JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

A bonfire of waste: $100 billion burnt by big-government renewables mismanagement

Renewables, are not just inefficient, unnecessary, and deadly to wildlife, but they were also a disaster of planning and management. The list of dollars and euros destroyed in the Glorious Renewables Quest has gone “nuclear”. The World Economic Forum estimates $100 billion Euro has been wasted, but its even worse than it looks. I had to read their opening sentence twice. I thought it read “European countries could have saved approximately $100 billion if each country had invested in the most efficient energy source.” I was thinking they could have saved that sort of money by using coal instead of windmills… but no, those huge savings would be over and above those ones. The WEF is talking about money saved if “badly managed renewables, had been “well managed ones”.

The inefficiency here is the scale only big-government could achieve.

The Energy Collective

Europe Loses Billions in Badly Sited Renewable Power Plants

European countries could have saved approximately $100 billion if each country had invested in the most efficient capacity given their renewable energy resources, that is, by installing wind turbines in windier countries and solar power plants in sunnier places.

But why would we be surprised?

The people who pushed renewables onto Europe were never doing it for pragmatic or practical reasons. The numbers never made sense on any level — not for electricity-made, not for global “cooling”, nor species saved, nor jobs created.  The numbers didn’t work for “energy independence” and they certainly didn’t add up to a profit.

Since the point wasn’t about electricity, or the environment, it didn’t really matter if the solar panels were not in sunny spots, and the wind towers were not in windy places. If those things mattered, the Greens would have been apoplectic at this waste. How many children could have got access to clean water instead? All of them. WHO estimates the cost of clean water globally at $30b.

The sticker shock of the odd 100b has worn off, but we’re talking of one hundred thousand million Euro.

The WEF are a pro-renewables lot too. They want renewables to work.

The $100b figure was not surprisingly, not in the executive summary, but on page 14.

 For example, it is obvious to most European citizens that southern Europe has the lion’s share of the solar irradiation while northern Europe has the wind.

But the EU’s investment in renewables does not reflect this: where Spain has about 65% more solar irradiation than Germany (1750 vs 1050 kWh/m2), Germany installed about 600% more solar PV capacity (33 GW vs 5 GW). In contrast, whereas Spain has less wind than countries in the north, it has still installed 23 GW of wind capacity.

Such suboptimal deployment of resources is estimated to have cost the EU approximately $100 billion more than if each country in the EU had invested in the most efficient capacity given its renewable resources. And by looking across borders for the optimum deployment of renewable
resources (with associated physical interconnections), the EU could have saved a further $40 billion.

And if the EU had coordinated across boundaries (isn’t that what the EU is for) they could have saved another $40b on top of that.

h/t tovthe GWPF

REFERENCE

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) latest “Future of Electricity” Report

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (80 votes cast)
A bonfire of waste: $100 billion burnt by big-government renewables mismanagement, 8.8 out of 10 based on 80 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n9p5gv9

122 comments to A bonfire of waste: $100 billion burnt by big-government renewables mismanagement

  • #
    FrankH

    You start off talking about 100 billion euros and end up “talking of one hundred thousand million dollars”. The way the Euro is going it will soon reach parity with the American dollar but currently it’s sitting at around $1.14 so we’re actually talking about $114 billion.

    N.B. Nobody likes a smart ar… erm… smart alec so feel free to delete this post when/if you correct the article. :-)

    43

  • #
    James Bradley

    I read the pece from The Energy Collective.

    I believe the point made about waste due to poorly managed and poorly utilised alternative energy assets is an attempt to explain away and emeliorate growing world wide concerns that solar and wind generation are just another monorail scam.

    342

  • #
    Yonniestone

    $100 billion is just another figure to the New Green Order, why would any anti capitalist care about good and fair financial management for who they’re supposed to represent?, these are people who will print more money or invent a new worthless currency not for prosperity but deconstruction.

    To them the end game is total control over a manageable population, the power and material gains from others servitude will be the priceless treasures of this order, this is why the battle for positions near the pyramids peak is so fierce and natural selection should produce the strongest despots as a result.

    302

  • #
    Manfred

    ‘Transitioning to a new paradigm’ p. 9 of The Report.

    However, these new technologies also bring new challenges. In the early stages, they cost more than the fossil fuels that they replace and require back-up, but costs decline as the technologies are deployed at scale and manufacturers gain experience.

    $100 billion burnt by big-government renewables mismanagement

    Sounds like the market is being groomed to come up with another $100B, to provide the ‘fix’ in order to fulfill the new definition of industry ‘success‘:

    Success in the electricity sector has long been defined by ensuring a secure and reliable supply of electricity at a low cost, enabled by investment attracted to low risk, stable returns. But in the last decade, the global consensus on the importance of reducing human-made carbon emissions has highlighted the need to also decarbonize the electricity sector, the second largest contributor to carbon emissions after transportation.

    God help us.

    282

  • #
    tom0mason

    Nice to see that the UK is doing its bit in keeping these losses maximized -

    Daily Mail | 11 Feb 2015 | Ben Spencer | The £400million feed-in frenzy |
    ˛
    Green energy firms accused of making wind turbines LESS efficient so they appear weak enough to win small business funding.
    Report identified gaping loophole used by ‘more than 100′ wind turbines — Small turbines earn ‘feed-in tariffs’ to subsidise cost of green power But large firms are downgrading turbines to earn same fund, it is claimed this practice could cost the country £400million over the next 20 years Government launched investigation but claims numbers are ‘incorrect’…
    .
    Green energy companies are scooping up millions of pounds in subsidies by artificially capping the power their wind turbines produce, according to a damning report.
    A gaping loophole in the Government’s renewable energy ‘feed-in’ system means firms can get more money for producing less power…
    Feed-in tariffs, the guaranteed price paid for green energy, were originally designed to boost small-scale community wind farms, with smaller turbines receiving a higher payment per unit of energy.
    .
    But an investigation by the IPPR thinktank has revealed that big companies are taking advantage of that system by intentionally limiting the power they produce to qualify for the higher rate…
    For more —
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2948209/The-400million-feed-frenzy-Green-energy-firms-accused-making-wind-turbines-efficient-appear-weak-win-small-business-fund.html

    162

  • #

    As you point out, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For instance, in the UK it is estimated that upgrading the National Grid to cope with all the wind farms will be £100bn (A$200bn). Back in 2008 when the UK Government was passing The Climate Change Act, after much pestering Peter Lilley MP found out the estimated cost in 2020 would be A$35bn a year for a country with just 62 million people.

    182

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      KevinMarshall:

      $565 per head of population PER YEAR?

      And given the ability of the DEC to make an absolute of any project what would be the real cost? If I were planning UKIP’s advertising I think I would be emphasising those increased costs – ” the first cost is nothing, wait to they start gouging you”.

      172

  • #
    diogenese2

    I am beyond weeping at the sheer unreason of all this because it is entirely logical. In 2002 the UK government initiated the “renewables obligation” in response the EU 2000 target that 20% if all energy should come from “renewables”. That this was impossible without the destruction of the European economy and destitution of its citizens was of no consequence. The member states were tasked to comply, but not told how. Thus, since “biomass” is “renewable”, we now take wood felled in Dixie to burn in Yorkshire by the million tons.
    That the CO2 emitted will not be sequestered for the 50y it will take the trees to re-grow, is not material although thermageddon is only 35y away. Thus the inevitable fate of the “target” culture – meeting the target negates the prior objective of the target. 50 years in the NHS has ground that into me.
    I have always been puzzled why rational decision makers so frequently act contrary to their own interests (not withstanding the greed and mendacity that infects them). Earlier today I perused the report from COP20 Lima, which I can thoroughly recommend to those desirous to divest themselves of the will to live – it acts like a counter- Samaritan. Don’t despair Yonnie @ 2, total control my arse! These clowns are going nowhere – in fact I think they have achieved what they want – a perpetual immobile, they hav defied 2nd law. I believe that they actually welcome the “pause” as it delays, perhaps indefinitely, the need to reach any conclusion.
    One reported “triumph” sums up the show;
    “Nauru and Tuvalu submitted their instrument of acceptance to the Doha Amendment bringing the number of parties to 21″ noted – 144 are required to bring it into force.
    How gross – or as Sam Goldwyn would say ” its more than magnificent , its mediocre”.

