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

Wind Turbines useless for carbon reduction — From $50 – $120 ton. Greens should hate them!

Wind Turbines around 7 times more expensive than Direct Action

You would have to be bonkers to use wind turbines to reduce CO2. The Australian RET Review estimates that the cost of reducing CO2 via wind power is $32 – $72 per ton of CO2 avoided, which means it’s far more expensive than the Direct Action plan, which costs $14 per ton. Peter Lang is concerned the real story is even more costly than that, because it appears the RET Review does not account for the way wind turbines become less effective as they supply a larger portion of our electricity grid. The gas and coal generators get less efficient and they ramp up and down and burn fuel on standby, trying to cope with the fickle supply from the wind. The study of the Irish grid shows that nearly half the CO2 savings of wind turbines disappear as rest of the generators on the grid burn more fuel per unit of electricity. From my reading of Peter’s submission the real cost is more like $80 - $100/ton.

The Australian Parliament is seeking submissions to the ‘Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines’. It closes Monday. Peter Lang has submitted a 36 page report which concludes the cost in Australia of reducing CO2 using wind towers may be 67% higher than the RET estimates by the time windpower is 15% of the Grid.  (So $50 – $120/t for abatement.) Why are we even talking about wind power as a way to reduce CO2?

When they hear this, I’m sure Christine Milne (Greens leader), Ed Milliband (UK Labor leader), Obama, Tim Flannery, etc. will all be very concerned. Any day now, they will declare that, for the sake of the planet, Australia and the West simply cannot afford to waste any more environmental time and eco-money on wind power — we must use taxpayers dollars where they are most effective. “We need action now”. After all, species will die, this is our last chance, and Armageddon is coming. The more money we spend on wind-turbines instead of Direct Action, the more the planet will warm, right? Paris, Dec 2015, is the final, final, last ever chance to save the planet. The Greens won’t want to miss the chance to save 7 times as much CO2.

Do the Greens want to reduce CO2, or not?

Anyone who cares about reducing CO2 would protest, boycott and placard concrete bird killing towers which are so expensive and ineffective at stopping CO2 emissions. They would decry them as token do-nothing symbols of modern bureaucrats who don’t want to solve a problem, but want to be “seen” to be solving it.

If CO2 had much effect on the climate, no one in their right mind would choose an expensive, immature technology that costs so much to achieve so little. But a friend in need is a friend indeed, and big-renewables needs big-government. Is that the real point of the RET — more support for friends who advertise, lobby and support big-government? Say it ain’t so.

——————————————————————————————————

Submission to the Select Committee on Wind Turbines

Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost

Wind turbines are less effective and CO2 abatement cost is higher than commonly assumed

 

By Peter Lang

 April 2015

Wind turbines are significantly less effective at reducing CO2 emissions than commonly assumed.  This means the CO2 abatement cost (i.e. the cost per tonne CO2 avoided by wind turbines) is higher than commonly recognised.  It is likely the CO2 abatement cost of wind turbines is commonly underestimated.

Effectiveness here means % reduction in CO2 emissions divided by % electricity supplied by wind turbines.  Wind turbines supplied 2.9% of Australia’s electricity in 2012-13 (latest figures available).  It is likely wind energy was around 80% effective at avoiding CO2 emissions.  That is, each unit of electricity generated by wind turbines avoided about 80% of the emission that would have been emitted generating a unit of electricity in the absence of wind.

The actual CO2 abatement cost is higher than commonly estimated.  In fact, the abatement cost is inversely proportional to the proportion of electricity supplied by wind power.  At 80% effective the actual abatement cost would be 25% higher than the analysts’ estimates if their estimates did not take effectiveness into account.  At 50% effective the actual abatement cost would be twice the estimates.  The chart below illustrates the relationship between effectiveness, CO2 abatement costs increase and the proportion of electricity generated by wind (80% effective is approximately correct for Australia’s National Electricity Market in 2014; effectiveness at proportions of wind energy above 5% are a rough estimate for the purpose of this explanation).

 

Economic analyses conducted for the 2014 Renewable Energy Target (RET) Review projected that wind power will supply about 15% of Australia’s electricity by 2020 if the RET legislation remains unchanged.  At 15% of electricity generated by wind, international studies of other electricity grids suggests effectiveness could be nearly as low as 50%.  At that rate the CO2 abatement cost would be double the estimates (if those estimates did not take effectiveness into account).

The cost of abating CO2 emissions with wind power in Australia in 2020 could be 2 to 5 times the carbon tax, which was rejected by the voters at 2013 Federal Election; 6 to14 times the current EU carbon price; and more than 100 times the price of the international carbon futures out to 2020.

A Senate ‘Select Committee on Wind Turbines’ has been established to inquire into the impacts of wind turbines in Australia.  My submission focuses on the effectiveness of wind turbines at reducing CO2 emissions from electricity generation in Australia and the impact of the effectiveness on estimates of abatement cost ($/tonne CO2) by wind energy.

My submission is No. 259 here.  (Copy stored here).

_____________________________

Extra Note from Jo

We previously talked about another similar study by Inhaber which showed the lower curve in Lang’s Figure 1 which appears to have been too low according to later studies. This curve is now apparently too pessimistic, but the shape of the curve is real and more recent estimates like the one of Ireland by Joe Wheatley are more likely to be better estimates — so at 15% of the grid, wind towers lose around half their effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions. Because of the intermittent supply the rest of the grid runs less efficiently and emits more CO2.

Peter’s submission was also discussed at Catalaxy and AT Judith Currys’ site.

Figure 1: CO2 abatement effectiveness versus wind generation as a proportion of total generation, from three studies of empirical data.

Peter Lang discusses the Inhaber curve:

Figure 1 shows CO2 abatement effectiveness versus wind generation as a proportion of total generation for ERCOT (Texas) and EirGrid (Ireland) together with the Herbert Inhaber (2011) analysis of many published studies. All are from published analyses of empirical data. Critiques of the Inhaber paper revealed there were some misunderstandings and misinterpretations leading to the curve being too low, but the important point for this submission is the shape of the curve.

The data in Figure 1 reveal two important issues. First, wind effectiveness is commonly less than 100%. Second, effectiveness declines as wind penetration increases.

 

_____________

REFERENCES

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, volume 15, pages 2557–2562 (2011), “Why wind power does not deliver the expected emissions reductions”, by Herbert Inhaber.

Peter Langs full submission is No 259 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions

About Peter Lang:  A retired geologist and engineer with 40 years’ experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy RD&D programs and providing policy advice to Government. Energy projects included: hydro-electric, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil and gas and a wide range of energy end-use management projects.

Image: Adapted from Windmill 02 by JMT.  Money shots and art: Jo Nova.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (71 votes cast)
Wind Turbines useless for carbon reduction -- From $50 - $120 ton. Greens should hate them!, 9.0 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

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

145 comments to Wind Turbines useless for carbon reduction — From $50 – $120 ton. Greens should hate them!

  • #
    Roger

    Jo,

    I may be wrong (and please excuse me if I am as I don’t have time at the moment to pull out the Paper) but my recollection of the study on Eiregen (Ireland) and on the Dutch generating records was that there was No reduction in CO2 through using wind turbines. As above the conventional generators running on standby produce as much CO2 as the wind turbines ‘save’.

    My recollection is that the study found there was actually a fraction of 1% Increase in Co2 emissions as a direct result of wind turbines – thus no matter how many of them are installed it will not reduce CO2 emissions in any way.

    If that is the case then it does show that Green campaigners are either wholly (or deliberately) ignorant OR , as you point out, reducing CO2 is not what they are after.

    I would extrapolate that further and conclude that governments who push for wind turbines don’t actually believe that CO2 will affect climate …….

    501

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      It depends on whether the standby generation to cover intermittency is flexed baseload (inefficient and costly), spinning reserve (usually older inefficient coal plants that can no longer earn their baseload keep), or gas peakers that are not fired until needed. But with a wind capacity factor of 25 (UK) to 30 (US), it still means that the rest of the time the energy is is being supplied from fossil fuel. The greater the wind % of generation, the greater the problem, as Peter’s submission points out. The actual net CO2 is much less than commonly understood.

      170

    • #
      Graeme No. 3

      The Eiregen study showed that there was a reduction in CO2 ONLY when there was adequate hydro pumped storage available. If storage capacity was low then CO2 emissions rose when the wind blew.
      The most complementary study which I don’t have to hand, claimed that up to 3% wind resulted in a reduction in emissions, with no further benefit up to 10% wind. Beyond that point further wind energy resulted in increasing emissions. There was also a caveat that beyond 18% the grid system became unstable. This last figure was very similar to warnings from the Denmark (approx. 2005) and Spanish authorities that no more than 17% was practical. For some reason neither warning attracted much attention, and has certainly been ignored.
      The Danes try to restrict wind to 10% of their usage and dump any excess onto the European grids, usually at a loss.

      170

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Roger, Rud Istvan, Graeme No.3,

      Thank you for your comments. This web page is by Wheatley: http://joewheatley.net/how-much-co2-does-wind-power-save/. It gives a quick summary of his analysis on EirGrid (Ireland) for 2011. His analysis concludes that wind power in Ireland (with virtually no hydro and negligible interconnector transfers with UK) was 53% effective in 2011. Wind generated 17% of Ireland’s electricity in that year. This the EirGrid point plotted on the second chart above.

      The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland did a modelling analysis of the emissions avoided by wind for the 2012 year, but this is for all of Ireland Grid (Republic of Ireland plus Northern Ireland). Wheatley summarises the results and makes a comment questioning the Northern Ireland component see link below:

      Both articles are on one link here: http://joewheatley.net/category/wind-energy/ The first article is below the second article

      80

      • #
        Roger

        Peter,
        thanks for that. From memory the study I referred to was carried out by a dutch researcher and published around 2013 – I will have a look for it tomorrow – I am pretty sure I have a copy in the office – if I do find it I will add some detail here.

        kind regards
        Roger

        10

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Peter Lang:

          Thanks for the link. That wasn’t the paper I was trying to remember. The comment re Denmark selling power was from the Danish Wind Association.
          I have a bad habit of copying paper without noting the source. Will look for it.

