            it doesn’t break down.

            Pyrethroids do, they have a fast biodegradability. Sunlight alone is
            highly efficacious. Vertebrates are very much less sensitive to
            pyrethroids and derivatives.

            DDT is a bis-phenyl family member. The bis-phenyls feature hugely in
            the epidemiological studies, all badly.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Careful Roy Hogue,
      Don’t jump to the conclusions of others about pollution by rare earths. The more correct approach is to look up LD50 tables of the chemicals, or a similar measure of toxicity, then look at the concentrations of those that are labelled a danger at the site then look at the pathways to humans, animals, etc.
      Geochemists tend to regard rare earths as somewhat unreactive and non-dangerous. Possibly some are different after chemical processing to other compounds that I did not have to study. In my career I found a deposit of these very beasties, with niobium, so I’m not talking cold (just old) about them.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        He didnt say the rare earths were polluting, he said the “tailings” from their production are.

        My vindaloo isnt polluting, but the “tailings” from my eating it are!


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Geoff,

        I’m sure you’re right about what’s actually toxic and what’s not. Unfortunately the waste dumps in China are what’s left over from the processing of those coveted rare earth metals into useful magnetic cores for generators. That’s a different brew entirely as I understand it.

        I’m by no means a chemist but I did pass all those required courses. So I’m well aware that the dose makes the poison. The close proximity of at least one such dump site to a sizable village and the near certainty that it will get into the local water supply is, I think, good cause for alarm. Then there are the airborne fumes people there are already complaining about.

        I don’t know how it will all play out but it doesn’t look good to me.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Streetcred

    O/T, weakly linked, but for consideration.

    The Opposition may well be getting its ‘scientific’ advice from the same rent-seekers at the CSIRO and BoM that the feral government does. Many of us believe that the transition to an adult federal government may end up with the same old same old in a new wrapper regarding CAGW.

    What is the potential for a deputation of Australia’s leading sceptics to Messrs Abbott and Hunt to put the sceptical case to them ? Hopefully so that they may too see the light … there’s so much data-based scientific evidence available that it is hard to believe that they have not been properly briefed. It is easier to believe that they are unaware of it.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Allen Ford

      CSIRO’s repuation as a credible scientific body seems to be under threat, after revelations this week of outright fraud on drug company, Novartis. From this page in The Canberra Times, lots more naughtiness reported about the former prestige body:

      http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/Organisations/CSIRO


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Jaymez

      I am hoping it is part of a ‘small target’ political strategy. At this point, so far ahead in the polls, why open up a new front on which to be attacked? Secretly they are happy that all polling indicates that most people believe Tony Abbott thinks the ‘Science is Crap’. So why pick a fight with extremists now which will just empower the Greens, Labor, and the ABC among others to attack the Coalition on Climate policy and forget about the shocking performance of the Labor party running the country since 2007.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      A. Sceptic

      What is this “sceptical case”, Streetcred?

      …that we should ignore all the world’s top scientific bodies and instead believe what lobby-groups such as Heartland are telling us?
      That is pretty clearly not a “sceptical” case.


      Report this

      022

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Well, at least Heartland has a better act than you do, Mr./Ms. A. Sceptic. You can go by that name if you want to but it’s clearly a stretch to believe you are one.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          A. Sceptic

          I am extremely sceptical of the information peddled by political lobby groups, such as Heartland.

          Are you?

          ———————
          Mr A. — we are skeptical of everything, unlike you, who accepts whatever the officials say regardless of whether it makes sense. The Climate Commission is a political lobby group and you love them. Ad hom attacks only show how little evidence you have. – Jo


          Report this

          36

          • #
            A. Sceptic

            I know virtually nothing about the climate commission except (correct me if I am wrong) that it is headed up by Tim Flannery, a Kangaroo expert who was accused by “skeptics” of hypocrisy for living in a “beachfront property” while advocating caution with regard to future sea level rise.

            Being a sceptic, I obtained a large-scale map of the area including Flannery’s property along with the Hornsby Shire planning and development documents that included maps showing areas at-risk of sea level rise, storm surge, and flooding.

            I was able to establish that:

            – Flannery does not live in a beach-front property
            and
            – Flannery’s property is not included by his local council in any of the areas considered at risk of any sort of flooding including sea level rise.

            As a result of my sceptical enquiries in this area, I remain *extra* sceptical of the sources who – as it turns out – made incorrect claims about Flannery’s supposed hypocrisy.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Streetcred

        That poppycock doesn’t even warrant a response, A. Sceptic. I believe that you wouldn’t recognise scepticism if slapped you in the face. There is more than sufficient evidence on the formidable sceptic blogs.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Streetcred

        Though, I do need to ask who these scientist at the “world’s top scientific bodies” are ? You may be embarrassed to discover that these same “bodies” have the view of non qualified members carried as that of the representative body. Not to mention that they are reliant on their socialist political masters for funding grants, they’ll do and say anything to get their snouts into the trough. Nobody takes much notice of Heartland, being a US political lobby groups that has pretty much no involvement in ‘climate science’.

        And the IPCC ? Well it is a UN body specifically set up to ‘prove’ CAGW except that if you take the opportunity to read the scientific backgrounds to the summary documents, you will find little to give credence to those summaries.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          A. Sceptic

          CSIRO & BoM, for starters. And NASA.

          I can choose to believe them, OR, I can believe blogs on the internet who say they are all wrong.

          Your characterisation as to the purpose of the IPCC is clearly wrong. The IPCC summarises the state of the science. The science is what informs the opinions given us by the likes of CSIRO, BoM and NASA.
          CSIRO and NASA have good websites where the science of climate change is explained in simple terms suitable for the layperson to understand, for example BoM:
          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

          Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed – the northwest has seen an increase in rainfall over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline.

          Disbelieving in what he BoM has to say, in favour of stuff you’ve read on some blog on the internet is clearly the exact opposite of “sceptical” behaviour.


          Report this

          013

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            The number of heat waves has increased? Yes, I read the paper claiming this and found selective argument partly based on optimising the definition of a heat wave.
            Here is some independent, ‘scientific’ analysis of past heat waves in Sydney and Melbourne, using BOM data.
            http://www.geoffstuff.com/Heatwaves2013.jpg
            http://www.geoffstuff.com/HEAT%20WAVES.pdf

            Do they look like they are increasing in frequency or maximum heat? I don’t.