    140

  • #
    handjive

    UNFCCC Chief: Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

    “The United Nation’s top climate change official Christiana Figueres announced this week that the group is actively working to “intentionally transform” the world’s economic development model, a task she called the “most difficult” one the group has ever undertaken.

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels Tuesday.”
    . . .
    Straight from the horse’s mouth.

    240

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo,

    More on power

    “If solar can’t make a go of it in Arizona, yeah, it’s totally feasible in Saskatchewan, right Suzuki?”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/shining-light-i.html#comments

    70

  • #
    Matty

    OPM tends to have that effect. One number doesn’t seem a lot different from another when it’s all other people’s money.

    Our company finance director was encouraging everyone this week to spend the company’s money like it was our own.

    I doubt he realises how that could be misunderstood by some.

    50

  • #
    bemused

    Someone profited from all of this.

    141

    • #

      No, it was not profit. It was theft by deception on the part of the seller and extortion on the part of the buyer (the government). Actual profit is earned by willing seller selling a value to a willing buyer that cost less than the sale price. The buyer got a good deal because he wanted the value more than the money he spent. The seller got a good deal because he got paid more than the value cost him to produce. Both won in the deal and wealth was produced – meaning more wealth exists after the transaction than did before.

      The transactions discussed in this list is anything but a willing buyer parting with HIS money to pay for a value he wants. It is the government taking wealth from those who produce and giving it to the sellers for values the government wants. The original producer of the wealth did not want the values or he would have bought them without the government being in the middle forcing the transaction at the point of a gun. THIS has nothing to do with profit. At best it is a forced transfer of wealth such that the wealth is diminished and destroyed. There is less wealth after the transaction than before. What little wealth exists after the transaction was simply transferred and not earned.

      One of the better ideas that we need to uphold is to use words according to what they refer to in the real world and not according to how the con artists (governments et.al.) of the world want you to use them. That way we can actually start thinking and communicating much more clearly and effectively.

      181

      • #
        Mark D.

        Yes Lionell theft by any definition I understand. It would help if we all had the stones to insist others use clear language.

        Likewise get appropriately angry when they won’t.

        80

      • #
        bemused

        To Profit/Profited:

        An advantageous gain or return; benefit.

        or:

        To derive advantage; benefit: profiting from the other team’s mistakes.

        The English language is quite flexible. :)

        50

        • #

          Especially if you drop context. A word does not mean its definition. It is a concrete reference to a concept, the content of which is all the attributes to which the concept applies.

          Not all monetary gain is profit and not all profit is monetary gain. However, profit must be earned for it to be profit and it must be a net gain in value for all parties involved in the VOLUNTARY transaction. This is as I explained in my earlier post.

          There are other words/concepts that encompass the other forms of gain that are essentially unearned and, except for voluntary gifts, represent a destruction of value. Especially the violation of the rights of one or more individuals involved directly and indirectly with the transaction.

          20

          • #
            bemused

            I’m afraid that I’m using the term in a non-economics 101 context. I’m fairly certain that most people would understand the intent of what I posted and not get swept up in semantics.

            Did someone receive an advantageous gain? Yes. Did someone receive advantageous gain from other’s mistakes? Yes. Ergo, ‘Someone profited from all of this.’ ;)

            The thing is, in order to educate the masses, it’s important to not turn them off with complicated language and language lessons.

            10

            • #
              bemused

              I might point out here that I’ve been trying to explain to many of my friends the extant errors and outright misrepresentations of noted climate ‘celebrities’ versus the observable facts et al. I try and do so by not belittling them or their ability to understand concepts, but simply by presenting to them a number of alternative views to what they hear from the MSM. In doing so, even the most hardened adherents have had pause to rethink their views and others have truly become sceptical.

              Learned sceptics should avoid high brow antics at all times. Sitting on one’s high horse and preaching semantics makes one no better than a climate worrier.

              10

            • #

              Thank you for admitting you dropped the context of the discussion. However, the consequences of that dropping are not without malignant effects.

              The so called complicated language lessons are a matter of life and death. Get the concepts that are the represented by the words right and you have a chance to live and thrive. Get them wrong and you won’t for very long.

              Reality is what it is and each and every one of us must act consistently with what reality actually is or we fail and die. If we don’t know what is so, we cannot be successful except by accident. Even then, only as long as there is other people’s profit available that we can consume.

              When you equate theft with profit, it is the concept of profit that becomes corrupted. It is the means by which a totally voluntary trade between willing individuals becomes suspect and all who participate in such transactions become criminals. Yet it is such transactions that keep us alive and thriving. This is as true for a complex technological civilization and it is for a primitive hunting and gathering tribe.

              The consequence of what you hold to be mere verbal imprecision causes the masses to know what is not so. They become totally ignorant of what it is that is keeping them alive. They then act against their best interests and participate in mass human sacrifice which ultimately includes themselves.

              In a very real sense, the existence of profit, correctly understood, is necessary to pay the costs of having a future. Without actual profit, the future is short and very brutish.

              10

              • #
                bemused

                I enjoy the discourse on this forum, but my concern is that it’s often so lacking CDF, that from a general public view it’s seen as, to quote Penny from the Big Bang Theory, ‘Jibber Jabber’. If preaching to the converted is your aim, then retire now, you have succeeded.

                However, if your aim is to educate those who actually have an affect on what can happen ie voters, try a different tact. The logical rigour of a Sheldon is not going to convince voters or anyone else about fallacies on global warming or anything else.

                00

  • #

    The Berlin-Brandenburg region has, along with Bavaria, one of the biggest uptakes of solar in the world. Brandenburg-Briest Solarpark, for a while the largest in Europe, lies at 52°26′12″N. By contrast, Senftenberg’s whopper lies at a toasty 51°31′N.

    Germany’s most northerly park, Rodenas, lies at 54°52′N. No, not a typo. That’s a 5 and a 4. From the same people who make Porsches and those great pressure cookers. Go figure.

    Jokes about inserting things where the sun don’t shine are apparently lost on German policy makers. In fact, the people behind Rodenas declare that the lack of sun just raises their efficiency bar.

    Can’t argue with that kind of logic. Tomorrow the world!

    181

    • #
      manalive

      Jokes about inserting things where the sun don’t shine are apparently lost on German policy makers …

      Ha, Germans have no sense of humour, that’s what makes them so funny.

      20

    • #

      Denmark’s runaway success in photovoltaic has required some of the finest and sharpest Wiki editing ever.

      Denmark had better watch out though. South Australia is starting to bid hard for the title of world’s most expensive electricity. It has the whirlygigs to get it all the way to the top.

      30

  • #
    JohnM

    It’s not the governments spending money obtained from something nebulous; it’s tax-payers’ money.

    91

    • #
      Dennis

      Too many people think that governments just have money to spend and do not think where the money comes from. An example was given by the late Margaret Whitlam when she appeared on the ABC production The Dismissal when she scoffed at her husband Gough and his “Comrades” in Labor Government who, she said, thought they had control of a bottomless pit of government money. And spent accordingly. If politicians like them, and we have recently experienced at least two more recent examples of money squandering, how can we expect the people to understand?

      71

      • #
        ROM

        Margaret Whitlam also said;
        We don’t need farmers.
        We can import all our food !

        Gough use to take her on his overseas trips because it was said, she was the only person who could kick start a Boeing 707

        10

  • #
    Neville

    And green dummies have doubled the co2 emissions of Brazil’s steel industry.
    You couldn’t make this stuff up. Who votes in these EU and Brazilian imbeciles?

    http://www.thegwpf.com/green-fools-double-co2-emissions-of-brazil-steel-industry/

    151

    • #
      bemused

      Since when do those on the Left and the Greens ever consider the unintended consequences of their actions?

      161

      • #
        ianl8888


        … unintended consequences

        Please don’t use that copout phrase

        The consequences are predictable, but these people are so bloody-minded that analytical predictability is akin to leprosy to them

        Whenever an NGO, or a politician, or a bureaucrat, claim that such-and-such consequences were unintended, ask them if they were unpredictable. It won’t make any material difference but there is satisfaction in exposing their vanity

        171

        • #
          bemused

          It’s not a cop out phrase. The Left and Greens never consider how their actions or proposals may affect other things. Yes, the alternative effects of those actions or proposals can be determined, estimated or played out; it’s that they don’t do this.