          00

          • #
            Peter Lang

            Graeme No.3 You are probably referring to studies by Udo and C. le Pair.

            C. le Pair: http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
            Fred Udo: http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html
            There are others too.

            I’d strongly urge you to read the Wheatley paper. IMO it is the gold standard for estimating emissions avoided by wind energy. It uses real world emissions data at 30 minute intervals. It’s excellent. Well worth taking your time to digest it – and the SEAI modelling study too. You can access them from here: http://joewheatley.net/category/wind-energy/ But note the Wheatley papers are at the bottom and the SEAI report at the top

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Graeme,

            I have a bad habit of copying paper without noting the source.

            I have a bad habit of noting the source, but not remembering why I wanted to remember it anyway. Believe me, that is worse than your affliction. :-)

            10

    • #

      Who says that wind power is renewable or green. This power comes directly from some change in angular momentum of this planet.
      Radiative Solar power seems free. But only if earthlings do not f(snip)k something else up. Never ever has been demonstrated! Deersies or Treesies seldom f(snip)k something else up. We need to observe and learn.

      00

  • #
    mikerestin

    Peter Lang is concerned the real story is even more costly than that, because it appears the RET review does not account for the way wind turbines become less effective…”
    neither one will do anything to change the freaking weather.
    There, fixed it for you.

    120

  • #

    Wind farms are FUBER well before their advertised service life has been reached. e.g. Vattenfall’s Yttre Stengrund decommissioned

    After 13 years, only ONE of 5 wind turbines is still operational. That’s not untypical of the “reliability” of offshore wind.

    Maintenance in windy regions simply gets too expensive because weather often precludes repairs. So crews and expensive equipment (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) sit around and wait for a suitable break in the weather.

    When the real world sees a substantial proportion of wind turbines fail before they reach their design life, that’s really going to mess with EROEI and “CO2e” balances.

    The question that needs to be asked is: “Will the Senate Committee be equipped to be able to assess the real world performance of wind turbines?”

    David Archibald’s submission puts most of the folly of wind turbines into one paragraph:

    Wind turbines are made using energy from coal at about 4 cents per kWh and provide energy thought to cost of the order of 10 cents per kWh. In effect, they are machines for taking cheap, stable and reliable energy from coal and giving it back in the form of an intermittent and unpredictable dribble at more than twice the price.

    In my opinion, he should have written:

    In effect, they are machines for taking cheap, stable and reliable energy from coal and giving some of it back in the form of an intermittent and unpredictable dribble at more than twice the price.

    330

    • #
      Spetzer86

      I’d not normally inquire, but I have a question regarding the term “FUBER”. In the USA, we’d use “FUBAR”, with the “A” standing for “all”. So, typo or Australian variation with the “E” meaning?

      [Bernd, you can go ahead and answer if you want to.

      However, considering the evident meaning of the letter F, neither term is one we like to see. No foul at this point but please remember this for the future. Jo wants such language avoided unless it can contribute something humorous or otherwise useful. Thanks.] AZ

      80

    • #
      sophocles

      Wind turbine gearboxes are a major source of generator failure, with many failing within 5 – 7 years instead of their design life of 20 years. This article from 2010 cites one large wind generator operator conceding a US$300million potential risk on gearboxes. They expected a service life of 5 to 7 years per box.

      Intense research has cured some problems but a major existing problem is poor bearing life which hasn’t been cracked yet. A complete gearbox is worth around $100,000. If it needs to be replaced 4 times in the life of a windmill then that’s well over half million dollars—possibly close to a million dollare—in servicing costs, including that $400,000 for replacement gearboxes, over that 20 year life span per windmill.

      On top of that, some have worked out how to steal the generators for scrap metal recovery! :-)

      What was that saving, again?

      30

  • #
    mikerestin

    If reducing CO2 were the goal the earth would be using nuclear power.
    Nuff said!

    231

  • #
    charplum

    Too many times when I read about progressive remedies I am reminded of the speech at the end of “Animal House” about futile gestures.

    It does not matter if their remedies work they only answer the question, “does it feel good?”

    90

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    If you add in diesel STOR, it gets worse because its thermodynamic efficiency for fast standby is far lower than baseload coal powered generation.

    The breakeven point is about 10%. We are there in the UK already. Our windmills have the same utility as the Easter Island Statues; a monument to the hubris of the ruling elite.

    260

    • #
      Dariusz

      Easter Island statues will continue to stand long after crusty carcass of windmill folly falls.
      Hope that future generations will have a monument with a plate reading something like “when humanity went off the rails chasing medieval technology hoping to save civilisation. Lest we forget so we won,t repeat the mistake of our predecessors.”

      80

  • #
    cedarhill

    In our “information age”, will the voters overcome the propaganda and the grifters associated with the totalitarianists to kick them all out of political office or will they simply “roll over” and “soldier on for the planet”.

    Even the Vatican…

    110

  • #
    Peter

    I see our great new government in Queensland is getting rid of just about every project that will make money and jobs for our State but they have approved a wind farm.

    180

    • #
      Peter Carabot

      Yes, and they did not even have the decency to wait for the senate inqurie to get to Cairns. I suppose so far the only warmist in the panel, has done nothing else but expose the leeches in the wind industry even more. The mount Emerald wind farm……will go the way of all the others,suck money from government (us!) and produce nothing. The vast majority of residents oppose this monstruosity. Jackie Trad and Fantasia have set up commisions to check that the previous government approved projects were worthy, canned most if not all of them before even getting a report and approved without questioning every project the LNP rejected! Fantasia, Fantasyland! We will be broke in the next year or so.

      121

  • #

    A Dutch Report by Dr C le Pair also
    shows that intermittent wind energy,
    with its production energy costs and
    back-up requirements, does not fulfill
    sustainable objectives, costing more
    fuel than it saves. Wind energy
    actually increases our environmental
    ‘footprint.’

    http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html

    270

  • #
    Dave in the states

    Wind turbines have never been about reducing co2 emissions. They are all about increasing the cost of energy for everybody in the developed world.

    There are several within miles of where I live. They require more supporting infrastructure, such as access roads and so forth than drilling does. They are just window dressing anyway. These are not connected to the grid. Competing Gov agencies will not release permits to install power transmissions lines. The environmental impact is deemed too great. They have only created a handful of jobs locally but they have made already rich land owners richer beyond their wildest dreams.

    140

  • #
    Timboss

    Direct Action is paying taxpayer money to people to have them not doing anything to the trees on their property. That’s funny!

    018

    • #
      James Bradley

      Timboss,

      Direct Action costs millions.

      It is paid locally to plant trees.

      It does not increase the cost of energy.

      It provides habitats for native bids and animals.

      1,000 times more tax payer dollars was gifted to international companies for inefficient and expensive energy farms that produce 18% of nameplate, but are subsidised through doubled energy costs at full production, or frittered away at the behest of “Climate Scientist” Tim Flannery to build Desalinisation Plants that cost the same to maintain as to build although they’ve remained idle since completion.

      More Direct Action, more trees, more birds, more animals, less handouts to the sad and dejected environmental groups concerned only with action on climate change as long as someone else pays and they can make a profit.

      320

      • #
        el gordo

        Direct Action may also assist farmers and graziers to stabilise their financial situation, so that drought relief becomes a thing of the past.

        90

        • #
          Timboss

          Oh I see, like the way farmers with wind turbines stabilise their financial situation.

          17

      • #
        Timboss

        I’m referring to those that are getting paid to forgo their right to clear their land. They do nothing, and they get paid. That’s funny! :)

        07

        • #
          James Bradley

          Timboss,

          Can you link to the government policy or any actual examples where a farmer is paid not to farm?

          50

          • #
            • #
              James Bradley

              So these are the project types from your link:

              .a generic method for emissions reductions at facilities reporting under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme

              .capture and destruction of coal mine fugitive emissions

              .reductions in emissions-intensity of transport

              .commercial, industrial and aggregated energy efficiency

              .capture and combustion of landfill gas and agricultural waste

              .alternative treatment of organic waste

              .capture and combustion of biogas from wastewater, and

              .methods for the land sector, including increasing soil carbon, reducing livestock emissions, expanding opportunities for environmental and carbon sink plantings, and reforestation.

              Which of those pays the farmer for not not doing anything to the trees on their property?

              The closest I can find is the last methods for the land sector, including increasing soil carbon, reducing livestock emissions, expanding opportunities for environmental and carbon sink plantings, and reforestation.
              which, at the least, requires planting more trees.

              40

              • #
                Timboss

                I guess you only see what you want to.

                http://www.mycarbonfarming.com.au/projects/ashwood-native-forest-protection-project/
                Ashwood Carbon Project Pty Ltd
                The protection of native forests through the prevention of clearing and clear felling harvesting activities.

                http://www.mycarbonfarming.com.au/projects/bedooba-native-forest-protection-project/
                Bedooba Native Forest Protection Project
                The protection of native forests through the prevention of clearing and clear felling harvesting activities.

                http://www.mycarbonfarming.com.au/projects/bloomfield-native-forest-protection-project/
                Bloomfield Native Forest Protection Project
                The protection of native forests through the prevention of clearing and clear felling harvesting activities.

                http://www.mycarbonfarming.com.au/projects/bogan-downs-native-forest-protection-project/
                Bogan Downs Native Forest Protection Project
                The protection of native forests through the prevention of clearing and clear felling harvesting activities.

                and the list goes on.