            Report this

            120

            • #
              A. Sceptic

              Geoff, I am sure that when you present your information to BoM, showing them they are wrong, they will correct their errors, and once again, BoM’s web page will reflect the facts of the matter.

              Until then, it would be foolish to distrust an eminently professional and trustworthy source (BoM) in favour of some random pages put on the internet by an individual.


              Report this

              04

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Quote “I can choose to believe them, OR, I can believe blogs on the internet who say they are all wrong.”

            You can believe what other say, and you surely do.

            Or where some blog says they are wrong, and almost assuredly explains how and why they are wrong, you could follow those threads and read the explanations for yourself and perhaps come the same conclusion. Or you could disagree with those conclusions.

            You however, appear to simply believe Bom, SCIRO and NASA because they say it is so.

            You really haven’t looked at the counter arguments.


            Report this

            70

          • #
  • #
    Streetcred

    I have long instructed my superannuation company to ensure that there are no investment of a “sustainable” or “renewable” nature in my portfolio.

    The unions, I believe, are heavily invested in the scams.


    Report this

    210

    • #
      Len

      Some of the churches such as the Anglicans have been drinking the Kool Aid and put pension funds into it.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      mareeS

      This is going to be a big wake-up for union superannuation funds. They are heavily invested in renewables, particularly CFMEU in inoperative desal plants after having screwed over state Labor governments to get their members on happy-street wages, 9% of which has been paid into union super funds..

      Many ex-Labor politicians are on the boards of union super funds, doing the same bad job labor always does in government.

      Our son and daughter have their 9% (soon to be 12%) paid into union funds, and at the end of every FY the balance is transferred to our family SMSF, as the fees on CBUS and HostPlus are extortionate compared to our fund on an ongoing basis, as are the insurance rates.

      Large directors’ fees of $50,000 on average per year are paid to those board members, and are supposed to be paid back to the unions by union board members, which is a form of money laundering, as the fees come from the 9% of worker contributions through the fund, into the hands of union board members, eventually back to the Labor party.

      How many people here know about that particular money cycle?

      When I did an audit on the costs of their union funds compared to our SMSF, CBUS had heftier fees for 800,000-odd members, per member, than we have per the 4 of us in our SMSF, so every year on July 1 they switch out of the industry funds into the SMSF.

      We deliberately have never invested in renewables. Apart from the 2008 hiccup, we are above 2007 and chuffing along happily.

      Show me a windmill and I will show you a dead bird and a dead investor. People who still invest in these things are insane.


      Report this

      150

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    I’ve heard about “Evolution” and “Intelligent design” but why does no one talk about what is actually important?
    Yes, I think I understand that these two terms appear to be antagonistic, but are they relevant to everyday life?
    Why don’t we talk more about “Resolution” and “Unintelligent design” because, AFAIK, the former is what this site is about while the latter is an excellent description of what happens when our current ‘croup’ of politicians get together and come up with a wizard wheeze to legislate for the perfect ‘climate camel’!


    Report this

    110

  • #
    pat

    EU carbon posts record weekly loss
    LONDON, April 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European carbon prices on Friday posted a record weekly loss after an EU plan to cut bloated permit supply failed, wiping almost a third off their value since Monday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2305211?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    sell-off gains pace:

    UPDATE 1-EU govts to sell record volume of CO2 units next wk
    LONDON, April 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European governments will sell a record 24.6 million EU emissions permits next week, data compiled by Reuters Point Carbon showed, heaping further pressure on carbon prices that on Wednesday hit record lows…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2304766?&ref=searchlist

    No single measure can fix EU carbon scheme – official
    LONDON, April 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The crisis in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is too great to be fixed by one method alone, the EU’s top climate official said Friday, summing up the second of two days of debate and more than 200 stakeholder responses on the future of the world’s biggest carbon market…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2305260?&ref=searchlist

    redirection:

    Climate inaction likely to deepen EU divisions -paper
    BRUSSELS, April 19 (Reuters) – The European Union must take measures to prevent the destruction of crops and property by extreme weather or face instability and deeper social divisions as a result of potential climate change, a European Commission document said…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2305127?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Mark D.

    I always liked the song: Tiny Bubbles……


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Mikael Mannhoffen

    Remember in the land of warmer-investments, this is just a global pause. It’s the fourth highest first-quarter investment. Ever. (!)

    Our klimate modelsch showzen dat zis ischt juscht a minor pauzenhousen in den global inveschtment warmink. As kann be scheen from mein graphenhousen below ve haf a sharp rise from 2014 onvards.

    Ve call ziss der “Hockey Schtick!” of global inveschtmemnt warmink with a zerious threacht of runawayhousen inveschtment! Ze burgers shall never grow koldt!!
    ——-

    [I think /sarc ;- ) Cute. - Jo]


    Report this

    20

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    “The US leads the way. Europe is following. Australia is too irrelevant to mention.”
    ==============
    It always amazes me when financial news networks talk about markets (not U.S.), as if they are wagging the dog.
    Aussies rock !!
    (China’s data isn’t worth the bytes spent to upload).


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ace

    I was finally as promised in “Water World” last week (a filthy, chaotic, ugly, creepy, dangerous place which everyone says is “beautiful” , being a vast demonstration of sheep-think)and I found it truly menacing to enter a town towered over by buckering great wind-turbines. Like something in a creepy and poorly made low-budget sci-fi movie. I also experienced first hand the sheer terror that rules the streets when Eco-Fascist bike NAZIs are allowed their way.

    I had an extremely close shave with hospital myself and saw other incidents aside, in only a couple of days. These green b—s–rds really ruin the quality of life if they are allowed their way. The place was Hell It would have been dirty, ugly, creepy and nasty without the bikes, but the terror the bikes create is a big part of the problem with that place.

    I’m more angry about Eco fascists than ever.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ace

    A town by the sea and a river named after a lager, built on strips of mud between concentric canals and altogether more water than land.


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #

    Perhaps if renewables delivered, then maybe there would actually be people willing to construct them on an equal funding basis without the many levels of subsidy they receive, because those subsidies are in effect the only lure to their construction.