          That’s why I said the Left and Greens don’t ever consider the unintended consequences of their actions. They don’t want to know.

          81

          • #
            Mark D.

            Or more likely they lack comprehension. It requires thinking and comprehension to make them “intended” consequences. It’s worse than not wanting to know.

            40

    • #
      Dennis

      Listen not to what they say but watch what they do – former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello.

      71

    • #
      Annie

      Not us Neville…we have these unelected fools forced on to us.

      51

  • #
    Robert O

    At least the SA Premier is starting to talk some sense about a nuclear industry here. People say it’s costly, but at least it produces something significant unlike very costly subsidised green alternatives. The fundamental problem as I see it is our politicians are mainly lawyers, economists and the like, not engineers and scientists, and are gullible to thought bubbles such as “hot rocks”, pumping CO2 underground, AGW, as is the general public.

    90

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Politicians are also like the use of hot air.

      Take Jay Weatherall with a bit of salt, about a 5 ton truck worth. There is no way there will be a nuclear power plant in SA under the current arrangement. Nuclear plants run best and cheapest when running continuously near maximum output. With all the wind farms in SA changing output all the time, no-one is going to build one, and the State is close to broke anyway.

      My reading is that all this talk of the future is just to disguise another tax grab. Get rid of Stamp Duty (which they were supposed to do with the GST deal) and replace it with an annual Land Tax. That way people who might pay $12,000 once every 20 years will pay $1200 p.a. Indexed for inflation. And based on market value it will wipe out all the farmers, completing the aim of the Emergency Services Levy. ( for those not in SA farmers suddenly found themselves having to pay $3 – 5,000 extra per year for emergency services which they themselves had to provide through voluntary EFS or ambulance service).

      90

      • #
        Robert O

        Coal stations are same, burn about the same amount of coal flat-out, or banked down. France sells its excess power during the night to its neighbours to be efficient and not use the control rods to slow the reactors. Hydro can be started and stopped quickly.

        50

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          I am told that 2-3 reactors are used for load following. The rest run flat out as you say.

          The French sell electricity to Spain (hence Portugal), Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the UK, Germany (and through them barely possibly Austria, Czech Rep. Poland, and more likely Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and Andorra.

          Spain, Switzerland, Andorra, Austria, Germany, Sweden and Norway all have reasonably large hydro schemes so pumped storage using cheap power at night is attractive. The trouble is that when Danish and German wind farms run well, the price drops drastically, even to negative. Paying to get rid of surplus electricity is bad for the bottom line, but subsidies help wind farms survive.
          NO subsidies = NO renewables.

          60

          • #
            Robert O

            Hydro Tas. pumps water from Arthurs Lake up to the Great Lake, about 800 ft., so it can go through the Poatina station with its very large head (about 3000 ft.) The actual Great Lake has a limited catchment as well. (Historically there are photographs of materials being sledded across the ice for constructing the dam at the southern end of the Lake about circa 1916, and it hasn’t frozen since.) Rather than bank-down our coal stations at night could not some sites be found for pumped storage and small hydro stations?

            40

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Robert O:

              the idea of pumped storage is to absorb excess energy, which it gets cheap and sell it when the demand (and price) is high.
              Thus coal fired stations keep running at their most efficient rate, and the pumped storage comes on when demand is stretching the suppliers. So when German and Danish wind farms are busy, they have to get rid of the electricity somewhere, and Sweden and Norway get it to pump water uphill. That the wind farms will pay for this to be taken (i.e. get a negative price) is because they get a subsidy based on the amount generated.

              The Swedes and Norwegians are less than happy about these surges in electricity hence they offer negative prices at times. They make money when the wind isn’t blowing when they can charge above average prices. In Germany the huge jump in solar PV has made pumped storage unprofitable, as when the sun shines the PV solar dumps power into the grid just when pumped storage is profitable. Pumped storage is profitable when the sun doesn’t shine, but take out 20-30% of anticipated turnover will hurt their bottom line, so many pumped storage units are shutting down operations in Germany. That means that older coal fired stations are kept going on standby (by law) for when renewables fail to deliver. So not only do they have higher emissions when supplying electricity, but they also emit quite a bit while on standby. So German emissions are rising despite all that money spent on installing wind and solar.

              And to answer your question, yes, more hydro and pumped storage is useful, and more so if dills insist on introducing variable and unpredictable sources of supply onto the grid.

              30

              • #
                Robert O

                Graeme, thanks for your comments; I like the word dill, most appropriate and one could use it instead of green in many cases. The discussion seems to be heading to the Renewable Energy Targets which seem to be a dog’s breakfast. Probably best to forget them and go nuclear, but common sense doesn’t account for much these days.

                00

      • #
        Dennis

        Never get between a state premier and a bag full of money, said PM Keating. I know that applies to most Labor premiers and that the Liberals are the repair team that prepares for the next Labor government.

        71

    • #
      James Murphy

      I don’t believe this ‘royal commission’ will do anything except line the pockets of some already wealthy lawyers and their lackeys.

      The SA government is verging on bankruptcy, so anything which can distract the masses will be used. Look at the proposal to spend $300 million on upgrading Memorial Drive. They already spent $600 million on a cricket ground, so I guess another $300 million on a tennis court is acceptable?

      They are also talking about increasing politicians superannuation benefits as well… It’s bad enough that Weatherill, Koutsantonis, and Rau are at the helm, but it seems the opposition is also a gutless waste of taxpayers money. Look at that shameless turncoat and disgusting excuse for a politician, Martin Hamilton-Smith for a start…

      00

  • #
    Stupendus

    For that 100bn they could have ended world hunger for the last 4 years….completely !!!
    murdering ……….you know whats

    120

  • #
    el gordo

    Tony Abbott is a pariah on the international stage and I dips me lid to him.

    ‘Having become the first country to dump a carbon price in 2014, Australia has toyed with the idea of becoming the first to dump its renewable energy target. It appointed a pro-nuclear climate denier to head a review of the renewable energy target, and the result has been policy gridlock and virtually no investment in large scale renewables in Australia in 2014.

    ‘Financiers have declared Australia to be effectively a “dead” market. It is now ranked last in terms of climate and clean energy policies. Many companies and financiers have turned their attention elsewhere, although some project developers remain in the hope that some policy certainty can return, and some of the $20 billion in projects can be unlocked, along with thousands of jobs.’

    Giles Parkinson / RenewEconomy

    180

    • #
      Winston

      That’s code for:

      Our financial scammers have been forced to turn to more gullible ‘marks’ for their bread and butter, but some of the members of this den of thieves retain hopes that they can return when someone more gullible, irresponsible, foolish or down-right corrupt comes into power so that they can return to fleecing the unsuspecting taxpayer of a further $20 billion dollars for something that delivers nothing more than opportunity cost, infrastructure mal-investment and the sacrifice of tens of thousands of real permanent jobs in favour of a thousand or so (if you are lucky) temporary “renewable” ones.

      180

    • #
      Leigh

      “The inefficiency here is the scale only big-government could achieve.”
      And then we have Rudd/Gillard stupidity.
      From pinkbatts federally to state rooftop subsidies.
      And every other planet saving scam.
      I recieve 60 cents for every kilowatt hour the small aray on my roof produces(2kw) and thats locked in till the end of 2017.
      I didn’t put it up there for any planet saving ideolgy
      It was purely a financial decision.
      I haven’t had a payable bill since mid 2010.
      Matter of fact I’m a couple of grand in credit.
      Who’s paying it?
      Eventually the subsidies will stop ……but the higher bills won’t.
      It is simply utter madness.
      Who negotiated such a deal on “our behalf”?

      80

      • #
        ianl8888

        What was your upfront capital cost (before any subsidy) ?

        How does your system cope at night ?

        Are you forced by law to remain connected to the national grid ?

        10

        • #
          Leigh

          What was your upfront capital cost (before any subsidy) ?
          About 10 g.
          Lowering to about 5.7 after rebates.
          How does your system cope at night ?
          Not real flash.
          Something to do with sun I think.
          Are you forced by law to remain connected to the national grid ?
          No.
          But by not doing so i would forfeit the 60c a kilowatt.
          As I said, I wasn’t persuing any ideolygy.
          It was a decision made to take advantage of a rediculous decision to address a non problem made by a stupid government.
          Those less fortunate not being able afford the upfront costs are being “punished” with higher power bills.
          So much for labors social conscious.
          In the time it’s been on the roof it’s produced a little over 15 thousand kilowatts.You do the maths.
          And the reason for the inquisition?