                03

              • #
                James Bradley

                Timboss,

                Get a grip, the subject of your discussion was “Direct Action is paying taxpayer money to people to have them not doing anything to the trees on their property”.

                Your post above is about trading carbon credits under the old Labor Clean Energy Fund and even though it has now been absorbed by Direct Action it only applies to land holders who had approved applications to clear land prior to May 2010.

                Trading carbon credits under an absorbed Labor scheme and receiving payment for not clearing land just isn’t remotely the same thing.

                So I repeat, no one gets paid simply by not doing anything to their trees.

                41

              • #
                Timboss

                The projects I listed are found in the Direct Action list I provided earlier (and yes many were already in operation – funny how Greg Hunt claims he’s doing all this work). But now they get paid to do nothing except watch the existing trees and their bank balances grow. Our taxes well spent.

                04

              • #
                James Bradley

                Timboss,

                Finally, a point of agreement – our taxes are better spent on Direct Action plans.

                30

              • #
                James Bradley

                Timboss,

                Oh, and finally an admission, the projects that you state pay people to do nothing were your own Labor endorsed and approved climate policies.

                At least with Mr Hunt trees are being planted, animal habitats are being restored, and the atmosphere is being enriched.

                Doesn’t quite make up for the wholesale deforestation, destruction of native wildlife habitats and slaughter of native birds due to the clearing of land for the construction and the operation of wind farms, now that is a waste of taxpayer funds.

                30

              • #
                Timboss

                An admission? I never contended such a thing. Go back and read my original statement instead of swinging your red herring around.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/wind-turbines-useless-for-carbon-reduction-from-50-120-ton-greens-should-protest-them/#comment-1706788

                I’m referring to those that are getting paid to forgo their right to clear their land. They do nothing, and they get paid. That’s funny!

                [Can we let this particular conversation end here? You've both made your point. Thanks.] AZ

                00

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            James Bradley,

            Timboss is refering to the Reforestation section of the Direct Action Plan. Under that plan, a farmer is compensated for not cutting down trees and/or planting trees with the obligation to leave those trees standing for either 25 years or 100 years.

            As we’ve seen before, Timboss has not fully examined the issue and so comes to the wrong conclusion, i.e. that the farmer is paid for doing nothing. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

            In the case of new trees, the farmer is doing something. Planting trees. The farmer is compensated for lost income that would have derived from planting other marketable crops. Without that compensation there would be no incentive to plant these trees and little to no carbon capture would accrue.

            But the key point which I believe Timboss and probably everyone else has missed here is that there are laws in Australia, to the best of my knowledge, preventing the clearing of ‘native trees’ and compelling the planting of new trees only when they are categorised as ‘native’.

            Now, given that these requirements, in and of themselves, impose financial losses to farmers, it’s only natural and fully justified to compensate farmers for the inability to do as they please with their land.

            So Reforestation by way of the Direct Action Plan, is in effect a compensatory remedy for the farmers financial loss. A loss which was incured through legislation.

            Disclaimer: While the Direct Action Plan has it’s benefits as oulined, it is still, in my view, the lesser of two evils. In reality, because we know that CO2 does not harm the planet in any way, reforestation should not be linked in any way to carbon credits, carbon abatement, carbon emissions, or any of the other CAGW ‘talking points’ being promoted by the climate change adherents.

            Reforestation just makes good sense all by itself, as long as it doesn’t harm people’s livelyhoods. They used to call that the pusuit of happiness in a once free and prosperous nation.

            Abe

            40

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            James Bradley,

            Just a side note. Two Questions For The Denizens Of JoNova And Oz.

            Would Peter Spencer have lost his farm through the Native Vegetation Acts in 2010 if Direct Action had been in existence back then?

            Wouldn’t Peter Spencer have been happy to join the Direct Action Plan and thereby keep his farm?

            In the pursuit of happiness.

            Hmm.

            Abe

            20

  • #
    Robert O

    For small isolated communities miles from transmission lines wind generation with diesel back-up makes some sense, but as a main source of power it is little more than a green thought bubble as the problems encountered for a little intermittent costly electricity are significant. Apart from the need for back-up power, wind turbines have a short operational life (when compared to a coal station) and high maintenance costs. Without being facetious it begs the question why on earth would the Senate waste its time on this anyhow, and is there any senator capable of understanding a detailed submission on the subject without expert advice? Senator Milne has a B.A. major in history for example.

    190

    • #
      James Murphy

      According to one ex-resident of Coober Pedy, about 10-15 years ago, their wind turbine was hardly used because one of the local councillors owned the company that sold the diesel to run the ‘backup’ generator – allegedly…

      100

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Jo muses…

      When they hear this, I’m sure Christine Milne (Greens leader), [...]etc. will all be very concerned. Any day now, they will declare that, for the sake of the planet, Australia and the West simply cannot afford to waste any more environmental time and eco-money on wind power

      In the words of Jabba, “I will not give up my favourite decoration!”

      100

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    How on Earth did carbon, one of the most ubiquitous elements on the planet, suddenly become so dangerous that windmills and solar farms, both known to be unable to handle the load 24/7, are now such a critical thing to build in the first place?

    And the answer…wait for it… …carbon isn’t a problem at all. So then, why the windmills?

    The simple answer is that we gave the United Nations, an organization accountable to no one, the mandate to save us from ourselves.

    We gave the EPA the same mandate. It, at least, was supposed to be accountable to Congress but Congress hasn’t been watching.

    We, the people, who should have been watching, also abdicated that responsibility.

    Now look where we are.

    Simple isn’t it? No one was watching what was going on until it was far past the point of easy return.

    Why quibble over which method of carbon reduction is best when we should simply scrap the whole idea and admit our mistake?

    That term denier may have more application than we think. The whole civilized world has been denying the obvious for more than 30 years. We’re headed down a dead end street at 100 MPH with no brakes and a power drunk driver.

    291

    • #
      Dennis

      During the early 1950s when the UN was established, for very good purposes at that time, the left side of politics identified an opportunity to infiltrate and eventually control the UN to push their agendas. An Australian Labor Attorney General at the time submitted a plan to his international comrades that the UN should create treaties to be signed by member nations to cover every conceivable possibility needed to get around sovereign nation laws. In other words to ignore what citizens might want, what we might reject at a referendum. The long term mission is, as former Greens leader Bob Brown explained at his last National Press Club luncheon meeting, a world parliament and no sovereign borders (nations?). Recently the deputy leader of the present Labor federal opposition remarked that she does not believe in having sovereign borders.

      The accountable to no one United Nations is all about gaining control.

      170

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The UN is accountable to the individual sovereign nations, because it is those sovereign nations that meet the operating costs. Theoretically, any nation can say, “We don’t agree with what you are proposing, and we are not prepared to pay for it”. There would, of course, be shock-horror from the other countries, until they thought things through and did the same thing.

        The countries that keep the UN in power are the small, Third World, countries that are almost entirely dependent on the largesse of the First World nations. But what if that largesse was to be donated directly, bypassing the UN …? Just musing on a Monday …

        10

        • #
          Matty

          That’s gives the donor credit for what the donation results in and encourages cooperation & appreciation between nations.
          The UN would rather be given powers to tax you, take all the credit & regularly shame or punish you to extract more.

          00

    • #
      Manfred

      We, the people, who should have been watching, also abdicated that responsibility.

      Roy,
      Definitely watching, red lining BS meter clasped firmly to hand. Only trouble, simply not enough of us unwilling to undergo social narcosis. The rest suck on the teat of platitudes and the odd hand out for an extra frappe.

      From the ‘scientists’ who recently discovered the greatest undersea global methane emission off the coast of NZ with the obligatory klimate khange ramification, augmenting the ‘blanket of greenhouse gases trapping more heat in’ to the NZ politicians determined to go to Paris with ‘SOMETHING’ merely to show solidarity, to do our bit ….namely, some kind of NZ legislative ‘encouragement’ for electric cars….

      But then, little countries have tended to embrace the UN.

      60

    • #
      tom0mason

      It is indeed true, that in times past these things wouldn’t have been contemplated outside the safe and secure confines of a sanitarium.

      These days the sanitariums lay empty and crumbling away, while the inmates are loosely confined within the very lax strictures of the UN (and some local governments), and are elevated to evermore dangerous positions of authority whilst experiencing increasing levels of delusional thinking.

      60

    • #

      Roy Hogue May 2, 2015 at 11:44 pm

      “How on Earth did carbon, one of the most ubiquitous elements on the planet, suddenly become so dangerous that windmills and solar farms, both known to be unable to handle the load 24/7, are now such a critical thing to build in the first place? And the answer…wait for it… …carbon isn’t a problem at all. So then, why the windmills?
      The simple answer is that we gave the United Nations, an organization accountable to no one, the mandate to save us from ourselves.
      We gave the EPA the same mandate. It, at least, was supposed to be accountable to Congress but Congress hasn’t been watching.
      We, the people, who should have been watching, also abdicated that responsibility. Now look where we are.
      Simple isn’t it? No one was watching what was going on until it was far past the point of easy return.
      Why quibble over which method of carbon reduction is best when we should simply scrap the whole idea and admit our mistake? That term denier may have more application than we think. The whole civilized world has been denying the obvious for more than 30 years. We’re headed down a dead end street at 100 MPH with no brakes and a power drunk driver.”

      Indeed, “We, the people, who should have been watching, also abdicated that responsibility. Now look where we are.”
      We, the people, can no longer blame anyone else. We, the people, currently own all of this s-snip-t. Whoh! are we.

      30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Will,

        Yes, we the people own the problem. We own every problem in fact. It took me more than a few years to realize this basic fact of life. Now how do we get the non owners, the blamers to admit their mistake and get onboard?

        I can only influence a few of them at most and then, only with words. I can support the best candidates for office with my money and my vote. I can try to influence my legislators. I can encourage others to do likewise. And that’s as far as one individual can go.