    I often equate Capacity Factor (CF) with time, and it gets me in trouble at some of the places I occasionally comment at, because people think that because these renewables are delivering some of their power most of the time, then, umm, that’s OK.

    So, CF really is time based. It’s worked put over a full year of power delivery If a wind plant delivers it’s power at a CF of (a sanguine in this case) 30%, then that means it is delivering the equivalent of it’s full Nameplate Capacity for only 30% of that year, and that can then effectively be scaled backwards (from the full year) to smaller time periods, Month, week, and even day.

    So let’s look at where they actually are, and what they are delivering, and these are 4 Countries with the highest Wind Power totals.

    Spain has 23,000MW and run at a CF of 21% (or an equivalence of 5 hours a day at their full rated power)

    Germany has 32,000MW, CF 18% (4.3 hours a day)

    The U.S. has 60,000MW, CF 25% (6 hours a day)

    China has 76,000MW, CF 14% (3.4 hours a day)

    Australia claims a 30% CF probably correct, but coming from a tiny base of barely 3000MW, and that’s barely 7.2 hours a day.

    That’s for Wind and shows the 4 Countries with the highest amount of Wind Power.

    Solar PV can barely manage 12% CF which equates to less than 3 hours a day.

    Concentrating Solar claims they can average 60% CF but hey, who cares, the most they can deliver at that CF is less than 20MW per plant, so that’s virtually nothing at all for a best case 14 maybe 15 hours a day.

    Notice something now I’ve reduced it to daily averages.

    If the total ABSOLUTE requirement for power consumption, (that’s 24 hours of EVERY day) comes in at around 60% of that Country’s total consumption, you could have these wind towers spread all over the Country, wall to wall, and they will NEVER supply that ABSOLUTE Base Load requirement.

    Now, as to investment dropping off, mainly because of the uncertainty of availability of those subsidies, keep in mind that ALL existing Plants have their subsidies locked in for the life of the plant, so, for at least the next 25 years, we, the people, will be paying for these useless things to be delivering minute amounts of power on their own sporadic time basis that does not equate to ACTUAL time requirement, and we pay for that in the increased costs for all the electricity we consume.

    Also keep in mind that the subsidy paid to renewables for the power they actually deliver is based on the original quoted theoretical hoped for Capacity Factor at the proposal time before construction even begins. Contracts for those subsidies are locked in to that quoted CF, and in every case that is always around 38%, and some have even claimed 42% as their hoped for CF. So even though the average CF can be as low as mid the 20′s those credits will still be paid at the contracted up front total quoted CF.

    So, here we are being forced to accept power that cannot be delivered on the time basis required, and at the same time being coerced into dumping the only plants that CAN actually deliver power on the time basis required.

    I hope you can all see where this ends up.

    Tony.


    Report this

    350

    • #
      Jaymez

      You really know how to cheer a guy up!


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Tony,
      the actual (as against claimed) concentrating solar figures are similar to solar PV, and around 11-18%. That 60% figure comes from 1 trial at 1 plant in Spain, where they diverted the heat to storage. Sure they supplied electricity for 60% of the day, which is what they are really claiming, but at a much reduced rate. That is, the maximum output for their plant is 50MW per hour (if all goes well). That they could supply between 11 and 17 MWh for 14 to 15 hours is better than most renewables, but hardly remarkable for the cost of the plant.

      When Spain cut the subsidy by 30% all work on the next 2 plants stopped immediately. Since the subsidised price dropped to the equivalent of $204 per MWh, and coal delivers at $39-42 per MWh, readers will see why nobody wants to invest in renewables unless they get a guaranteed subsidised price. But what government would be so stupid as to do that these days?


      Report this

      170

      • #

        Graeme No.3,

        I went to one of the sites who are pro these types of renewables and mentioned that this one plant in Spain that did actually manage the full 17MW for a full 24 hour period and mentioned that it was still only rated at (a theoretical) 60% CF for a full year and I got the typical resonse ….. “and your point is”, but he actually went on to point to a coal fired plant with a 55% CF and said that coal fired power (intimating that this was on an overall basis) was no better, in fact worse. The plant he pointed to was a 1000MW plant and other readers (pro renewable) would have seen his comment and assumed that I had most effectively been shot down in flames. The plant he pointed to was used only for spinning reserve purposes, and I don’t think he knew what that meant anyway when I told him ina second comment, but his further reply was (virtually) nyah nyah nyah!

        Consider this.

        That one plant in Spain that did achieve this delivers the same power over a full year that Bayswater can deliver in ….. wait for this ….. 45 HOURS, and that’s at Bayswater’s CF, because there will be times when all four generators are delivering their power at Bayswater, and with all 4 of them running then Bayswater delivers the same power in 33 hours.

        This Spanish plant costs the equivalent in AUD of $950 Million and to construct enough of these Spanish type Concentrating Solar Plants with heat diversion to equal what Bayswater delivers, you would need 194 of them, costing $184 Billion. That’s just for the one plant Bayswater.

        Tony.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Tony;
          at 60% CF, you are implying that the nominal capacity of the Spanish plant was 28-29MW. I thought it was 50 MW but that may have been for the planned expansion, so am prepared to correct my figure.

          I fully agree that the cost of these is astronomical. That’s what causes their electricity to be so expensive, even if they have “free fuel”. The spanish plant obviously couldn’t make a profit even at $204 per MWh, hence the cancellation of the expansion plans.

          You were too kind in suggesting that they could keep up that performance all year. What many of these “enthusiasts” don’t think about is the change of seasons. Winter brings less hours of sunshine than summer, even before the clouds roll in. It may not be so striking at your home base, but that spanish plant is as far from the equator as Melbourne. Would any of the readers, except the trolls, claim that Melbourne is very, very sunny in winter?


          Report this

          90

          • #

            Graeme,

            The current theory (note I said Theory) is that concentrating solar (CS) may actually be able to be used to generate 50MW of power utilising heat diversion.

            The best they have so far been able to achieve is that 17MW.

            You’ll see CS plants as large as 250MW, but be aware that these plants utilise 5 X 50MW units to do this, each coming on line as more of the compound becomes molten enough to make enough steam to drive the turbine/generator complex, and an example of a 250MW plant is Abengoa’s Solana plant at Gila Bend near Phoenix in Arizona, and this plant does not have heat diversion. It uses the solar trough method.