          00

  • #
    pat

    something to ponder for proponents of nuclear.

    12 Feb: BBC: EDF pushes back Hinkley Point nuclear decision
    French energy group EDF has delayed an investment decision on a £16bn project to build two nuclear energy reactors in Hinkley Point, Somerset…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31434420

    12 Feb: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Hinkley Point new nuclear power plant: the story so far
    November 2005: Tony Blair, the then-Prime Minister, announces a review into UK energy policy that will consider development of new nuclear power stations.
    May 2006: Blair backs new nuclear, saying the replacement of Britain’s existing nuclear plants is “back on the agenda with vengeance” and that failing to take action would be a “dereliction of duty”…
    February 2007: French nuclear energy giant EDF says it hopes to build Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation in time to provide electricity for Britons to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017…
    February 2011: Mr de Rivaz says 2011 must be a “year of delivery” for new nuclear and that Hinkley Point can be ready in 2018 if the Government moves quickly to introduce “market reform” – in practice, new subsidies…
    May 2012: Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, confirms that talks have begun with EDF over the terms of subsidies for Hinkley.
    Under Government plans EDF will receive a fixed “strike price”, guaranteeing it a certain price for each unit of power the new plant generates – irrespective of the market price.The difference between the market price and the guaranteed price will be “topped up” with subsidies paid for by energy consumers…
    Oct 2013: The Government agrees EDF should receive a guaranteed a price of £92.50 – twice the current market price of electricity – for each megawatt-hour of power that the reactors generate over a 35-year period.
    The subsidies, which are heavily criticised by some, will be funded through levies on all consumer energy bills.
    EDF says that Hinkley will now not produce its first power until 2023, subject to taking a final investment decision in July 2014…
    December 2014: EDF says it wants to take a decision by the end of March 2015.
    February 2015: EDF appears to abandon the March deadline, saying only that a final investment decision is “possible in the next few months”and warning of long list of outstanding issues including agreeing deals with the Government and with investors.
    “We are in the final phase of negotiations, but that phase can take a considerable amount of time, depending on the number of problems left to resolve,” Jean-Bernard Levy, EDF group chief executive, says.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11404344/Hinkley-Point-new-nuclear-power-plant-the-story-so-far.html

    50

  • #
    toorightmate

    $100bn is chicken feed for any luvvie leftie.

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      One example: PM Gillard gift to the University of Adelaide of $100 million in return for being appointed an honorary professor. Or her gift also of taxpayer’s monies to the UN Education Fund of $300 million, and she is now a Director.

      50

    • #
      Dennis

      One example: PM Gillard gift to the University of Adelaide of $100 million in return for being appointed an honorary professor. Or her gift also of taxpayer’s monies to the UN Education Fund of $300 million, and she is now a Director.

      30

  • #
  • #
    albert

    In 66 years humans went from first flight, the length of a Boeing 747 wing to playing golf on the moon. Our new jet engines are far more powerful, more quiet and use almost ½ the fuel. We did all this without any prompting from Government. Humans always strive to do things better and when we pollute the environment we eventually clean it up. Government should get off our backs and let us do what we do best, they should show us the Science and stop alarming our children

    131

    • #

      you have a funny way of dealing with absolutes. Without ANY prompting from governments? Really? None? No government initiated and funded war time development of rocket technologies?

      This is not prompting? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon

      The Soviet contribution to space travel was all done without government prompting?

      No tax or other incentives ever in 65 years from any government anywhere?

      28

      • #
        albert

        GA, I was referring to ‘new jet engines’, not the moon, read the sentence carefully

        41

        • #

          I did. You list two things in sequence then make a statement that follows the list that pertains both things as read.

          15

          • #
            albert

            I take your point, I didn’t believe there was ambiguity but if others say there was then I must accept their point of view. I’ll try to be more precise in future

            20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Albert, don’t take this badly but for a rare moment Gee has a clear point. Not to mention the wartime funding to Boeing et al.

          I do agree vigorously that Government must stay off our backs however.

          30

      • #
        James Bradley

        Leaf,

        It wasn’t government prompting during the world wars and the cold war.

        What prompted innovation was dedication and altruism afforded by a rare opportunity where desperate times and preservation of a cultural or national identity gave an ear to alternative ideas and theories in the face of an immediate threat.

        The innovators, inventors and scientists didn’t ask for grants or subsidies, but contributed out of a deep sense of duty.

        Unlike now days where the threat is imaginary and the grants and subsidies are expected well before work is commenced.

        60

  • #

    At the end of the day, you start running out of other people’s money …

    Pointman

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      No worries, as some say, former treasurer Swan said on Queensland election night recently that running budgets in deficit and borrowing money to pay the shortfall and to spend more than tax revenue receipts was not a problem for a wealthy nation like Australia.

      He did not become the world’s greatest treasurer for no reason [wink].

      50

      • #
        toorightmate

        Don’t wink.
        Look what happened to Tony Abbot when he winked (on radio).

        30

        • #
          Dennis

          Silly Billy winked in Question Time and was caught by a media camera. I did not think of him as a winker but I did think something close.

          20

          • #
            Truthseeker

            So Billy is a winker and Turnbull is a banker …

            Try sayting that three times quickly …

            30

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              It is Bills as it Big Bill Shortly if he becomes PM. Mind you he’s only Leader because everybody in Labor feels more comfortable if he’s not behind them.

              10

      • #
        Iconoclast

        Dennis, he could only become the world’s greatest treasurer and run six consecutive deficits by assuring we would be in surplus the next year.

        00

    • #

      But who will bell the cat?

      10

  • #
    • #
      Dennis

      Oh dear is the right response Janama

      30

      • #
        janama

        I’ll leave it to Tony to show how ridiculous this project is other than to say – Imagine if they’d wanted to build a coal fired power station on prime agricultural land entirely financed by overseas capital and government subsidies.

        70

        • #
          Dennis

          Janama on a visit to Queensland Fraser Coast region last year a friend told me about several solar panel commercial investments on farming land there that the owners happily admitted were income producing investments based on subsidies.

          50

        • #

          See this earlier comment here at Joanne’s site on a (preliminary) look at this solar plant near Toowoomba.

          Tony.

          70

          • #
            janama

            But Tony – they are putting storage sheds for batteries so it can offer power all night

            20

            • #

              Either way, you only get the ONE lot of power.

              (a) They generate ALL the power for delivery to the grid.

              or (b) They generate all the power, part for delivery to the grid, and part for charging the batteries to deliver throughout (a small part of) the night.

              Therein lies the green dream. They somehow think they are getting double the power.

              You can lead a greenie to facts, but you can’t make them think.

              They think on the hey presto principle.

              Tony.

              120

    • #
      toorightmate

      I suspect the project estimator is the same genius who estimated NBN.
      If so, please apply a factor of 10.

      40

    • #
      Another Ian

      Janama #23

      Check the link at #9

      10

  • #
    pat

    janama -

    re the Darling Downs solar farm:

    12 Feb: Catallaxy Files: Judith Sloan: The Sun King: not so good at arithmetic
    Wasn’t there going to be some massive sun farm outside Mildura? And there was another massive project promoted by Marn Ferguson, when he was Resources Minister, which similarly went down the long-drop of failed projects…
    But here we have an approval for a 2GW sun farm outside Toowomba – no mention of finance or how long it will take to roll out given that it is to built in 100 MW chunks – but according to the cheeky monkey spruiking this project:
    2 GW of solar power is 25 per cent of (41,000 GWh [RET target] – 16000 GWh[current renewable energy production) = 25,000 GWh …READ ALL
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/02/12/the-sun-king-not-so-good-at-arithmetic/

    13 Feb: SBS: AAP: Govt should extend RET for solar: Report
    A think tank is urging the government to extend the RET to 40 per cent by 2030 to encourage major investment in large scale solar.
    An extended renewable energy target would trigger large-scale solar investment and drive down the cost of sun-generated energy, a new report has found.
    Solar power is more expensive than wholesale electricity; however, the Australia Institute report found if the RET remains untouched, large-scale solar could compete with gas by 2018…
    The future of the RET, which requires 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity to come from renewables by 2020, is uncertain after a government review found the scheme would surpass the target.
    Investment in the renewable sector stalled after the Abbott government announced plans to cut the target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to about 27,000…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/13/govt-should-extend-ret-solar-report