        So what I can hope to do, I do. On the other hand, government has the force of law behind it, which makes the whole thing worse than a catch-22, far worse.

        20

  • #

    This submission process for this Select Committee Inquiry was really odd.

    The original close date for submissions was late February.

    My submission was the second submission accepted, and when that original date arrived, there were only 8 submissions.

    Then the date blew out.

    Then the date blew out.

    Now the closing date is Monday, and there’s 326 Submissions.

    I live in hope, but I’m sensing a whitewash.

    They will hear exactly what they want to hear.

    Tony.

    251

    • #

      Hi, Anton

      I’d be most interested in your take on Submission No. 359 ‘Doctors for the Environment’. 17 Profs and Docs and they say, inter alia:

      Preventing the worst and potentially unmanageable health impacts of climate change, and in particular achieving the target of limiting global surface temperature rise to 2°C is dependent of the large-scale development of renewable energy, of which onshore wind generation is the cheapest option.

      I’m sure that from what I’ve read that wind generation is FAR from the cheapest option, and therefore these blokes and blokesses are giving their opinions verisimilitude through their ‘Authority’, rather than through fair and objective analysis.

      230

    • #
      ianl8888

      Do we know who this Senate Select Committee is comprised of ?

      Such as: who is on the Committee; who is the Chairman (or similar); is the Committee required to list and publish all the submissions (or alternatively, just list those who want to remain unpublished); when the report is due; is said report to be publicly released without expurgation (silly thought)

      In short, does this have any actual value ? If so, what ?

      40

    • #
      James Bradley

      Tony,

      The thought occurred to me that if the Government subsidised to the same amount coal/gas fired generation instead of wind/solar generation no one would ever pay a power bill again and the Australian economy would be soaring.

      30

  • #
    bobl

    It’s much worse than that, as well as the CO2 cost of the turbine you need to account for the loss of the CO2 sinking capacity of the land which needs to be stripped of woody growth – clear felled. A 1MW turbine needs about 15 Hectares of clear space. That land cost at let’s say, 2-4 million per windmill needs to be accounted for but also we need to consider that if we just planted an orchard there, we could sink about 6000 Tonnes of CO2 per annum, make a profit on the produce, and potentially even use the waste for biofuel (for example olives). The Nett performance of the turbine then after all lifecycle CO2 costs are taken account of needs to exceed 6000 Tonnes per annum over the life of the turbine and probably 10-50 years beyond since regrowth on land stripped of woody growth is not likely to be particularly speedy

    Since in CO2 terms wind turbine barely make back their construction CO2, I’d wager that they won’t be able to compete with a simple reforestation strategy. Windmills are just expensive batteries.

    120

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    As our small airplane fleet has aged,maintenance has increased dramatically,
    while fleet value declines. Many are now being parted out as not worth maintaining. Prop fatigue happens a lot.
    I think these big ones have hopelessly understated maintenance cost and useful life cost cycles. Not to mention the equivalent of an Airworthiness directive when one throws a blade. The ready availablity of the backups will make abandonment pretty easy when issues arrive.

    Heck, this happens all the time in fossil fuels. There are literally thousands of small abandoned local coal plants and hydro plants (in the US). Once the politics recedes cost/benefit will rule, and is merciless.
    Rate payers canbe loud.

    90

  • #
    Ruairi

    The facts on how wind turbines fare,
    Are no longer still ‘up in the air’,
    As the less that they turn,
    The more fuel they burn,
    When they turn;on a wing and a prayer.

    322

    • #
      handjive

      A red thumb for Ruairi?

      As mocking and humour are the most effective weapons in debate, and, with the bawdiness of the limerick as the delivery system, that one must have hurt.

      That red thumb is worth 100x green thumbs!

      161

    • #
      Annie

      2 red thumbs Ruairi! You’ve really made it now.

      40

  • #
    john robertson

    Seems we may have to offer the victims, thats the taxpayers, a remedy for the idiocy and injustice of having well connected parasites and their political enablers selling them more junk that fails to function.
    In the name of retributive justice, I will suggest the human Hampster Wheel Dynamo.
    I am sure we can design a suitable appliance that will enable those convicted of raping the public purse, to work off their debt to society.
    After all having otherwise rather useless members of society produce an average of 60Watt/hr is definitely eco-friendly.
    The PR burst will proclaim;
    Bio-Electricity,24/7 reliable output,Eliminates Hydrocarbon fuelled back up,…. and so on.
    The public health blurbs even better, Lose weight, improve cardiovascular function,gain self esteem….

    The Engineering aspect seems pretty simple, I envisage individual wheels of approximately 1m internal width and 10m diameter individually clutched to a central drive axle.
    A large floor hatch for quick removal of exhausted fuel components.
    This allowed “volunteer” exchange without stopping generation.
    Output speed is now largely irrelevant thanks to modern inverter systems.
    At 60W/person hour we would of course require17 wheels/Kw/h.
    A mere 16700 wheels per MegaWatt.
    See a system less enviro-Mentally intrusive than wind or solar, much less wasted land surface.
    In fact underground would probably be a preferred site.

    The “fuel component” side will be a little more interesting, first do wee have sufficient “units”?
    At 6hr shifts(the average daily time put in at our bureaucracies)that would require 4 shifts per day so an initial 67 000 destructive social parasites needed.
    No problem finding these numbers, even the ministries of Silly Walks come close. Certainly the Climate Change Departments, sustainability bureaus and dept of education are full of enablers of the current madness.
    As for those small details like due process, civil rights and human decency…
    Well these Eco-Nasties and their willing enablers from the Greys, have had no qualms about hoe deserving we taxpayers are,,of their “Solutions”
    So seeing such odious do-gooders running for their lives, will cause me no sleep loss.

    100

    • #
      Manfred

      The Green doctors and professors ‘for the environment’ can wildly applaud too, from their positions on the ‘generator’ at the enhanced herd health from relentless exercise. I’m a little concerned regarding their CO2 output while exercising. Perhaps we could help them assuage their guilt by insisting they wear CO2 scrubbers?

      80

  • #
    john robertson

    Rats, pushed Post instead of review.
    Just imagine if these arrogant nitwits had thought of such a system.
    Slavery back in the name of saving the planet…
    Oh never mind.. thats what a life without affordable energy means to most of Africa.

    60

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      john robertson,

      Just imagine if these arrogant nitwits had thought of such a system.

      Sorry to break the news, but they have thought of this. Every country that collects a carbon tax has in effect put each and every citizen on a ‘hamster wheel’. Part of these peoples salary goes to pay for the inefficient wind and solar generators they’ve installed. However it may work out in hours worked relative to the tax paid, that’s how many hours these people are on the hamster wheel. Working and paying not only for the salaries of these so called ‘nim-wits’ that legislated these contraptions into existence, but also for the contraptions themselves.

      Abe

      60

      • #
        john robertson

        Abe I know, did I need the sarc tag?
        Over the course of this winter the tax take off of my pay check exceeded 50%.
        Parasitic Overload seems to start at 10%.
        After that its just a question of the rate of social collapse.
        I suspect one could get government sustainability funding/alternative energy funding for building the wheels of pain as Bio-Energy eco-friendly, blah blah, properly inspired one could write up a proposal awash in cliches and buzz words.

        20

  • #
    manalive

    The studies cited above vary in detail but they all seem to agree that windmills are most effective at CO2 abatement when they generate no electricity at all.

    180

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    One man’s outgoings are another man’s income.
    Yes, Green energy is, from the POV of the bill-payer, more expensive than that which it pretends to replace but it does create wealth.

    You may not be totally delighted to see yourself becoming poorer but raise a cheer for those lucky few who have become much richer through following the Faith and consider it a triumph of politics, passion and policy over economic, technical and scientific pragmatism!

    Robin of Sherwood may have achieved immortality through robbing the rich to pay the poor but that’s so yesterday.
    Green capitalism is the new Black and,if reversing the role of donors and recipients necessitates achieving immorality, that’s a small price for others to pay:)

    100

    • #
      Graeme No. 3

      Robing of Greenwood?

      40

    • #
      Dennis

      Driving in the Maryborough Queensland area on the Bruce Highway I observed a very large solar panel system located on a sugar cane farm and was later told that the farming family had invested in the system to supplement farm income.

      60

  • #
    handjive

    Buffett/Munger: a free-market system wouldn’t produce solar under today’s economics

    Recap: The 2015 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Meeting (wsj)

    2.03am: “The two top Berkshire dogs on the stage, Buffett and Munger, say that wind and solar at present are dependent on tax credits because a free-market system wouldn’t produce solar under today’s economics.”

    70

  • #
    handjive

    JAY LENO COMPARES NEW AND 100-YEAR OLD ELECTRIC CARS

    Leno road test his Baker Electric and the electric Ford Focus used on the Green Car Challenge

    youtube, 6.28 minutes

    40

    • #
      handjive

      “Prius continuing its downward trend with a 15 percent drop”

      Toyota posts gain, needs more trucks (autonews.com May 1)

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        Why pay the extra for a hybrid car when a conventional petrol turbo can achieve as good or better fuel consumption.

        70

    • #
      Willard

      Great Video Handjive, Jay Leno’s a clever guy when it comes to automobiles, 5 years ago when this video was made he said electric cars are the future, he got that spot on.

      30

    • #
      LightningCamel

      I had a ROFLMAO moment yesterday. Here I was, rolling along in my B double, good old reliable 600 hp Cummins purring along well into its second million km, when I come up behind this exotic sports car dribbling along on the verge at about 50 kph. That in itself got my attention but the best bit was when I got close enough to read the name badge, it said Tesla. There it was, this multi hundred thousand dollar thing and it could scarcely raise a trot. He was about 400km from Melbourne so it didn’t even make its advertised range. Hope he brought a long extension cord.