            That Plant in Spain is used as test plant to (hopefully) scale up to the hoped for 50MW in the future, and at the moment, the best they have achieved is with a 17MW generator.

            The link is to an image of the theory behind it. Note that while it shows scales, the actual MW generated is on the right hand side of the chart, and the (theoretical) generated power is the thick red line along the bottom of the chart, showing 50MW of power (hopefully) coming on line at around 8AM, and with heat diversion, lasting until around 3AM. Specifically note the text along the top of the chart mentioning for a typical Summer day, so this again, is not all year round, or even for a full 24 hour day on that typical Summer Day.

            Theoretical energy flows for a typical Summer day

            Keep in mind that this is for the hoped for 50MW unit, if it ever comes to pass. For every typical Summer day there are also Winter days, and for those these plants will be lucky to make 4 or 5 hours a day, even with heat diversion.

            All you’ll ever hear about are the big headlines that they somehow actually did manage power for one full 24 hour period. So, you’ll get (perhaps) 15 hours a day in Summer, and as little as 4 hours a day in Winter. And people still spruik that this is indeed Baseload power. They still use that one word baseload as a damned adjective, when (two words) Base Load is an actual physical requirement for 24 hours 7 days a week 365 days a year. And they hope for a theoretical 50MW.

            Incidentally, that Gila Bend plant started out a cost of $USD800 MIllion, and has gone through four upwards price changes, and is now sitting at $1.75 Billion.

            Tony.


            Report this

            80

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              $1.75 Billion?

              They could build a Closed Cycle Gas Turbine plant for a quarter of that, and on coal seam gas deliver electricity far more cheaply, and with roughly the same emissions as given off from existing plants covering for the time that Gila Bend isn’t working.

              It is that supply for the base load when renewables don’t work that prevents any country in Europe from shutting down coal fired power stations, no matter how many thousand wind turbines are built. Indeed in the 32 new conventional plant projects current in Germany (not all will be built) 5 are listed as “cover for new wind farms”.


              Report this

              80

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Renewables are an addition, never a predictable or reliable part of capacity. You must ALWAYS have an equal capacity of conventional (predictable) generation.

                If any troll wants to argue, let him predict exactly how much electricity all the wind farms in Australia will produce on any day next month.


                Report this

                80

              • #

                Graeme,

                perhaps rather than predict, let’s look at actual, and this is just from four days back, Tuesday 16th April 2013.

                This graph shows actual power delivery from all wind towers from Queensland border South, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.

                That’s 2512MW in total Nameplate from more than 1,000 wind towers.

                The average delivered power for the whole day was 270MW per hour, coming in at 6480MWH.

                That total Nameplate for the more than 1000 wind towers is just less than for Bayswater.

                If all 4 generators were running at Byswater, then Bayswater delivered that same amount of power in 2 hours and 20 minutes.

                The same as more than 1000 wind towers.

                Wind Farm Performance 16 April 2013

                That works out at 1.28% of that same areas total power consumption for the day, and shows those more than 1000 towers running at a daily CF of 10.75%.

                At 1PM, those more than 1000 wind towers were generating 80MW, which means that around 30 to 35 of them were actually turning. The total power consumption at 1PM was 24,000MW. so at that time Wind was providing 0.33% of actual consumption at a CF of 3.18%.

                If the cost of these more than 1000 towers didn’t make you cry, all you could do would be to laugh.

                Amazing how actual data shows how ridiculous these things really are.

                Hey, some might say I’m cherry picking but this is indicative. There are days when they may actually make up to a CF of 35%, but for every good day, there’s one just as bad as this.

                Power is needed at a constant rate, and with days like this, that is not very constant at all.

                Tony.


                Report this

                110

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                A quarter? New CCGT construction cost is in the ballpark of $500 USD per kw, so that much cold hard cash would construct an CCGT plant in the order of seven 500 Mw units.
                (in the US or Japan at least)


                Report this

                40

              • #
                ianl8888


                the 32 new conventional plant projects current in Germany (not all will be built)

                And those that are built will use peat as a raw fuel (15-16MJ/kg, ~75% water). Each will need ~6 million tonne/yr of peat to maintain even spinning reserve for 850MWh

                As noted before, the Achilles Heel of CAGW


                Report this

                60

              • #
                A. Sceptic

                The fact is, Graeme, wind power is reliable. I suspect the concept your are failing to grasp is the concept of intermittence, and that intermittence doesn’t produce the effect you assert.

                And Tony, another amazing fact is that wind power is now far cheaper per MWh to invest in than is coal.

                People like you have always existed – catastrophists who predict all sorts of problems whenever new technology rears its head. Meanwhile the real world moves on and continues to embrace advances in technology, despite the luddites.


                Report this

                026

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                A. Sceptic.

                “wind power is now far cheaper per MWh to invest in than is coal”.

                Rubbish, the cost per MW of nominal capacity is lower, helped by turbine manufacturers in financial difficulties, but you completely miss Tony’s and my points. A coal fired station of 2000MW capacity WILL DELIVER 2000MWh every hour if you need. 2000MW of wind turbines NEVER delivers 2000MWh. The yearly average is around 23-27% of nominal capacity, although a little higher if only the best sites are in use, as in Australia.
                Even at the best sites you need 3 times the nominal capacity in wind turbines to deliver an average amount of electricity close to that of a coal fired station, but some of that will be delivered when not wanted. That makes wind power far more expensive than coal.
                And I haven’t included the cost of running power lines from Woop Woop.

                You missed out 3 other fallacies about wind power.
                1. Wind turbines are getting cheaper to build. Not since about 2002.
                2. As wind turbines get bigger, they will be cheaper per MW capacity. Only believed by those who know nothing about the strength of materials.
                3. Even if individual wind farms vary, all we have to do is build more wind farms and we will get a smoother supply of electricity. Well, there have been at least 4 studies that show it’s not true. Wind farms in Scotland and East Germany (around 1200 km distance) show very similar behaviour. Yes, there is a gap of hours as wind patterns work there way across, but over a month the correlation is very strong. In other words, if you have a lousy month for wind in Scotland, you’ll have a lousy month of supply from (east) Germany, which will have to be supplied by conventional means.
                Germany has got 20,000 wind turbines installed, and yet has 32 conventional plants in the planning or construction phase, all to cope with the difficulties from shutting down most of their nuclear plants, AND the problems with wind supply. (5 plants are specifically for coping with the deficiencies of wind).