    30

  • #
    pat

    the SBS/AAP “Australia Institute” RET solar report is also being carried by the Daily Telegraph…and no doubt other MSM to follow, but AAP doesn’t give the public even a hint who the Australia Institute is. it always sounds so “official”:

    Wikipedia: The Australia Institute
    The current Executive Director is economist Richard Denniss. Denniss’s immediate predecessor was Clive Hamilton…
    The institute is considered left leaning and describes itself as “the country’s most influential progressive think tank”…
    The institute’s researchers are prominent commentators on public policy issues, including work on climate change and emissions trading…
    The institute is active in promoting global warming mitigation measures, and has been critical of the Australian federal government’s perceived lack of action on climate change…
    The institute has been largely funded by the Poola Foundation and the Treepot Foundation – philanthropic organisations run by the Kantors, an offshoot of Rupert Murdoch’s family.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute

    30

  • #
    pat

    12 Feb: Financial Times: Shell chief urges industry to speak up in climate debate
    Pilita Clark in Geneva and Christopher Adams in London
    The head of Royal Dutch Shellis urging his industry to spell out why the world needs it, as talks intensify on a global climate deal due to be signed this year.
    In a speech on Thursday night at International Petroleum Week — one of the biggest events on the industry’s calendar — Ben van Beurden, Shell’s chief executive, is expected to say that big energy companies have not been assertive enough in the global warming debate and some need to take a critical look at themselves.
    “In the past we thought it was better to keep a low profile on the issue. I understand that tactic but in the end it’s not a good tactic,” he will say, in a robust departure from the more muted statements senior energy executives normally make about climate change.
    His comments come as representatives of more than 190 countries meet in Geneva …
    Mr van Beurden will say the industry must make the case that the world’s energy needs will underpin the use of fossil fuels for decades to come, so instead of ruling them out there should be a focus on lowering carbon emissions.
    Shell has long been in favour of a price on carbon and technologies to capture and store CO2 emissions, though its Arctic drilling efforts have also made it a large target of climate change campaigners…
    ***In a mark of the growing tendency for oil and gas companies publicly to point the finger at coal producers, Mr van Beurden is due to argue on Thursday that the most important way to cut emissions is to shift from coal to natural gas…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3bda478-b205-11e4-8396-00144feab7de.html

    ***it always boils down to killing off the competition…..coal.

    30

  • #

    Perhaps people are finally coming around to the fact that this is not about the Nameplate, but really about the power actually delivered from these things, which is what this $100 Billion waste is all about, and note this is just the waste, and not the actual amount spent on these two renewables of choice, wind power and solar power.

    Now, keep in mind that even with this $100 Billion in waste, the improvement for actual power delivered is still only marginal at best. We’re not talking about a huge improvement but in fact a relatively tiny improvement.

    ALL wind plants at the proposal stage quote the theoretical BEST CASE for power delivery, and that is 38%, and stop right there for a minute.

    38%

    And THAT is the best case scenario.

    That figure is used as the STANDARD, and need I say that is done from modelling.

    The fact that in nearly every case that standard is never achieved accounts for that waste, which then collectively adds up.

    The current WORLD average for power delivery from Wind power barely manages 19%, which is only half the theoretical. Real time data shows China running at around 15%, the U.S. at around 28%, Australia (keep in mind we are tiny by comparison) 29%, Germany, a huge fleet and now running at only 14.8%.

    Location is probably just one small part of all this which adds up to that $100 Billion in waste.

    Even so, Wind Power is inherently inefficient, when the best they HOPE to manage is 38%

    Solar power is even worse.

    That much vaunted CSP, Concentrating Solar Power (Solar Thermal) barely manages 25%, in some cases worse than Wind Power in fact, and THIS is what they want for us to replace coal fired power.

    It’s DESIGNED to be that pitifully poor for power delivery.

    DESIGNED

    Solar PV is even worse, and in fact the average for that ranges from 9% to an optimum hoped for of 17%. DESIGNED to deliver at that rate. A rooftop solar PV installation in Rockhampton (probably 17% at best, and more likely closer to 13%) will deliver considerably more power than the SAME plant in Victoria or South Australia, which would struggle to make 10 to 13%, and it would be as low as 9% in Hobart for the same installation. DESIGNED to do that. They cannot make it deliver better than that because of the angle of the Sun itself.

    The same applies for large commercial PV plants, best in Queensland as opposed to Victoria. Nothing they can do about that, even with the considerable added cost of moving heliostats (electrically driven so consuming part of the plant’s output power) again, the best case power delivery is rated at 17% ACTUAL.

    So wind averages 15 to 30%, averaging around 19%

    CSP averages 17 to 32%, averaging around 22%

    Solar PV averages around 9 to 17%, averaging around 13%

    All specifically designed to do that.

    Compare that to 100% while ever the Natural Gas is fed into the turbine, 100% while ever the coal is being fed into the furnace, and 100% while ever the rods are inserted into the reactor.

    This $100 Billion waste is a failure of location when in actual fact the WHOLE outlay is a failure by DESIGN.

    It’s suddenly all about actual power delivery, something it should have been about all along.

    When you (personally) go out and purchase something new, and you read on the label that this new item will only work one time in three, four five or six times, would you then think, hey that’s all right, I can live with that.

    Not me I’m afraid.

    Tony.

    150

    • #
      Willy

      Well said as always Tony.

      Been trying to come up with another analogy that hits as hard as the car or white goods one.

      How about humans that are paid to work 8 hours, but Might only work 1-2 hours, depending on the sun or wind.

      00

  • #
    Ruairi

    It’s time that the public awoke,
    To this wasteful renewal joke,
    But what isn’t so funny,
    Is to watch all our money,
    Go up in a great plume of smoke.

    120

  • #
    pat

    ***still trying to pull off another market “fix” to kill coal.

    12 Feb: Bloomberg: Ewa Krukowska: EU Draft Deal Proposes Carbon-Market Fix by End of 2018
    The European Union should start a mechanism to curb oversupply in the carbon market by the end of 2018, sooner than 2021 as proposed by the bloc’s regulator, under a compromise plan proposed today in the European Parliament.
    Ivo Belet, who is steering the draft measure to introduce the emissions market stability reserve through the legislature, put forward a proposal aimed at building cross-party support before a Feb. 24 vote in the assembly’s environment committee…
    “It is a balanced agreement,” said Peter Liese, lead lawmaker on the file for the EPP, the biggest group in the EU parliament. ’’We will encourage investment in low-carbon economy because the ETS will work again. At the same time we took care that energy intensive industry is protected from carbon leakage.’’ …
    ***The 28-nation EU is seeking to strengthen its cap-and-trade emissions program after the price of permits plunged almost 70 percent since 2008 to levels that fail to deter industry from burning coal, the most-polluting fossil fuel…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/eu-draft-deal-proposes-carbon-market-fix-by-end-of-2018

    12 Feb: Metro News Canada: Carbon tax part of part of Ontario Environment Ministry discussion paper
    A controversial carbon tax is included in a climate change strategy discussion paper released Thursday by Ontario Environment Minister Glen Murray.
    “Putting a price on carbon assigns economic value to our atmosphere and environment,” the discussion paper stated.
    “A well-designed carbon pricing system is the most cost-effective approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” it stated…
    He told a news conference Thursday there is no “greater threat” to mankind than climate change.
    ***“Our children will be the first to never know a normal climate‎,” he said after the discussion paper was released…
    The consultation paper contends there is a “growing global consensus” in favour of carbon pricing.
    The Progressive Conservative have made it clear they will vigorously oppose a carbon tax….
    The discussion paper also puts forward a cap-and-trade system as another way of putting a price on carbon…
    http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1286407/carbon-tax-part-of-part-of-ontario-environment-ministry-discussion-paper/

    30

    • #

      Where pat quotes this: (my bolding)

      The discussion paper also puts forward a cap-and-trade system as another way of putting a price on carbon…

      It says this at that article:

      Cap-and-trade is a regulatory system meant to reduce certain kinds of emissions by providing companies with a profit incentive to reduce pollution levels faster.