      80

      • #
        Willard

        Good bit of car spotting Lightning Camel, you’ll see a lot more of that in the future as Tesla owners are not scared to take a challenge.

        50

      • #
        janama

        In Germany last year I was overtaken by a Tesla doing 160km/hr!!

        20

      • #
        clive hoskin

        I wonder what they use to re-charge the batteries?Unicorn farts no doubt.

        11

        • #
          Willard

          Clive Hoskin- why use Unicorn farts when fairly cheap reliable electricity can be used.

          10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Because you never know if the electricity has been produced using ethical, renewable, resources.

            With Unicorn farts you always know where you stand … in front of the unicorn, if you have any sense.

            10

            • #
              Willard

              Not sure what your trying to say here Rereke, the car will still run regardless of the electricity being produced by Gas, Coal, Hydro or many other methods, just like most people source electricity to run their household appliances. You should read up on how modern EVs work, if you had any sense.

              01

              • #

                I think you’ll find that (common) sense is one thing that Rereke isn’t short of. He is known for his different opinions. :)

                10

            • #
              Matty

              So the car don’t care how its electricity was made, but unicorns don’t fart. I think you just made that bit up.

              00

  • #
    Dennis

    The question must be asked about what wind turbine business owners (shareholders) are going to do when their equipment needs replacement well before the predicted life cycle has been achieved. Will they abandon their business or be prepared to re-invest and if they are prepared to re-invest, will they want extra compensation via subsidies from consumers to guarantee their return on investment?

    What a farce.

    70

    • #
      bemused

      I suspect that by the time the wind turbines are due for replacement, this folly will be over and the rent seekers will be looking elsewhere for new troughs.

      40

      • #
        tom0mason

        bemused
        .

        And who will be left to foot the bill for this folly… Oh, that’s right, the bottomless public purse.

        30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      As a shareholder in a Wind Turbine manufacturing company, I can answer that question. The longer this charade goes on, the more the value of my shareholding decreases.

      Of course, I will claim that I always knew that the shares were speculative, but you still hope that you will make a killing.

      But you never know, if the Government subsidies increase ten-fold, and significantly increase demand for new turbines, then the value of my shares will sky-rocket. Does anybody want to make me an offer while they can get them at a discount?

      00

  • #

    Never mind the carbon, feel the fetish.

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    Why windmills? It is all the science ignorant shamanist Greens understand. Christine Milne taught English and History and Social Science, which is as close as she could get to Science. Arithmetic is beyond the Greens.

    Near useless windmills and waterwheels were abandoned instantly when steam engines were invented. Coal fired steam engines meant railways and steam boats and machinery and so created the modern world the Greens hate so much.

    Absurd windmills are like hydro without a dam. Without storage, useless. So despite 220,000 of giant new windmills, the contribution to world power is under 1% and probably added at least as much to the base load just to cover the lack of storage! When the wind howls at night, who cares? On those stifling August days in summer, they just sit there while the world burns coal.

    Greens are pro hydro and anti dam, pro CO2 free power and anti nuclear, anti coal and anti tree cutting but pro wood fires. They would be pro waterwheels too but without dams. Anti farmer and anti truck, but pro fresh food. In a word, nuts.

    Meanwhile unrepresentative and utterly unqualified Green politicians create Senate inquiries, fly around the country, stay in quality hotels, live free and sit on these committees at $30,000 a time to boost their $200,000 salaries for doing nothing in their day job. We need a House of Representatives inquiry into the value of Senate inquiries! The Senate is not the government, has no power except that old favorite of the Greens, the ability to say no to everything. The Senate and its members are an utter disgrace. Surely they know it, but they take the money and talk about battlers and pensioners and refugees, themselves irresponsible, uncaring and overpaid refugees from real jobs.

    260

    • #

      Like we learned as children under the Christmas tree…batteries not included.

      120

    • #
      TdeF

      It is infuriating to hear that Labor and Green windmill and RET pushing politicians boast that they are ‘progressives‘. That is code for repressives, latter day luddites. Every time they invented a new tax, they called it ‘tax reform‘, code for a tax increase. The same old grind though, tax the ‘rich’, kill negative gearing, soak the miners, death taxes, assets tax, tax everyone’s savings and no tax rebates for R&D. Land rights for refugee gay whales take precedence. Surely they can see they are a parody of themselves, but in the Australian senate the money and privilege and retirement plans easily compensate for their anguish and lack of self respect and accountability. After all, they have found the cushiest jobs in the world with great pay, no work, no care and even less responsibility.

      Now Labor’s old friend, Laurie Oakes is pushing the double dissolution barrow, even while Labor is ahead in the polls. Abbott won’t fall for that either. We need him in charge for the IPPC battle in Paris. Expect the ABC/Fairfax/IPCC lobby to try hard and upset this steady government before December.

      50

    • #
      Robert O

      The only reason that the Senate has so many greens is because of the complicated proportional voting system whereby they manage to scrape-up a quota or two with the help of preference deals. Assume 13% of the electorate vote green then they only have to get this to 16.7% to get over the line which is done by distributing preferences from candidates who got more than their quota and those who were excluded. Until we go back to first past the post voting, or a variant in the Senate like the top six candidates from a randomised list, it will never change. Would the senators vote for their demise?

      10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    And when these useless things have ran their course of environmental and economical damage, in the real world we might have a problem dealing with the toxic materials in their construction let alone the pollution produced already.

    Once again for the left the means is always justified for the outcome, no matter how insane.

    90

  • #
    pat

    unintended consequences:

    27 April: WRAL: Homeowners find green heating units can’t take the cold
    CHAPEL HILL, NC – At first the complaints were a trickle, but 5 On Your Side discovered the problem could end up affecting thousands of homeowners…
    The “green” furnaces called 90 percent energy efficient are installed in most new homes and are a top choice for those who are replacing their furnace. They’ve become a big problem for some homebuyers in the Triangle’s largest all-green community, Chatham County’s Briar Chapel…
    Carolyn Carlo thought her move to Briar Chapel would yield a trouble-free and environmentally responsible retirement. Then, during the winter of 2014, her heating system failed. Condensation on her furnace froze the unit.
    “We have a green house, green energy, all this high efficiency, but we don’t have heat,” she said. “I mean it’s ridiculous.”…
    Just as ridiculous, they say, was the solution that builder MI Homes offered for Carlo and Stern.
    “Go outside of the house, and take a bucket of hot water, and, umm, pour it on the pipe,” Stern described.
    He didn’t dare. “I couldn’t walk here with a cane,” he said.
    MI Homes spokesmen told Carlo to wrap her exterior pipes…
    Both Carlo and Stern called MI Homes and the furnace installer, Yellow Dot, several times. The companies were responsive, but their solutions were confusing.
    Stern said workers did something with hair dryers, while at Carlo’s home, an MI Homes representative installed a pipe in her garage for drainage, then asked her to empty it multiple times a day.
    “If it gets too heavy, I can’t lift it,” she said. “I have pushed it out of the garage and dumped it in the driveway. I mean that’s, that’s, that’s sick.”
    MI Homes sent Carlo a letter calling the added pipe an offer of “goodwill.”
    “Can you imagine? This house cost over $300,000, and he’s telling me that he’s doing this, giving me heat, because of his goodwill,” she said.
    Even after the fixes, the heating unit still froze…
    Homeowners from Atlanta to New Jersey have posted similar complaints online…
    “It’s unconscionable that we have been going through this for two years,” Carlo said.
    http://www.wral.com/homeowners-find-green-heating-units-can-t-take-the-cold/14598654/

    61

  • #
    pat

    2 May: NPR: A Veteran Scientist Dreams Boldly Of ‘Earth And Sky’
    Freeman Dyson is one of the most famous names in science, and sometimes one of the most controversial…
    On his global warming skepticism
    What I would like to emphasize is that human actions have very large effects on the ecology, which have nothing to do with the climate. Carbon dioxide is what we’re producing in big quantities and putting into the atmosphere. This happens to be a very good fertilizer for all kinds of vegetation, good for wildlife, good for agricultural production, so it has many benefits. And this is something you have together with the climate effects, which are much less certain, so it’s a question of drawing a balance. I’m just saying I don’t understand it and neither does anybody else. I’m skeptical because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand it, and maybe have the wrong answer.
    Of course [the weather] concerns me, but of course, we don’t know much about the causes of those things. We don’t even know for sure whether it is more variable than it used to be. I mean the worst disasters were the Ice Ages, and nobody really understands for sure the causes of Ice Ages, so I’m not saying the climate disasters aren’t real, I’m merely saying we don’t know how to prevent them…
    On his recommendations for change
    I would say one of the first things we should try to do is to get rid of poverty, human poverty. When people are poor, they can’t take care of nature around them. They just have to survive as best they can, so that some of the poorest people are actually the most destructive. So I would say if you can deal with poverty, that’s something very positive, which we should be doing. Also preservation of habitat, of wildlife, all sorts of problems we have to deal with, of which climate is one, and I would say climate is not the most urgent…
    http://www.npr.org/2015/05/02/403530867/a-veteran-scientist-dreams-boldly-of-earth-and-sky

    61

    • #
      James Murphy

      Looking at the comments on the NPR site, it’s pretty horrendous to see someone of Dyson’s intellectual stature being torn to shreds purely because he is a ‘denier’.

      40

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      O/T. You posted yesterday on the World Science Festival. I posted a reply, but just in case you don’t see it, here’s a link that’ll give you the entire sitemap for that Science Festival website.

      In fact you can do this with most any web-site. The file, ‘sitemap.xml’, can be found in the root directory of any website because it’s there to allow google and other search engines quick access to all the web-pages on a web-site for complete and accurate indexing.