                What is this “concept of intermittence”? A quick google search indicates it has something to do with dieting or prostate cancer, which I suspect wasn’t your meaning. If you mean that wind power is intermittent, that is the major objection Tony and I have about it. Also that of the Polish Government, who are refusing Germany access to their power grid for the output from the giant new Baltic wind farms. the latter, by the way, are all new large turbines which are “proving to be more expensive and less reliable than estimated”.

                The varying supply from wind is a problem for any power grid, where a tenth of a second shortage is a disaster (blackout). Sure, there are problems with conventional supply which is why ‘rolling reserve’ is in use, but these are to cover individual catastrophic failure. The sudden slow down or startup of a large wind supply is difficult to balance with only hydro and OCGT suitable. Even the Danish wind industry admits that it wouldn’t exist but for the Norwegian hydroelectric scheme. We don’t have a large hydro scheme in Australia.


                Report this

                180

              • #
                A. Sceptic

                …and the French grid would have experienced blackout in the middle of each summer had they not imported power from the renewable-supplied German grid.
                Tony’s point is easily addressed if he simply multiplies one side of his mis-comparison by the appropriate factor to make it meaningful. Yes, 1 Battersea = 1,000 wind generators. (Except the wind generators don’t need daily trainloads of coal to keep them running.)
                Also, his “power is needed at a constant rate” is clearly not a statement made by somebody who has even the first clue about electricity markets.

                Your supposed “fallacies” seem to be the desperate invention of a political lobby trying to protect their industry. Over the last 5 years, costs in the USA have fallen by 30%. This is a continuation of a long-term trend going back several decades.
                (Why do you cherry-pick 2002 as your start date? An honest supplier of information would not do that. 2002 represents a peak in cost/MWh, using that as your start date gives a very false representation of the trajectory of wind power costs.)

                If you are talking about intermittence, why do you misuse the wrong word by calling it “unreliability”?
                Answer: you are pushing the opinion of a lobby.

                I am therefore sceptical of what you have to say about this topic.
                I might rely on professionals instead:
                eg,
                http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2012.pdf
                or
                http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06/australia-wind-energy-cheaper-than-coal-natural-gas-bnef-says.html


                Report this

                011

              • #

                God how I hate giving these green urgers Oxygen.
                A. Skeptic says this:

                Also, his “power is needed at a constant rate” is clearly not a statement made by somebody who has even the first clue about electricity markets.

                Take this link and scroll down to the third graph. The black line is the total power consumption across most of Australia. Note the low point, in this case, 18,000MW. Draw a line across the page, and see that amount of power is required CONSTANTLY, 24 hours of every day, 24/7/365 and has been at that level for the four years of graphs at this site, and has been thereabouts since power was introduced, at least 60% of total power consumption across the Country, and that 60% is the same for virtually every place that has electricity connected, towns cities, States, Countries, not just Australia, but for the whole World. CONSTANTLY. 60%, or for this covered area 18,000MW.

                Now scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the second from the bottom right hand graph, showing Wind Power delivery (blue line) as opposed to Total consumption. (red line)

                Eye opening eh!

                That is constant power delivery required.

                Please go away.

                Tony.


                Report this

                130

              • #
                Heywood

                “I might rely on professionals instead”

                Like some journalist from Bloomberg News??

                Interesting article. They actually imply that renewables are only “cheaper” because of the artificial raising of fossil fuel prices due to the carbon (dioxide) tax. Renewables also enjoy healthy subsidies. Don’t give me the usual BS about coal being subsidised more than renewables. Renewables are subsidised 3 times more than coal on a MWh produced basis.


                Report this

                80

              • #
                Heywood

                TonyfromOZ,

                Do you have a link or data which discusses the difference in coal required at a coal fueled power plant to produce power VS having it idle at running reserve?

                I was just reading an article about wind which discusses the “Dispatchability” of wind power ie. the ability of a power plant to be
                turned on quickly to a desired level of output. I would assume that a coal power plant would take an eternity to start from completely stopped so in order to maintain its dispatchability, it would be desirable to have it spun up just in case. I would also assume that to keep that generator rotor spinning at running reserve would not use much less coal then if it was providing power.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Geoff Sherrington

                Here’s a graph from UK, not cherry picked, with data taken until the last day before publication:

                http://www.geoffstuff.com/Irregular%20windJ.jpg

                Are you trying to tell me that by combining numerous graphs like this you will get a straight line? You might, if your scope covers the globe. But in UK, the whole of the country can be at a coincident low in wind just as the coldest term hits and you need power the most. So, the spinning reserve has to be almost as large as the windmill supply and working constantly, since a sudden drop in windmill output can bring down a whole grid.

                What is the urge for such wasteful duplication?


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                A. Sceptic

                I have looked at your 2 links.
                The Fraunhofer one is too much detail to comment here, except that those renewables don’t seem to be value for money at all. Their claims for electricity exported seem to be at odds with the claimed exports (to Germany) of nuclear power from the Czech Republic and France to make up for the closure of much of the german nuclear plants. If the germans were exporting so much power, I wonder why they restarted 2 nuclear plants?

                The Bloomberg one makes me wonder what fact checking they ever use. Their figures are based on heroic assumptions.

                You would appear to me to be very trusting but mathematically challenged.
                You may not agree, but at least you should admit that if wind power is cheaper than coal fired, there is no need for a carbon tax or other subsidies for renewals.
                I look forward to your campaign against them.


                Report this

                60

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Tony, I am inherently suspicious of windmills, because as a photographer, I just have to take a shot of a windmill farm to show that nothing is turning. To see something turning, you need a secret weapon, the video camera. How can people put such investment into machinery whose proof depends on a particular type of photography?
          Which reminds me of a girl I once knew, in front of the camera…..


          Report this

          50

    • #

      The difference between CF in renewable vs reliable power generation is that in renewables, the CF is dominated by (lack of) availability of electricity when there is a demand whereas with the reliables, the CF is dominated almost entirely by the need for electricity.