      Under a cap-and-trade program, a limit on certain types of emissions or pollutions is set, and companies are permitted to sell or trade unused portion of their limits to other companies struggling to comply.

      They have this completely the opposite way around, and the journalists, never willing to actually investigate, thus causing the public to believe it verbatim. They put this so called positive spin on it in an effort to hide the real intent of a cap and trade system, which has nothing at all to do with lowering emissions, when in reality, all it is in fact is a money making mechanism for all concerned, with all the costs passed down to consumers, the users of electricity.

      Once you actually look into the design of any cap and trade system, it becomes patently obvious that it’s only about the money.

      Tony.

      80

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Ontario Province used to have very low emissions because they ran on nuclear at constant output and hydro doing the variable part.

        So the Government introduced incentives for wind farms. Electricity bills rose sharply, industry started moving to other Provinces or to the USA.
        The wind farms are paid $135 Canadian per MWh produced (roughly $A124 or 4 times the cost of coal fired) regardless the demand. So excess is dumped into the USA at a negative price, and electricity bills go up again. The variable and unpredictable wind energy makes it difficult or even impossible to operate nuclear plants esp. with a local Government determined to get rid of them, so shut down.

        So when the wind blows Ontario loses money, and when it doesn’t blow they get coal and gas fired power from the USA – but the emissions from those don’t count because they happen in another country. But thanks to wind farms overall emissions are increased again.

        60

      • #
        toorightmate

        Tony,
        I think it’s a “cap in hand” system.

        30

  • #
    pat

    Bloomberg’s Justin Doom (& gloom) brings us the new Big Scare, conveniently timed for the UNFCCC Climate meeting in Geneva:

    13 Feb: Bloomberg: Justin Doom: Worst ‘Megadrought’ in 1,000 Years in U.S. Due to Global Warming
    The U.S. is facing the worst drought in 1,000 years, “driven primarily” by man-made climate change.
    By the end of this century, researchers are predicting years-long dry spells exacerbated by higher temperatures, creating conditions worse than so-called megadroughts that have been linked to the decline of American Indian cultures in the U.S. Southwest, according to an article published Thursday in the journal Science Advances.
    The conclusion is further evidence that human activity is having profound, harmful and long-lasting impacts on the planet, and will continue to threaten the environment even if carbon emissions are significantly curtailed…
    ***“What we really did in this paper was stitch the past together with the future model projections and say, ’OK, we know this warming is happening, we know it’s been dry in the past, how do those two things compare?’” Smerdon (Jason Smerdon, climate scientist at Columbia University in New York, one of the authors of the report) said in an interview…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/worst-megadrought-in-1-000-years-in-u-s-due-to-global-warming

    40

    • #
      Winston

      So -a 3 year “mega”drought in California in 2015 is “clearly” man-made and “unprecedented”, but a 200 year drought in this region during the Medieval WP is just natural variation? These psychopaths truly defy description.

      Amoral, illogical and profligate wasters of the public purse on pixie dust. I think we should make these loud-mouths and ignoramuses act as personal guarantors for the expenditure they cause in their name. I suspect if their own coin was on the line there would quite suddenly be deathly silence.

      Anyone for a class action lawsuit?

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Recently in a local district monthly magazine I read an advertisement article promoting “Hybrid Solar Home”, solar rooftop panels, batteries and grid connection combined. Reading the details and ignoring the marketing hyperbole and puffery I learnt that;

    Will A Hybrid System Eliminate My Power Bill? Typically NO, a hybrid system will reduce your power bill dramatically, but each billing period there will be bad weather that will require you to consume power from the grid ….. you are also charged a “service availability” fee each quarter of around $130, therefore the only way to offset these costs is to export heaps of power for 6-cents? It is not practical to install a system big enough (read cost benefit analysis would not stack up) to offset all of your bill, but the correct size system will put a hefty dent in it.

    No mention of course about the cost of grid power verses cost of hybrid solar system and replacing at least panels and batteries over time, maybe 20-25 years time if lucky. Or the lost earnings on the money outlaid or interest on monies borrowed to pay for it.

    And this is a relatively simple domestic application, don’t mention commerce and industry.

    What a con.

    40

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, like champion cricketers who see the ball clearly, you are seeing the essentials, clearly and constantly.

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    It is a little like arguing that our $35Bn of desalination plans (SA and Vic) are poorly sited. What does it matter? They will never be switched on anyway. What is tragic is a small fraction of this amount of money could have built dams which harvested fresh water anyway but the Greens spend their days locking that up.

    No one is even discussing if that large volume of water could be used for power generation, freeing up 30% of our fresh water for increased farming. The equation is simple. CO2+H2O= 99% of all plants and 96% of all animals. More H2O, more plants. So we dump the power at night and generate nothing (except aluminium). Those clever Greens. If it is not a useless wasteful idea, it is not a Green idea.

    This sort of multi billion dollar funding for research into storage would be fantastic, but there is nothing. For example in Victoria after the recent election, the Greens are actually spending $1.2Bn to pay companies not to build a vital underground bypass to reduce inner city traffic when it would only cost $2Bn to build. So for $1.2Bn, we get precisely nothing, paying companies to do nothing. Besides, that is only one year of payments for the desalination plant not to operate.

    Is there no limit to the amounts of money Green governments can waste? Are they really trying to disrupt and bankrupt Western democracies? Of course. What about another 50,000 uninvited ‘refugees’ on welfare for life? We can afford it. The government will pay for everything.

    40

  • #
    pat

    good old abc. more space fo Milne for the same old vitriol, and no-one to challenge her assertions.

    perhaps the PM should simply write articles about his policies, which you then publish, and produce his own videos for airing across your TV platforms, so that he can get his messages across! am sure you would be happy to oblige:

    13 Feb: ABC: Christine Milne: Abbott’s support for Old King Coal is worse than knighting a prince
    If you needed more evidence that Tony Abbott’s views are stuck in a bygone era, look to his support of a power source from the 1800s…
    PRIME MINISTER TONY ABBOTT knights a prince and pushes his own leadership to the brink of a spill. The resulting storm of criticism has dimmed the flame Mr Abbott keeps lit for the monarchy — even his biggest supporters have called him out of touch, behind the times, clinging desperately to a bygone era.
    That’s true, but knights and dames are the least of it…
    Who could forget when Tony Abbott declared that, “coal is good for humanity”? It is not. Coal has been left behind by the clever, cleaner alternatives we have today.
    Then the PM said, “coal has a big future in Australia”. It does not. It is a dying industry reliant on a resource that must be left in the ground if we want to maintain a liveable planet…
    In the Federal Parliament, the Greens are pushing for the Future Fund to divest from fossil fuels, the way it stopped investing in tobacco.
    Fossil fuel pollution is like second-hand smoke on a global scale…
    The Greens will keep trying to drag the Liberals out of the Industrial Revolution, to clean up the use of your tax money. Meanwhile, you can get on with the rest.
    It’s Global Divestment Day, led in Australia by 350.org, and it takes just a few clicks to find out how your money is being used. The next step is to take the power back. You can vote with your wallet and switch to banks and super funds that invest in industries you support.
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2015/02/13/4179504.htm

    20

  • #
    pat

    caring for the planet!