      When you need to explore a site, just delete all the characters in the URL address box at the top of your browser, after the first backslash. Then just type in ‘sitemap.xml’ and press ‘enter’. Once you’re in, you can navigate to any part of the site to see what’s there.

      Abe

      30

  • #
    Robber

    I am trying to find out what the cost of electricity will be in Australia by 2020 with the RET in place versus the cost with no RET. Greg Hunt seems reluctant to answer the question. The Australian Bureau of Statistics electricity index shows prices rising by 7.9% per year since March 2008 inncluding a jump of 15.5% in Q3 2012 following the introduction of the carbon tax, and a drop of 6.3% in Q3 2014 following its removal (although Syd/Melb prices dropped by 9-11% while brisbane rose by 4.6% and Adelaide 0.3% so there are clearly other factors at work through government pricing controls.

    Continuation of the trend from 2008-2015 to 2020 would indicate prices will be 46% higher than they are today.

    60

    • #
      Peter Lang

      I am trying to find out what the cost of electricity will be in Australia by 2020 with the RET in place versus the cost with no RET.

      The 2014 RET Review is a recent and authoritative source for information about the RET and it’s likely consequences (except that, as my submission explains, I believe it overstates the amount of CO2 that will be avoided by wind power and therefore understates the CO2 abatement cost of wind power). See Section 4 Electricity Prices . This says retail prices are expected to fall to 2020 and then increase after that. The expected price reduction is because the RET is forcing a massive oversupply of installed capacity, but unreliable capacity that has very low capacity value.. We’ll pay for this,

      70

      • #
        ianl8888


        The expected price reduction is because the RET is forcing a massive oversupply of installed capacity, but unreliable capacity that has very low capacity value.. We’ll pay for this

        Quite self-evident. So what value do you see in this current Senate Select Committee ?

        I did ask that above but you chose not to answer (and this time there is no registration rubbish to prevent any ensuing discussion)

        00

        • #
          Peter Lang

          I think the answer to your question is self evident if you have a look at the Senate Committee, the Terms of Reference, read my submission, read some of the Testimony at the 30 march Public hearings and get a sense form the senators questions about what they are looking for, And consider what is required to make changes to the legislation. I think this Select Committee has the potential to make a significant contribution to sanity.

          Also note Senator David Leyonhjelm comment here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2015/04/26/guest-post-peter-lang-wind-turbines-are-less-effective-and-co2-abatement-cost-is-higher-than-commonly-assumed/comment-page-1/#comment-1666117

          As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, and the one who drafted the terms of reference and moved the motion to establish the inquiry, I have a keen interest in this thread.

          I encourage those with expertise or special knowledge in this area to make a submission to the inquiry. We are especially keen to receive submissions incorporating economic and environmental assessments of the kind mentioned in the post.

          The terms of reference are here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Terms_of_Reference

          20

        • #
          Peter Lang

          ianl8888,

          Quite self-evident. So what value do you see in this current Senate Select Committee ?

          I did ask that above but you chose not to answer (and this time there is no registration rubbish to prevent any ensuing discussion)

          I answered by giving you the link to the Senate Select Committee web site. Clearly that’s the place to go to find out the answer to your question, rather then ask my opinion. IMO, I am really pleased these guys have managed to get this committee set up and running and I think they are doing a great job against enormous opposition from the renewable energy lobby and both sides of politics.

          20

        • #
          Peter Lang

          ianl8888,

          Quite self-evident. So what value do you see in this current Senate Select Committee ?

          I did ask that above but you chose not to answer (and this time there is no registration rubbish to prevent any ensuing discussion)

          I answered by giving you the link to the Senate Select Committee web site. Clearly that’s the place to go to find the answer to your question, rather than ask my opinion. IMO, I am really pleased these guys have managed to get this committee set up and running and I think they are doing a great job against enormous opposition from the renewable energy lobby and both sides of politics.

          10

      • #
        Robber

        Thanks Peter. That report says:
        “The ACIL Allen modelling results indicate that under the current RET scheme, wholesale electricity prices would fall slightly over the period 2015 to 2020 due to significant amounts of new wind capacity entering the market. Wholesale electricity prices then rise slowly from 2025 onwards, as demand growth begins to absorb the excess generation capacity. Lower wholesale prices outweigh the direct cost of certificates over the period 2020 to 2030, meaning that retail electricity prices over this period are lower with the RET in place”.

        What is the logic behind this modelling? If true we should double the RET target and get even cheaper electricity prices.

        The assumption appears to be that the existing generators will accept far lower prices. “Some submissions questioned the extent to which incumbent capacity will respond to demand signals. In theory, incumbent plant will only continue operating while wholesale electricity prices cover variable operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.”

        “The results for the sensitivity show that if generation plant retires permanently, continuation of the current RET scheme would lead to higher retail electricity prices. In the reference case, the RET has the effect of supressing wholesale electricity prices due to an over-supply of generation capacity in the market. If plant is retired permanently, the modelling suggests this wholesale price suppression would not occur and wholesale electricity prices would be well above the price estimated for the reference case.”

        Their modelling for that scenario reported in Figure 22 of their report indicates wholesale electricity prices could increase in real 2014 $ (ie removing CPI) from $32/Mwh in 2015 to $38/MWh in 2020 – an 18% increase without inflation, or about 30% with inflation. And further increase to over $50 by 2030. That’s wholesale price, so my initial assumption about a 46% increase in retail prices by 2020 is plausible.

        My conclusion: In the end the consumer always pays when market forces are distorted by subsidies such as that inherent in the RET.

        00

  • #
    pat

    Robber -

    i think the price would depend on where the “carbon” price goes in the meantime.

    March 2014: ClimateProgress: Jeff Spross: Surprise! Even A Crazy-High Carbon Tax Would Help California Businesses
    According to a new study out of California, taxing carbon emissions at a whopping $200 per ton would create more jobs in the state than business-as-usual.
    The report was commissioned by Citizens Climate Lobby and carried out by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI).
    The latter used a model of the California economy they’ve developed and combined it with the Carbon Tax Analysis Model — an open-source, Microsoft Excel-based model of carbon emissions and tax revenues at the state level, built off data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration…
    All three started at $10 per ton in 2015, then rose $10 annually until they hit their maximum level: $50 in 2019, $100 in 2024, and $200 in 2034…
    Lots of previous analyses have tried to model the economic cost of the damage climate change will impose, and $200 per ton of emissions is consistent with several of them. But it’s also way higher than anything lawmakers here or elsewhere have considered…
    ***According to REMI’s model, the $200 per ton tax would cut California’s emissions between 25 and 30 percent from 1990’s levels by 2035…
    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this piece incorrectly stated that REMI’s modeling showed the tax would cut California’s carbon emissions 70 percent below 1990 levels by 2035.
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3356461/california-carbon-tax-200-ton/

    so, in the above, we have:
    “According to REMI’s model, the $200 per ton tax would cut California’s emissions between 25 and 30 percent from 1990’s levels by 2035″.

    now we are being told:
    “California now aims to cut carbon emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030″

    the “carbon” price in California presently at $12-plus/tonne. are they expecting it to go to $200 at some stage before 2030?

    1 May: Science Mag: Marianne Lavelle: Analysis: In boosting climate goals, California daring others to follow
    When California Governor Jerry Brown announced earlier this week that he was ratcheting up his state’s already ambitious greenhouse gas reduction target, he put his state in a familiar place: trying to set the regulatory pace for the rest of the nation, and even the world…
    Brown’s executive order Wednesday builds on a landmark law that California enacted in 2006 to cut its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, in part by creating its own cap-and-trade market…
    Since implementation, the law has resulted in 100 million tons of greenhouse gas reductions (roughly equivalent to taking 20 million cars off the road), bringing the state halfway to its 2020 goal. Policy debates in California increasingly have been focusing on what comes after 2020…
    ***Specifically, California now aims to cut carbon emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030—a goal on par with that adopted by the 28-nation European Union for Paris…
    Those familiar with the U.N. process say California can now serve as an important lodestar for the Paris effort, especially because—unlike Europe—it has been able to generate jobs even as it has slashed carbon emissions…
    Significantly, E3 found that such measures would add no more than $18 per month to the average household energy bill and could actually wind up saving Californians money if U.S. gasoline prices rise in the future…
    http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/05/analysis-boosting-climate-goals-california-daring-others-follow

    10

  • #
    pat

    MSM continues to push the CAGW agenda:

    2 May: LA Times: Michael Hiltzik: The GOP attack on climate change science takes a big step forward
    Living down to our worst expectations, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology voted Thursday to cut deeply into NASA’s budget for Earth science, in a clear swipe at the study of climate change.
    The committee’s markup of the NASA authorization bill for fiscal 2016 and 2017 passed on a party-line vote, Republicans in the majority. The action followed what appears to be a deliberate attempt to keep Democrats out of the loop. According to Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the committee’s ranking Democrat, her caucus “did not even know [the markup] existed before last Friday. … After we saw the bill, we understood why.”…
    Unsurprisingly, it has created consternation among experts…
    President Obama took a well-deserved shot at climate change deniers in the Senate during last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Assn. Dinner…
    “Miami floods on a sunny day, and instead of doing anything about it we’ve got elected officials throwing snowballs in the Senate [James Inhofe, we're looking at you].
    “What kind of stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible …,” Obama said, using an expletive.
    What kind, indeed? This kind.
    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83434510/