      A low CF in reliables indicates plentiful reserves to supply growing energy needs for a developing and increasingly-prosperous society whereas a low CF in renewables is a reminder of the waste in capital, materials, unnecessary despoiling of the environment; and energy starvation.

      There was an article on the availability of renewable energy mentioned on EIKE including a very clear graphic (Diagramm 1:) that shows demand and the supply of wind and PV solar into the grid over a period of 3 months. Although the sum of nameplate capacity (62 MW) is way above baseload of about 34MW, the renewables are never enough to fill demand; because they don’t respond to demand.

      The sum of the two renewables may be 64,000 MW on paper; but the actual delivery has been as low as 141 MW recently (Diagramm 6); at a time when Germany needed about 60,000 MW (a Sunday).


      Report this

      70

      • #
        A. Sceptic

        er…except for UNreliable nuclear, which has to be switched off at times of highest summertime demand due to unavailability of sufficient water at the correct temperature….

        The fact is, all power-generating systems have advantages and disadvantages.
        The coal industry is desperate to continue enjoying a subsidy in the form of being able to externalise the cost of producing CO2, hence its persistence in funding nonsense and propaganda to confuse the unsceptical.


        Report this

        026

        • #

          except for UNreliable nuclear, which has to be switched off at times of highest summertime demand due to unavailability of sufficient water at the correct temperature….

          You will find that the exit temperature of the coolant water from the nuclear power plant (NPP) is limited to an arbitrary level; which requires a reduction in energy production if the water too warm to sustain full power generation. The NPP do not have to be switched off because the cooling water isn’t cool enough.

          The same is true for any other type of thermal power plant. They have to reduce output when their outlet temperature exceeds an arbitrary limit. The laws of thermodynamics are no different. All thermal power stations have to be able to reject heat in order to make the generators spin and produce electricity. Similarly, plants which take water to evaporate via a cooling tower, are limited by the amount of water that they are allowed to draw.

          Gas-turbine power stations; typically gas-fired and often used for peaking loads are especially sensitive to inlet AIR temperature. Air heats up much more quickly than water on a hot day. The hotter it gets, the less heat can be added via the combustors so power output drops. If it’s part of a combined cycle system, the cold “sink” provided for the steam at the exist of the steam turbine is also limited by the exit water temperature.

          Earlier in April, I read of a fault at a nuclear power station which destroyed all life along a section of the mountain stream Spöl, located within a Swiss National Park.

          Why is that destruction not all over the news? Well, because I(*) cheated and replaced “hydro-electric” with “nuclear” in the original report.

          (*)Authors Dirk Maxeiner und Michael Miersch

          You jabber about “externalising the costs of producing CO2″. And a subsidy which does not exist. Memes that probably resonate unattenuated within the cavity between your ears. You use a nom de plume of “A. Sceptic”. You spread mis-information. You demonstrate a complete lack of understanding the thermodynamics of thermal power generation in your criticism of nuclear power generation. You do all that because it’s easy. Because you believe yourself to be anonymous. Because you think you will not face being challenged and held to account for the rubbish you spout.

          The Internet never forgets.


          Report this

          250

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Excellent rebuttal, complete with real information instead of distortions and deceit.


            Report this

            140

          • #
            Ace

            Bernd, I wouldnt waste my time on the twit.Anyone who can write the line you quoted him saying is such an idiot that it doesnt require answering, just repeating.

            The very concept of “externalised costs” is meaningless in the absence of “externalised benefits”, which, as far as I am aware, is a phrase that has never even been written before.


            Report this

            100

            • #
              A. Sceptic

              I see – another insult. You may find it more profitable to inform yourself *before* making your apparently uninformed contributions here:

              In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.

              You’re welcome.


              Report this

              01

          • #
            A. Sceptic

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather

            The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production. The weather, blamed for deaths and disruption across much of the continent, has caused dramatic rises in the temperature of rivers used to cool the reactors, raising fears of mass deaths for fish and other wildlife.

            Spain shut down the Santa Maria de Garona reactor on the River Ebro, one of the country’s eight nuclear plants which generate a fifth of its national electricity. Reactors in Germany are reported to have cut output, and others in Germany and France have been given special permits to dump hot water into rivers to avoid power failures. France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages.

            So, your handwaving aside, nuclear power stations, in the real world, are forced to switch off when it’s too hot.


            Report this

            016

            • #
              Ace

              Septics dumb argument like saying “cars can only ever carry two passengers” and using the two seat Ferrari as “proof” of that contention.

              How has he never heard of nuclear ships and submarines? Oh wait, we need to provide “data: in proof of the fact before stating such things exist.

              They dont use external water sources for cooling. Nor do reactors on spacecraft. Where is that river in space they’ve been using to cool Russian nuclear stateliness all these years.

              Oh yeah, which river did they use to cool the reactors flown aboard aircraft (eg, the NB36 and its Tupelov equivalent).

              You are a real dumb repeater of Eco-Fascist argu-points brown-shirt boy.


              Report this

              70

            • #

              You thick dill, Septic. As I pointed out earlier: All thermal power stations have to “cut” their output when their cooling water gets too hot. That is a problem if river flows are reduced (vis diversion to “environmental flows” upstream), environmental limits on exit temperature tightened after plant construction is approved or if the plant is required to produce more electricity than called for in the original design.

              “Nuclear” is only mentioned selectively by anti-nuclear luddites. And repeated by the vacuous.

              Background reading material
              for the literate.


              Report this

              90

              • #
                A. Sceptic

                So those power stations – the ones that have to switch off when there’s a heat wave or a drought – are unreliable in a way that windmills aren’t.

                I guess this just goes to show that intermittence is only mentioned selectively by anti-renewable luddites. And repeated by the vacuous.


                Report this

                02

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          A problem of low water flow to one french plant during a dry year. Perhaps more a question of planning than operation.