    13 Feb: Khaleej Times: UN chief approves of Dubai’s Low Carbon Development
    Shaikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, President of the Dubai Civil Aviation Authority, CEO and Chairman of Emirates airline and Group, and Chairman of the Dubai Supreme Council of Energy, met Ban Ki-moon during the Government Summit.
    The organisations jointly founded Dubai Carbon as a purpose vehicle to transform Dubai into a low-carbon economy and be a think tank and advisory service…
    “Dubai Carbon is at the forefront of reducing carbon emissions locally and regionally. Its core business is low-carbon advisory aimed at creating award-winning carbon management initiatives in the private and public sector, renewable energy projects, trainings and carbon credit registration under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)…
    Ban Ki-moon: Dubai Carbon is a prime example of a fit-for-purpose Public Private Partnership integrating competencies of different UN agencies under the leadership of UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and in close cooperation with the Dubai Supreme Council of Energy.”
    http://www.khaleejtimes.com/biz/inside.asp?xfile=/data/uaebusiness/2015/February/uaebusiness_February156.xml&section=uaebusiness

    20

  • #
    pat

    Gillis promotes a CAGW “activist” petition, gets Patrick Michaels to dismiss CAGW sceptics (according to Gillis’s ridiculous definition), smears Richard S. Lindzen

    - “Papers by Dr. Lindzen and others disputing the risks of global warming have fared poorly in the scientific literature, with mainstream scientists pointing out what they see as fatal errors”-

    adopts DENIALIST as a “softer” non-Holocaust alternative to DENIER, plus more propaganda:

    12 Feb: NYT: Justin Gillis: What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change?
    People who reject the findings of climate science are dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers.” Those who accept the science are attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas. ” The latter term, evoking the Sandinista revolutionaries of Nicaragua, is perhaps meant to suggest that the science is part of some socialist plot…
    Recently, though, the issue has taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures and counting.
    The petition asks the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead…
    Climate scientists are among the most vocal critics of using the term “climate skeptic” to describe people who flatly reject their findings. They point out that skepticism is the very foundation of the scientific method. The modern consensus about the risks of climate change, they say, is based on evidence that has piled up over the course of decades and has been subjected to critical scrutiny every step of the way.
    Drop into any climate science convention, in fact, and you will hear vigorous debate about the details of the latest studies. While they may disagree over the fine points, those same researchers are virtually unanimous in warning that society is running extraordinary risks by continuing to pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
    In other words, the climate scientists see themselves as the true skeptics, having arrived at a durable consensus… And in this view, people who reject the evidence are phony skeptics, arguing their case by cherry-picking studies, manipulating data, and refusing to weigh the evidence as a whole…
    The petition asking the media to drop the “climate skeptic” label began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico…
    Dr. Boslough is active in a group called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which has long battled pseudoscience in all its forms…
    A climate advocacy organization, Forecast the Facts, picked up on the letter and turned it into a petition. Once the signatures reach 25,000, the group intends to present a formal request to major news organizations to alter their terminology.
    All of which raises an obvious question: If not “skeptic,” what should the opponents of climate science be called?…
    It is perhaps no surprise that many environmentalists have started to call them deniers.
    The scientific dissenters object to that word, claiming it is a deliberate attempt to link them to Holocaust denial. Some academics sharply dispute having any such intention, but others have started using the slightly softer word ***“denialist”*** to make the same point without stirring complaints about evoking the Holocaust…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/science/earth/in-climate-change-whats-in-a-name.html?_r=0

    Jan 2012: WUWT: Forecastthefacts.org – Political Activists Gagging Our TV Meteorologists on Climate Issues
    Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D.
    UPDATE: 1/23/12 11AMPST Exposed – Forecastthefacts.org is a George Soros funded activist website. See details below.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/forecastthefacts-org-political-activists-gagging-our-tv-meteorologists-on-climate-issues/

    00

    • #
      el gordo

      I don’t like ‘denialist’ either, its not even a real word according to spellcheck.

      Denialati is my preferred option

      00

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    There is never an incentive for governments to save other people’s (taxpayers) money!!! If governments operate like businesses and beholden to investors all hell would break loose with the billions governments burn without any concern!! The stock holders would sack the bureaucrats!!!

    10

  • #
    pat

    they’ve given up, it seems!!!

    13 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Reuters: Alister Doyle: U.N. climate deal set to rely on persuasion, not coercion
    A U.N. deal to fight global warming due in 2015 is set to avoid tough penalties for nations that fail to keep their promises, relying instead on persuasion and peer pressure, delegates at climate talks said on Thursday…
    “We are moving towards a system of institutionalised peer pressure,” said Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the U.S. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions think-tank. “It’s an approach that is not trying to impose penalties.”…
    A draft text of about 100 pages includes many options for compliance, including that it should be “non-confrontational and non-judicial” in following up plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions linked to heatwaves, floods and rising sea levels.
    Bolivia’s left-wing government this week added the idea of setting up an International Climate Justice Tribunal to judge violators. That idea is unacceptable to most…
    Mary Ann Lucille Sering, Secretary of the Philippines Climate Change Commission, said “moral persuasion” was vague but better than threats. “Every time you say ‘if you don’t do this I will sue you’ then I won’t do it,” she said.
    Still, Christiana Figueres, the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said developing countries needed assurances that the rich will keep promises for action, including rising financial aid.
    But she noted that Paris deal will be built from nations’ voluntary contributions to act. “This … suggests to me that this (compliance system) will be less stringent than the Kyoto Protocol,” she said…
    French climate ambassador Laurence Tubiana said the Paris deal had to be built around a “rational expectation” of what was possible, rather than over-ambition.
    But then there is a risk that some nations may simply offer to do too little to cut emissions.
    “No one likes the idea of a total Wild West regime, where there no expectations, no rules, no standards,” said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2951169/U-N-climate-deal-set-rely-persuasion-not-coercion.html

    10

  • #

    From a different Blog try this :

    D Appell says: February 11, 2015 at 1:05

    It was only a matter of time until the self appointed Dr. David Appell reared ugly!

    (“Cold cannot heat hot.”)

    “1) All objects radiate electromagnetic radiation, per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation”

    As per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, all thermal electromagnetic flux is strictly limited by any opposing thermal “radiance”. This is the difference enclosed by the very necessary mathematical parentheses, of the demonstrated S-B equation.

    “2) This radiation carries energy (whether you think of it as a wave or a photon)”

    The allowed thermal electromagnetic flux transports only “action”, (energy within a time interval). .

    “3) When that radiation strikes another objects and is absorbed, the object gains that energy (and hence, temperature per the Stefan-Boltzmann equation).”

    Thermal electromagnetic flux, transporting “action”, that encounters “mass” may have that action differentiated into absorption, transmission, or reflection. Mathematically the proportions are
    reflectivity, transmissivity, absorptivity always summing to unity. Please note that for any mass at any frequency, area, and direction, your emissivity value is precisely that value of the fractional absorptivity. The “action” absorbed by “mass” may be converted to any other action not involving sensible heat or temperature.
    Many forms of conversion of Solar transmitted “action” have nothing to do with temperature.
    Huh!@
    Other forms may be electrical, charging of battery, electrical conversion to linear or angular momentum. On this Earth most forms of conversion are chemical. Reduction of oxidic process. Into useful hydrogen, and carbon, along with the automagical construction of trees. This is obvious to squirrels. Why never to incompetent Climate Clowns, Physicists, Meteorologists, Politicians, or “The Media”.

    “The hot object is thus warmer than it would be in the absence of the cold object, because its net loss of radiative energy is lower.”

    So what? Can your non described term “warmer” ever have understanding for those digging in the artifacts of stupid earthlings?

    00

  • #
    David Smith

    How many children could have got access to clean water instead? All of them.

    And that is perhaps the greatest crime those pushing the renewables scam have committed.

    10

    • #
      James Murphy

      Clean water, access to medical care, and education. These 3 things don’t solve every problem, but they do help a lot.

      Of course no government or authority wants people to become better educated, as this will inevitably lead to questions which will cause embarrassment, or highlight the ignorance / waste of said government/authority. It also doesn’t help if the next generation turns out to be smarter and better educated than the last. Australia is successfully stopping that from happening, and from what I have seen, it is not the only country to do so.

      Likewise clean water and medical care will just allow more people to survive, and desire to be educated. I don’t think its a global conspiracy, it’s just that the types of people we have in positions of authority understand how they can keep themselves in a job. Look at Australia, at the ever decreasing number of politicians and ‘advisors’ who have actually worked in any position unrelated to politics, let alone in science/engineering/education.

      00

  • #
    ROM

    From the Euan Mearns blog Energy Matters;

    _______________________

    The Failure of Green Energy Policies

    [ quoted; my bold ]
    Whilst enjoying the good natured exchanges on this blog concerning the pros and cons of new renewable energy sources I decided to dig deeper into the success of Green energy policies to date.

    Roger Andrews produced this chart the other day and the low carbon energy trends caught my eye.

    It is important to recall that well over $1,700,000,000,000 ($1.7 trillion) has been spent on installing wind and solar devices in recent years with the sole objective of reducing global CO2 emissions.

    It transpires that since 1995 low carbon energy sources (nuclear, hydro and other renewables) share of global energy consumption has not changed at all (Figure 1).
    New renewables have not even replaced lost nuclear generating capacity since 1999 (Figure 2). ZERO CO2 has been abated and the world has done zilch to prepare itself for the expected declines (escalating costs) of fossil fuels in the decades ahead

    If this is not total policy failure, what is?