    1 May: WaPo: Marshall Shepherd: Cutting NASA’s earth science budget is short-sighted and a threat
    (Dr. Marshall Shepherd is the Georgia Athletic Association Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Geography at the University of Georgia and 2013 President of the American Meteorological Society. He hosts Weather Channel’s Weather Geeks. He is also a member of the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council.)
    When I went to bed last night, I had no intention of writing this commentary. However, I literally could not sleep contemplating the reckless cuts to NASA’s earth sciences budget being proposed by some in the U.S. House of Representatives.
    Phil Plait at Slate (LINK) and Capital Weather Gang recently documented the stark and primitive cuts being proposed for the NASA authorization bill…
    NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, one of the few people that has actually seen our home planet from the vantage point of space, issued a statement noting that proposed cuts, “gut our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate, and our ability to prepare for and respond to earthquakes, droughts, and storm events…” This statement is measured and appropriate, but I am writing to amplify this statement…
    I am a former scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and worked on missions to improve our understanding and capabilities in weather prediction, monitoring of hurricanes, and assessment of flood potential. As the former deputy project scientist for the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, I assure you that the level of cuts proposed for NASA’s earth sciences program would not only harm but end many programs and jeopardize many federal and private sector jobs. The engineering, ground systems, science, and support work of NASA earth science missions is supported by some of the most vibrant private aerospace and science-technology companies in the world…
    I served on a National Academy of Science panel that examined national security implications of climate change on U.S. Naval Operations. This study was commissioned by the Navy itself…
    I host The Weather Channel’s Sunday talk show Weather Geeks. This Sunday we examine the role of NASA’s Precipitation Measurement Missions on science and societal applications…
    More importantly, none of us has a “vacation planet” we can go to for the weekend, so I argue that NASA’s mission to study planet Earth should be a “no-brainer.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/05/01/cutting-nasas-earth-science-budget-is-short-sighted-and-a-threat/

    20

  • #
    Campbell

    Is it (or is it not)a good idea to work on the apparently well proven point that more C02 is an excellent contributor to food production: This seems to be left as an after-thought, much of the time.

    30

  • #
    pat

    James Murphy -

    NPR readers may mock Dyson, but they’d no doubt love BBOXX, which BBC heaped praise on this week – as they have in the past – tho the Beeb hasn’t documented it. from what i heard, i thought BBOXX had installed millions of panels.

    17 March: PV Magazine: Peter Carville: BBOXX announces Series B funding, continues off-grid gold rush
    The DOEN Foundation and Bamboo Finance will focus on off-grid projects in Sub-Saharan Africa
    Off-grid product developer BBOXX has announced its Series B round of funding has raised $3 million for for Sub-Saharan Africa. The funding has come from private investment firm Bamboo Finance and the DOEN Foundation.
    ***In a statement, BBOXX said that it aimed with the new funding to supply 20 million people with electricity by 2020…
    Off-grid solar in Asia and Africa is going through a boom, with heavy investment geared towards a largely-untapped market. Last month, The Climate Group released, in partnership with Goldman Sachs, The Business Case for Off-Grid Energy In India, a report that took in an exhaustive survey of the market in India…
    They concluded, “Gross product margins hover between 10-25%, but after adjusting for marketing, transportation and distribution, margins are closer to 1-5%. A lack of meaningful scale has meant few enterprises have achieved profitability to date. Even leading players claim they need to grow to at least two-to-four times their current size in order to break even. As a result, the solar home system market seems viable, but enterprises who sell only solar home systems are unlikely to see high returns. Despite these challenges, fast growth and cross/up-sell opportunities mean solar home system enterprises could represent a high potential, albeit risky, investment opportunity for investors.”
    http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/bboxx-announces-series-b-funding–continues-off-grid-gold-rush_100018611/#axzz3Z1vd9DsF

    from the following “Five thousand units have already been deployed, there are a further 6,000 in production and 8,000 on order”. am i missing something, or is this all they have achieved so far?

    6 April: Vodaphone: BBOXX ensures reliable energy for remote communities worldwide using Vodafone M2M
    BBOXX was founded in 2010 to provide “an on-grid experience in an off-grid world”. The company’s smart solar units can be activated, updated and managed centrally. It distributes to 40+ countries, though its primary markets are Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. BBOXX aims to have four million smart solar units in operation by 2020…
    ***BBOXX is the brainchild of three graduates of Imperial College, London…
    Remote monitoring allows BBOXX to check for faults, install firmware updates and shut down the units in the event of missed payments. Vodafone M2M SIMs installed in every solar unit mean BBOXX can deploy quickly anywhere in the world.
    *** Five thousand units have already been deployed, there are a further 6,000 in production and 8,000 on order. BBOXX aims to have 100,000 units in the market by the end of 2016, mostly in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda…
    “The units can be up and running almost out-of-the-box. Activation takes less than an hour, managed from London. We have units operational in more than 12 countries, from Ghana to Pakistan – this would not have been possible without Vodafone.” – Chris Baker-Brian, Chief Technology Officer, BBOXX.
    http://m2m.vodafone.com/cs/m2m/insight_news/bbox-ensures-reliable-energy-for-remote-communities-worldwide-using-vodafone-m2m.jsp

    20

    • #

      *****Beware – sarcasm alert*****

      pat mentions this wonderful BBOXX idea for Africa.

      This is such wonderful news for those hundreds of millions of people who do not have power in Africa.

      This is a small box and a solar panel ….. oh, and a mobile phone.

      This, umm, wonderful unit (artfully called a battery box) provides enough power to run perhaps a light, a small radio, or a mobile phone, and the larger units may even be scaled up to perhaps run a fridge, umm, while the Sun is shining that is, or as is suggested, Mobile phone charging stations.

      The idea of the mobile phone is that, via one of the phone companies, the whole shebang can be remotely controlled ….. from London, no less.

      They even refer to it as plug and play.

      Ahh! Wonderful! Just what these hundreds of millions of powerless Africans need.

      I can just see it now. A young man in Uganda (one of the target markets) opens up his newly arrived box and his wife says to him:

      “Great will you look at this. What the hell do we do with this damned thing?”

      “Oh, I dunno. Say, we could always ring up for a Pizza!”

      Oh, and the app on the phone is set up so that if the, umm, powerless African misses a payment, they can switch it off ….. from London.

      They hope to scale it up to sell millions of them.

      It also mentions at the site that:

      Until now, we have sold solar energy products to customers upfront, but this year we will be launching solar energy as a pay-monthly service to consumers in Kenya and Uganda for the first time with some exciting new technology to help us remotely monitor our products and provide a complete service to the end customer.

      and then this from a second site:

      Builds a detailed picture of off-grid energy use, invaluable for next rounds of funding.

      Someone is going to get very rich.

      Now this ….. JUST what Africa needs. Mobile phones. Hmm! Wonder who else wins there?

      Tony.

      70

      • #

        Seven years ago, when I started what I do, there were quite literally many hundreds of millions of people in China who were in the same situation as those people in Africa still are now.

        So, in China, what did they do?

        Did they give them a solar panel and a mobile phone.

        No, China began to move their Country into the 20th Century, not this Century we live in, but where we were at the turn of the last Century.

        They started to build humungous bl00dy geat big power plants of all sorts, mainly coal fired, augmented by the most massive of Hydro schemes on Planet earth.

        Because of that rush to build new Industry (providing paying jobs) they also had to construct humungous power grids.

        Because of that, the side benefit was that with these new power grids, then the average Chinese person now had access to reliable electricity at the Residential level.

        One prime example was that (beware, sarcasm) monster blot on Planet Earth, The Three Gorges Dam. People (in the West, you might have guessed) said that this was the single most horrendous thing that the Chinese have constructed.

        Well, right now around that huge dam, and off beyond the horizon around it, there are a number of cities which have grown, and perhaps many may millions of people now have access to reliable electricity, and before it went in, they lived in the most abject poverty with no power whatsoever.

        The same is happening all across the WHOLE of China.

        The same is slowly happening across India as well now.

        Build the large scale power plants. The grid follows. Poverty recedes.

        THAT is what Africa needs.

        Not solar panels and mobile phones.

        Sometimes I am really disheartened by my fellow man, well, some of them anyway.

        Give me strength.

        Tony.

        100

        • #
          ianl8888

          I’ve been into China many times over the last decade, hired to improve mining geology and safety practices, literally from the mining faces up to provincial, regional and national govt safety regulations

          One of the most astonishing facets to Tony’s comments is the incredible difficulties that infrastructure development faces in China by dint of population density there. Geographically, China is about 10% larger in land area than Aus but carries a population increase of about 60x

          As my Chinese colleagues put it, “We have people everywhere“. Yet power grids, highways, towns, apartment blocks, shopping centres, hospitals, bullet trainways … ad infinitum, with a relatively small disturbance impact on regional populations (not zero impact, of course but with less damage than Mao’s Great Step Forward had). Just not possible in Aus any more – even if we could ever agree on what to build

          Despite what is persistently construed as “human rights abuses”, over the last 30 years China has lifted >300 million people out of abject poverty. This has never been done before in human history

          50

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Incredible perspective; thanks Tony and Ian.

            KK

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            This has never been done before in human history

            And we hope that it never has to be done again.

            00

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Rereke Whakaaro,

              Having been here long enough to read between the lines at least some of the time, I take it you’re referring to the possibility of having to lift the west out of abject poverty if the ‘green machine’ succeeds in implementing their ‘wealth redistribution scheme’.

              But let’s not forget that on the other side of the scale there’s still Africa which is currently being forced to remain in abject poverty as a direct consequence of the draconian measures being put into place in that continent’s strugle to improve the living standard of it’s millions.

              My apologies in advance if I misread your statements.

              Abe

              10

  • #
    pat

    posting to show how the MSM loves BBOXX.

    Press – Bboxx
    http://www.bboxx.co.uk/press/
    BBOXX is regularly featured in the media and commended for its achievements. … Bloomberg TV; CNBC; BBC Radio 5 Live; The Telegraph · The Guardian

    e.quinox is a ***for-profit charity started up by the BBOXX guys at Imperial College, tho originally the plan was to give away the solar units for free.

    in fact, BBOXX/e.quinox seem to be part of Imperial College. none of this was made clear by BBC:

    e.quinox: Our Partners
    includes: BBOXX, JP Morgan, Imperial College, GE, UNDP, etc
    address at bottom of page: Imperial College, London, UK, SW7 2AZ
    http://e.quinox.org/index.php/partners

    40

  • #
    ROM

    Late to the party again!