          Report this

          90

    • #
      Edgar09

      Tony
      I am particularly interested in that bit of information regarding subsidies being locked in to the CF (as claimed by the wind farm developer) regardless of its eventual, actual performance. Can it really be that easy? This is not something that is widely understood. It does, however, explain why the developers of a project near me refuse to release the wind data from the site. They claim the CF will be 40% which I am sure is an exaggeration. But how does one prove this, particularly as the turbine model they are proposing is 152m high? How does anyone know what the wind is at the hub height unless one has 100m high test masts?
      I would be very grateful if you could direct me to any published material which backs up your claim. That would be a start for those of us continually brushed off with excuses like “that information [the wind data] is commercial-in-confidence and won’t be released.” Even the people at the Dept of Planning NSW weren’t interested in testing the developer’s figures despite the fact that their own Director General’s guidelines state that these figures have to be “substantiated” in the developer’s Environmental Assessment- they weren’t of course. Whatever happened to due diligence? This is our money after all!
      Thankyou.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    I can’t understand why anyone would invest in these renewable energy companies.
    1. TORRENS ENERGY LIMITED down to 4.1 cents and still sliding.
    2. Carnegie Wave Energy down to 3.1 cents and heading down.
    3. GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES LIMITED Flannering at the bottom – kicked off the ASX
    4. PANAX GEOTHERMAL LIMITED sitting doing nothing at 3 cents?

    All of these companies had their snout in the GREEN Money trough, all have blown million of Australian Taxpayers money, and also shareholders as well.

    They all should reinvest in oil/gas fields, or even a coal mining?
    As one stock holder quoted

    They would probably have more share price increase if they started burning rubber tyres and harnessed the heat from that as an energy source.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Steve

      I dropped a six figure sum on Infigen energy. Wish A sceptic had bought all my shares. He,s so committed to the cause. Anyone care to guess what I think about green energy.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Nice One

    Renewables Investment plummets 22% in first quarter of 2013
    Renewables Investment plummets 40% in first quarter of 2009

    So?


    Report this

    020

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Sooo… Jo wanted a cherry cheery news story of sustainable renewables being reappraised as unsustainable by the the VC market, as we always knew they would be once the facts caught up with the finance.

      Plus it’s been a slow news week on the global warming front with another particular unrelated overseas event capturing all the attention for a couple of days.
      The ongoing descent of the USA into a tyrannical police state through government orchestrated false flag attacks certainly qualifies as “letting a good civilisation go to waste” (though there may be a few legless Afghan kids that disagree), and informing the world of the suspicious crowd-sourced evidence that the FBI won’t address in the Boston bombing would also qualify as “tackling tribal groupthink”, but there’s only so many battles one can fight at once and it still isn’t trendy to question the government too closely. Certainly not the USA government and certainly not about anything important.

      In the lyrics of 10CC

      Well I don’t understand
      why you called in the National Guard.
      When Uncle Sam is the one
      Who belongs in the exercise yard.
      Load up, load up, load up with rubber bullets


      Report this

      71

      • #
        Dr Faustus

        “government orchestrated false flag attacks”

        You have to expect a certain number of ‘government orchestrated false flag attacks’ in every police state.
        It’s how we control the proles…


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      So?

      So, the truth is now evident, regardless of what you think, Nice One.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Belfast

    Tony

    So, here we are being forced to accept power that cannot be delivered on the time basis required, and at the same time being coerced into dumping the only plants that CAN actually deliver power on the time basis required.

    That is a neat, incontrovertible, unarguable summary.

    I am going to pretend that I said it first.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    I pray that the solar and wind scamsters investors lose their shirt.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Joe V.

      Perhaps they’ll learn to invest in quality next time. The wisdom of some investments is timeless.
      Monckton Shirts

      There are still a few bargains left.
      Be very smart when looking for that new job too & they’ll last rather longer than your average windmill investment.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Streetcred

      LOL, the brokers and fund managers don’t care … it’s not their money and they get to clip the ticket going in and coming out.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    mark

    And to think that Stern guy has been shooting off about how the hydrocarbon industry will lose a third of their value as green energy takes off…rendering all the oil and coal in the ground as worthless. Meanwhile, GB is down graded to AA+.
    .


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Mike

    The money would be better off spent on all alternative medicine, for the placebo alone.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Tim

    They weren’t defeated by ongoing battles to prove scientific fraud, but in the end the war was won by a money supply based on economic fraud.

    ‘Hoist by one’s own petard.’ (Injured by the device that you intended to use to injure others.)


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Neville

    The Bolt Report will be discussing the co2 market collapse in Europe at 10am tomorrow on channel 10.
    Hopefully Greg Hunt will also make mention of the cost to the OZ budget.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bolt_report_tomorrow12


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Over time, propaganda fails to work.

    There is no such thing as renewable energy.
    There is no such thing as clean energy.
    There is no such thing as green energy.
    There is no such thing as free energy.

    Joe Public is not totally stupid and eventually sees that all these terms are just propaganda. The scam starts to become widely known for what it is and it collapses. The sooner the better and we can get back to “real” energy systems that actually work.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    ExWarmist

    First it will decline slowly, then it will accelerate – the collapse in the end will be epic.


    Report this

    80

  • #
  • #
    A. Sceptic

    What’s with the weird religious-style language used in this post?

    Why does your disapproval of modern technology have to be couched in biblical-looking language?


    Report this

    020

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      A skeptic would have read further than the first two sentences.
      That means that after this sentence I can say what I like and he/she will never see it.

      Hey look! A warmist troll pretending to be a skeptic!
      Busted!


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Joe V.

      If you can’t argue the substance, go for the style. That’s all the easily led will have noticed anyway.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      As I said, you can call it anything you want to. But when it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and goes quack, quack — then it’s a duck. Oh! And it even looks like a duck too! :-(


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Streetcred

      Let me guess … a teenager trying to act the smart ass. This is a forum for adults, teenager, rack off !


      Report this

      50

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      Mr Sceptic,Sir, In all of our history only those things that are beneficial, self sustaining and worthwhile economically are adopted. That once it was said that our major cities would be uninhabitable soon because of the level of horse shit, proves a point that invention tends to follow a pressing need, and thus we have motor vehicles, none of which were mandated or subsidised by tax payers dollars.

      If and when the need arises for an alternate source of power, it will not be mandated by government, it will be invented, cost effective and useful. The stone age ended not from a lack of stones, it was invention. I can only look on and laugh at your naivity as the AGW falls in a hole of global cooling and the tax payers dollars are removed from supporting such schemes as wind mills and solar farms. Good luck with your next power bill.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Greebo

      Why does Mr/s A.Sceptic have two avatars? Different folk, perhaps? Or a con?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    What is modern about wind turbines?