    &
    As a result of Renewable Energy build-out investments of about $1,700 billion from 2002 to 2013 (excluding mostly “socialized” investments for grid adequacy, capacity adequacy, etc., of about $400 billion not mentioned in the report), worldwide RE generation increased from 1.6% to 5.3%, a 3.8% addition, of which:

    – Wind increased from 0.3% to 2.7%
    – Biomass from 0.9% to 1.8%
    – Solar (PV + CSP) from 0.0% to 0.5%
    – Geo from 0.3% to 0.3%
    – Marine from 0% to 0%;
    —————

    As a side note it is estimated by I think the WHO, that it would take just $30 billion to make clean fresh drinking water readily accessible to every person on this planet.

    00

    • #

      This means that the Climate Clowns have the exact opposite, to any intent on expanding earthling knowledge as would be done by having clean water for all those most clever infants. It appears that only intent of the Climate Clowns is to enslave all earthlings that can still “think”

      00

  • #
    pat

    it really does look like the CAGW scam is over, but this is a followup to the Justin Gillis/NYT propaganda.

    note the ***
    my guess is this George Mason “study” involved an “anonymous” Justin Gillis, note it features the “denialists” meme of Gillis’s NYT piece!

    10 Feb: Washington Examiner: Paul Bedard: Reporters told to stop interviewing ‘irrelevant’ climate change critics
    A new study of how environmental reporters cover global warming and climate change reveals that they see the issue as one America has endorsed and, as a result, no longer include critics in their reports because they are “generally irrelevant.”
    And the orders are coming from editors.
    What’s more, the study from George Mason University found that climate change reporters are weaving their coverage into stories on broader issues to get around editors who don’t want a lot of reports on global warming.
    The study in the authoritative trade magazine Journalism dubbed getting both sides on the climate change issue “false balance.”
    ***The study is available by subscription….

    As one reporter said, ‘there is pretty much understanding across the board in the United States media now that this is real, this is true, it’s happening, [and] we’re responsible. That debate is over.’ For this reason, he concluded, ‘in this day and age, including climate ***denialists*** in a story about climate change is generally irrelevant,’” said the study…
    The anonymous journalists told the scholars …

    In fact, one reporter’s news organization had recently developed an explicit editorial policy discouraging reporters from quoting climate change deniers in environment or science coverage.”

    The only paper mentioned in the study was the ***New York Times***…
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-told-to-stop-interviewing-irrelevant-climate-change-critics/article/2560039#!

    Gillis to be moderated by a George Mason character next Wednesday. undoubtedly, they’re already hastily co-ordinating re-writes of their scripts, given the Geneva talks failure.

    Consulate General of France in New York: Conference 934: Climate change: America’s stance before the Paris summit
    A Conversation with
    Yvette D.Clarke – U.S. Congresswoman
    Justin Gillis – Reporter for The New York Times
    Eric Roston – Bloomberg’s sustainability editor
    Wednesday, February 18th, 2015 at 6:30 pm
    The conversation will be moderated by
    Michael Shank – Director of Media Strategy for Climate Nexus
    (Michael Shank’s Ph.D. from George Mason University’s School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution is on Climate Conflict…
    Michael writes regularly for USA Today, The Guardian, Daily Beast, Roll Call, among others, and is an on-air analyst for CNN, FOX News, CCTV, Al Jazeera, and RT.)
    http://www.consulfrance-newyork.org/Conference-934-Climate-change

    Gillis was pushing this Yale/George Mason public-perception-manipulation survey back in 2012.

    NYT: Justin Gillis: In Poll, Many Link Weather Extremes to Climate Change
    …it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll.“…
    Dr. Leiserowitz’s unit at Yale, along with researchers at George Mason University, commissioned the survey…

    00

  • #
    Ron Cook

    Indeed, what is the biggest crime against humanity, depriving 3rd world countries of necessities like electric power, water, sanitation etc or perceived Carbon pollution.

    I have tried and tried unsuccessfully to convince friends of mine (one a minister of protestant christian domination others within the same church circles as I) that Carbon Dioxide IS NOT a pollutant but that Sulphur and Nitrogen Oxides along with particulates are pollutants and that the wasted money on perceived Carbon demonetization would be better spent on the poorer counties and their issues.

    The left’s propaganda knows no bounds.

    I feel so alienated and frustrated that I cannot get the message across that AGW/CC is a scam.

    R-COO- K+

    20

  • #
    ROM

    The Telegraph [ UK ]

    Living close to wind farms could cause hearing damage

    [ quoted ]
    New research published by the Royal Society warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise like that emitted by wind turbines

    Living close to wind farms may lead to severe hearing damage or even deafness, according to new research which warns of the possible danger posed by low frequency noise.
    The physical composition of inner ear was “drastically” altered following exposure to low frequency noise, like that emitted by wind turbines, a study has found.
    The research will delight critics of wind farms, who have long complained of their detrimental effects on the health of those who live nearby.
    Published today by the Royal Society in their new journal Open Science, the research was carried out by a team of scientists from the University of Munich.
    It relies on a study of 21 healthy men and women aged between 18 and 28 years. After being exposed to low frequency sound, scientists detected changes in the type of sound being emitted from the inner ear of 17 out of the 21 participants.

    The changes were detected in a part of the ear called the cochlear, a spiral shaped cavity which essential for hearing and balance.
    “We explored a very curious phenomenon of the human ear: the faint sounds which a healthy human ear constantly emits,” said Dr Marcus Drexl, one of the authors of the report.
    “These are like a very faint constant whistling that comes out of your ear as a by-product of the hearing process. We used these as an indication of how processes in the inner ear change.”
    Dr Drexl and his team measured these naturally emitted sounds before and after exposure to 90 seconds of low frequency sound at 80dB(A), significantly higher than the 43dB(A) permitted by turbine planning law.
    “Usually the sound emitted from the ear stays at the same frequency,” he said. “But the interesting thing was that after exposure, these sounds changed very drastically.
    “They started to oscillate slowly over a couple of minutes. This can be interpreted as a change of the mechanisms in the inner ear, produced by the low frequency sounds.
    “This could be a first indication that damage might be done to the inner ear.
    “We don’t know what happens if you are exposed for longer periods of time, [for example] if you live next to a wind turbine and listen to these sounds for months of year

    20

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I have no problem with Jo’s article, but I have two objections to the report from The Energy Collective:

    (a) the concept of a “European citizen”

    and

    (b) the pretty obvious implication that this could all have been handled far better by some almighty, democracy-free panel of green geniuses in Brussels.

    Take the decisions away from the silly, old yokels. What could go wrong?

    20

  • #
    David Smith

    It is easy to forget sometimes how massive a billion really is.
    To earn 100 billion dollars you would need to have $100 put in your pocket every second, for the next 31 years.

    In other words, by the time you’ve finished reading this comment of mine you would have received about $2000.

    It’s an obscene amount of money to waste on useless technology.

    40

    • #
      toorightmate

      At the start of the Kevin Rudd reign of terror, Michael Smith renamed $1bn as the “Kev”.
      NBN was originally going to cost about 5 Kevs. NBN will finish up closer to 100 Kevs.

      20

      • #
        Dennis

        And not enough voters realise that the federal government debt does not include NBNCo borrowings, as a government owned company NBNCo accounts are off government budget, so add up to 100 Kevs to the published federal government debt.

        And to account accurately for all the public debt taxpayers owe add federal, state and local government. And then add private companies owned by governments.

        10

  • #
    myrightpenguin

    Not just waste and incompetence of course. There’s a whole load of crony capitalism and subsidy farming (rentseekers, e.g. David Cameron’s father-in-law) behind it all. One only needs to look at the latest with the governor of Oregon (U.S.) being forced into resignation due to conflicts of interest with his fiancée, via. a shadowy Clean Economy Development Center (CEDC) intermeshed with Tom Steyer and the Rockefellers.
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/oregon-governor-resigns-in-wake-of-green-scandal/
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/tom-steyers-deep-ties-to-oregon-corruption-scandal/

    In terms of Europe there is the whole matter of propping up the EU ETS as well with all sorts of fraud on the back end of that, inc. tax evasion and money laundering, some of which has been reported by Jo, Lubos Motl, and others in the past.

    10