    Never ever mentioned in connection with wind turbines is the power they have to draw from the grid when they are not operating.
    This power is used to regularly turn the blades as the propeller shaft will start to set into a permanent bend from the immense weight of the blades unless it is turned regularly plus the immense blade support bearings develop cracks leading to bearing failure from the pressures of the rollers sitting in the one position for any length of time [ Large ships propellers are also very slowly and constantly turned when idle to prevent shaft bending creep and distortion. ]

    The grid power is also used to keep the turbine blades and nacelle turning and pointing into wind. It provides the braking power to stop the blades turning except for the shaft bending provision. Grid power is used copiously to maintain the various oil temperatures in gearboxes and transformers at the correct temperatures especially considering the colder temperatures at those 100 plus metres heights when we get those close to sub zero temperatures. It is used to run dehumidifiers in the nacelles and to continue running the essential turbine and power output electronics and etc.

    In all it seems from what can be gleaned from an analysis of the data which the turbine companies absolutely refuse to reveal as it further destroys their claims of efficiency in power generation, the data suggests that turbines overall draw very roughly the equivalent of about 8% or possibly more, up to 13% has been suggested of their actual output back from the grid for this essential maintenance requirements when the turbine is not operating.

    Even more “murky, a well known characteristic of turbine companies being “murkiness” in just about every single thing they claim they do, is whether the turbine companies are first of all ever metered for the power they draw back from the grid and whether they are ever charged for this grid power.

    The very strong suspicion is that they are never made to account for either the grid power they use and the cost of that power.

    Wind power is totally parasitical to the national grid system in that it cannot operate or survive as large scale independent industrial supply power generation system without either backup power systems from fossil fuel sources or from hydro. Nor can it operate a large system entirely isolated from any backup power systems as wind relies totally on the grid frequencies and available fast reacting fossil and / or hydro power to stabilise the power availability in both frequency and customer availability at any second of time in a large industrial and domestically designed power supply grid system.

    A Problem With Wind Power
    &

    Wind Farm Realities

    [ quoted ]

    The above chart shows the minimum productions plotted against the minimum wind speeds. As you might expect, whenever the wind speed is above the 3.5 m/s cut-in speed the turbine starts producing, but not getting consistently into positive territory until about 4.5 m/s. Notice the results when the wind doesn’t get above 3.5 m/s – typically there’s a MINUS 50kw of production. This is power that must be supplied from the grid just to keep the turbine in business. And 50kw seems to be what the turbine uses to stay alive in good weather. In the winter it gets slightly higher – the highest negative numbers were in the 80 kw range.

    So, finally, we have a measurement of just how much electricity they consume! 50 kw is quite a bit higher than my previous findings, which originated in industry statements and cash flow calculations. Recall that the average Danish turbine produces about 376 kw (1650 * .228). So a V82 operating in Denmark consumes roughly 13% of what it produces. No wonder they want to keep this quiet.

    [ / ]

    70

    • #
      tom0mason

      ROM

      You may feel you’re late, but what you have to say hits the mark every time and more than makes up for your tardiness.

      10

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Audi now claim they can run a vehicle on water.
    Even Diesel fuel.

    Even if this news is to be believed, is is nothing more than yet another way to store energy derived from fossil fuels.

    20

  • #
    ROM

    As briefly mentioned in the Audi press release analysis, the American Navy achieved the sea water to aviation fuel conversion back in 2012 so Audi is just pinching somebody else’s technology and making a grand standing out of it.
    The Navy is using the nuclear reactor power [ all four reactors in the Nimitz class carriers ] of it’s aircraft carriers as the energy source for this conversion process.

    Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas

    [quoted ] The major component of the carbon capture skid is a three-chambered electrochemical acidification cell. This cell uses small quantities of electricity to exchange hydrogen ions produced at the anode with sodium ions in the seawater stream. As a result, the seawater is acidified. At the cathode, water is reduced to H2 gas and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is formed. This basic solution may be re-combined with the acidified seawater to return the seawater to its original pH with no additional chemicals. Current and continuing research using this carbon capture skid demonstrates the continuous efficient production of H2 and the recovery of up to 92 percent of CO2 from seawater.

    Located at the NRL’s [ Naval Research Laboratories ] Center for Corrosion Science & Engineering facility, Key West, Fla., (NRLKW) the carbon capture skid has been tested using seawater from the Gulf of Mexico to simulate conditions that will be encountered in an actual open ocean process for capturing CO2 from seawater and producing H2 gas. Currently NRL is working on process optimization and scale-up. Once these are completed, initial studies predict that jet fuel from seawater would cost in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce.

    How it Works: CO2 + H2 = Jet Fuel

    NRL has developed a two-step process in the laboratory to convert the CO2 and H2 gathered from the seawater to liquid hydrocarbons. In the first step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production from 97 percent to 25 percent in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins).

    In the second step these olefins can be oligomerized (a chemical process that converts monomers, molecules of low molecular weight, to a compound of higher molecular weight by a finite degree of polymerization) into a liquid containing hydrocarbon molecules in the carbon C9-C16 range, suitable for conversion to jet fuel by a nickel-supported catalyst reaction.

    [ / ]

    20

  • #
    janama

    Here’s the new con trip for the luvies:

    Tesla’s new 10kWh Home Battery Pack so all the solar panel people can now claim they are off grid!

    20

    • #
      tom0mason

      janama,
      ¯

      E.M. Smith (aka ChiefIO) writing about Tesla’s Home Battery Pack covers the costs, drawbacks, and alternatives on his blog here

      10

  • #
    Ofay

    This entire C02 reduction and the global warming nonsense is nothing but a tool used to extract ever larger amounts of money from the haggard tax payers and those who suck at the trough will be in for a bad time as well … this cannot go on we going broke and most new jobs are not being created in the western world … it’s leading to the death of our culture and our western civilization … but if it will save even just one democrat seat in government .. then it’s all worth it eh?

    30

  • #
    Peter Lang

    We now have a reasonable estimate of wind turbines’ effectiveness at reducing CO2 emissions in the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM), i.e. 78% effective in 2014. Wind turbines generated 4.5% of the NEM’s electricity and avoided 3.5% of the emissions from electricity.

    See Wheatley’s analysis of CO2 savings from wind turbines in the NEM, submission no. 348 to the ‘Senate Select Committee on wind turbines’: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions

    As wind’s proportion increases to about 15% by 2020 to comply with the RET, effectiveness is likely to decrease to about 60% (all else equal). If that is the case, the CO2 abatement costs stated in the recent RET review are probably gross underestimates – e.g. the estimated cost of abatement with wind generation would need to be increased by 67%.

    00

  • #
    Mauricio

    The best way to produce energy and keep the planet clean is coal and burn everithing oil, coal, gas. This way we can assure that fossil companies became more profitable and a wonderfull future for the top richest of our ill society. Stop try to save the environment, rich peoples can affort to have ther artificial wealth nature. After all the world belongs to then and they have the rigth to kill the whole planet if they want.
    Be more selfish and try to be rich as they are, thats the only way you can assure future for your next generation. Sorry, I forget you care just about yourself, forget the next generation. bye

    12

    • #

      It is cheap energy that helps the poor the most. Only the rich can afford the luxury of inefficient, ineffective, expensive wind and solar.

      A lack of cheap energy keeps Africa in poverty, razing forests and destroying habitat for wood. National parks and conservation zones occur in rich nations, not poor ones.

      11

  • #
    Mauricio

    The true oil and coal are actually more expensive than wind and solar. One city in Texas descide to go 100% renewable, not to save the enviroment but because is the smart and economic eay to do. About the poor in Africa and any other countries, nobody even care if they gonnna die by starvertion, actually more than 5 millions kids dye from starvetion, it is one dead ebery 5 secounds. The world just care about poor when they descide to use then as excuse to proctect ther profit. if every people in this world really had care abbout poor peoples eas nescessary less than $ 0.50 per year to avoid thebdead of 10 millions peoples per year. We allowed 20 trillions to evade tax in fiscal paradase, we had ous brean washed for all that cinic and hipocrit media at the point that we fight to give break tax to wealth class and cut social aid. That isvthe true of our stupidity society we dont want nobory to know how bad and selfish we are doing. Most of the peoples here just eant to save a few cents on gas, not yo save the poor, not to help, its just to spend on vanity and others selfish acts. The poor poples in Africa have a better chance do have electric power now, because is less expensive to put solar than build one big infraextructure that nobody wants to pay, besides the fact that most of countries dont have reserves of fossil fuel and ther economics is already slave by the system. They can produce food but its just to exporting once the price of everithing is global. They have to die for us have a cheap food and half ends on garbage can. Please no more hypocrisy.

    11

    • #
      Peter Lang

      Mauricio,

      Solar cost about 2 to 5 times the cost of conventional electricity (coal, gas nuclear). I can provide plenty of authoritative references if you are interested (IEA, EIA, CSIRO, etc). See Figure 1 here a summary of one references that shows the full cost with system costs included.

      However, there are other substantial costs of renewables that are not included in this – such as the expected value of the damages if they are not capable of supplying a large prortion of electricity by 2030 and 2050 (which is what most industry practitioners believe is the case.

      Transmission Planning: Wind and Solar‘ is an interesting post (just posted today) about the system effects of including a significant proportion of intermittent renewable energy (like wind and solar) in the grid.

      Jo, if you are watching, this might be an interesting (its certainly very educational) post to cross post for your readers

      00

  • #
    Mauricio

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7215976
    [I will release this from moderation this one time. Next time you comment, please give an explanation of what your link is about] Fly

    00