    Windmill were common in medieval times, but their unreliability led to water and tide mills being preferred.
    Those dutch wind mills were used for draining water so the rate or timing of work wasn’t important.

    Wind turbines were introduced in the USA mid west in the 1920′s. They pumped water into an overhead tank, with the overflow to stock watering troughs. At the base of the tank was a small water turbine which generated DC power, and any excess to charge a bank of batteries. The batteries (mostly) provided a supply when the windmill didn’t pump. They were successful until connection with a wide area grid became available, when they were promptly discarded. Despite them including 2 reserves of power source during wind lulls, and a means of handling excess wind power. It seems that those farm mechanics in the 1920′s knew more about wind power than modern public servants.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    clipe

    Something from the lefter-left-leaning Toronto Star.

    U.S. Energy Department ‘made a mistake’

    http://www.wheels.ca/news/bad-karma-fisker-lost-557000-on-every-car-it-built-report-says/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    tckev

    So how many $BILLIONS has all this FREE energy cost?
    You can’t beat lefties for stupid thinking when spending other peoples’ money.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    john robertson

    There is one form of “renewable energy” I find acceptable, that of hamster wheels driven by convicted eco-zealots.
    As the world has wasted massive wealth and opportunity due to the actions of some stunningly stupid people, these same people shall make good.
    Course at x cents/kWh I think it might be life sentences.
    This is the classic win win, one we find a socially acceptable use for these parasites and we have a source of electricity that is free of the limitations of wind and solar.
    If the greens believed their own BS, why they would line up to participate.
    Why it would cure the obesity problem these same do-gooders are so concerned with.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Derek Hawkins

    After reading all the above comments regarding renewable energy (and its limitations), I am amazed that reference to a Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)as an alternate base power source has not been raised. LFTR is not a new science it has been around since the 1950′s but was rejected by USA because they could not enhance the raw materials to produce nuclear weapons. USA, UK, China, India and Russia are all revisiting LFTR as a reliable, safe source of base power.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    dp

    I live near Seattle in Washington State in the US and it is most famous for being located in the Pacific North Wet and that spelling is correct. We get a lot of rain but our state government has deemed rain and hence hydro power not to be a renewable resource. If it were renewable we would probably not qualify for copious federal grants to develop renewable energy and so we are converting from that unreliable non-renewable rain-based hydro power stuff to wind – the stuff greeny dreams are made of. I wish I could take credit for making up most of this because it is some funny stuff, but it’s all true. It has been raining non-reneweable rain non-stop for about 6 weeks, now, and we’re all ready for some global warming.

    http://theolympiareport.com/emphasis-on-renewables-ignores-glut-of-natural-gas-lawmakers-told/

    Washington State is home to Grand Coulee Dam which is the largest hydro facility in the US. We have a lot of other very large hydro generation sites all along the Columbia river and other rivers. We have so much Hydro we shuttered and dismantled all our nuclear generators. Our state is a net producer of electric power for neighboring states. We probably have enough standing water in this state to affect the location of the Earth’s poles.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Re your link:

      Howard Schwartz says “Renewables like wind and solar often have to be generated far from power-hungry population centers and only produce energy when the wind blows or sun shines. Nor are they cost-competitive”.

      Sound common sense; he will have to go. sarc/

      dp: At least in Washington State you have enough hydro power to make wind power usable. All wind will do, is destabilise your electricity grid and push up your power bills.
      Seriously this scam can’t go on much longer, not only will the higher electricity bills make the Governor less popular, but California will be screaming for more hydroelectricity to make up for the shortfalls from their wacko “green” schemes.

      Perhaps you should start writing to local newspapers, politicians asking why cheap hydro which doesn’t emit CO2, has to be replaced by expensive wind power? Try to smile when you see the ridiculous replies.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      dp,

      And so it goes — step by step we march from ignorant to stupid and then to chaos. :-(


      Report this

      40

  • #
    ColdinOz

    Off subject here but Murray Salby did a presentation at the Helmudt Schmidt university. Does anyone know if there is a link to that presentation. If you do Jo can you please post it. Thanks ColdinOz


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #

    Everything you need to know about wind energy in one easy lesson: As soon as steam engines(even early primitive ones) were fitted to boats and ships, sail became rapidly obsolete except for fun. That’s even when there is no real energy conversion happening with no variable speed rotating machinery, power transmission etc.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Beth cooper

    And yet it
    …doesn’t turn

    H/t Gallileo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    Free energy investment down, if it is free no one has to invest in it, the problem and the only problem with free energy is that it is expensive. If it was free we could quickly devise ways of overcoming its glaringly obvious faults.

    All of the green schemes for main stream power production to date have shown as much promise for base load power as a scheme to make water run up hill. It has been noted that running water down hill for power production is not considered green.

    Thus I shall apply for a grant to produce electricity by running water uphill, this will appease everybody and the stupidist thing is I would likely get a grant, such is this non-sense.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Greebo

    Meanwhile, over at Bolta’s blog, where GetUp! is struggling for a toe hold, Andrew links to this thread and this get’s posted:

    Andrew, it seems JoNova is indulging in a little cherry picking here. Furthermore don’t you feel citing sources which have definite leanings is less than objective?

    Tony N of Joondanna WA (Reply)
    Mon 22 Apr 13 (12:35pm)

    The link is below, I hope.. I’ve challenged Tony N to post here, but I have no wish to turn blue.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/17/china-leads-the-renewable-energy-world


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Edward Bancroft

    I had no idea that green ‘investment’ had been running at the very high figure of about $200billion a year. Which explains why there is so much traction amongst its proponents, despite evidence to the contrary that it is not actually solving any dire problem. With that kind of momentum the amount poured into it is likely to remain high for a while, which only makes the AGW movement’s final denouement much the worse for us all. No doubt that even then those ‘investments’ will still be sucking up subsidies for years to come, with no recriminations, nor any sign of contrition from those responsible.

    AGW, the blame-free profitable career in the new science of atmospheric economics.


    Report this

    00

  • #