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

Labor wants to waste $100b to make Australian energy 50% renewable, more expensive, by 2030

The Coalition in Australia must be thrilled that Bill Shorten wants to make the next election about “climate change”. What a gift from Labor.

Just before the last election Labor had a plan to spend $60,000 dollars per person to try to change the weather by 2050. Labor lost nearly a quarter of their seats. Bill Shorten’s new election vision is to repeat the same mistakes. Like the G7 leaders, he wants symbolic and unachievable promises — only, unlike them, he’s making pie-in-the-sky, uncosted plans for 2030, not 2100. Five of the seven G7 nations are increasing their coal use. Get with the game Bill, other countries are winding schemes back and putting off the promises til long after most people alive today will be gone.

Shorten is pushing a dead dog. The sweet end of the wind and solar power deals have already been done and the numbers get uglier from here. As more and more of the grid is taken over by a massive erratic and unreliable supply, the marginal returns shrink, prices go up. The carbon “savings” falls. Full baseload back up must be maintained regardless, whirring away inefficiently on standby. The Labor Party are making a big miscalculation electorally, fooled by inept surveys that show everyone “likes” the environment and “worries” about climate change. Better studies show almost no votes hinge on this topic, nobody wants to spend much, and pandering to the green religion will hurt things people do care about — electricity prices, manufacturing and employment. US voters rank “climate change” last in environmental polls, and they rank the environment below nearly every thing else. In the UK, polls show 62% don’t believe in a man-made climate disaster. There’s  a long list of environmental climate polls showing skeptics are everywhere, and many believers are bored and unmotivated. In the US Tom Steyer threw $74 m at the election on climate change and lost nearly every seat he tried to influence. Fully 92% of Swiss Voters said “No” to a carbon tax.

Just what the country needs?

Green “renewables” schemes push up the price of electricity, make the world 0.0C degrees cooler, and increase unemployment. Every green job created means a loss of 2 – 5 other jobs.

Bill Shorten to unveil 50% renewable energy target at Labor conference -- Sydney Morning Herald

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is set to unveil a bold climate policy goal requiring half of Australia’s large-scale energy production to be generated using renewable sources within 15 years.

Fairfax Media has learnt that despite Labor’s humiliating 2013 election defeat caused in part by voter contempt for its carbon tax, Mr Shorten will use this weekend’s ALP national conference in Melbourne to announce the even more ambitious goal, dramatically beefing up Labor’s renewable energy target.

The policy shift is designed to recover green support, sharpen the contrast with Prime Minister Tony Abbott over climate change and make global warming the defining battleground of the next federal election

As Andrew Bolt points out, it’s “not costed, not modelled, and not effective”.

Only in Labor economics can we add more expensive suppliers and pretend the prices won’t rise dramatically. It’s “free energy from the sun” after all. It’s like the Labor Party believe the bumper stickers.

Graph, cost of electricity from coal, gas, solar and wind power, renewable energy, Australia, 2015

Comparison of costs of electricity generation.  | Energy Supply Association of Australia

How much global cooling does $100 billion buy?

Australians emit 1.16% of human emissions, which total just 4% of natural ones. Co2 doesn’t appear to have warmed the world in the last 18 years despite rapid rises in human emissions — one third of all human emissions ever since 1998, and no warming.  The Australian impact is 0.00064 of nothing.

We need another 10,000 wind turbines?

Adam Creighton, The Australian, on energy prices, and the cost of the Labor 50% renewables plan:

ACIL chief executive Paul Hyslop said: “If this were met by wind power it would require 10,000 to 11,000 additional turbines … with capital costs for the turbines alone of $65 billion.”

He suggested such a move would undermine productivity.

ACIL said the total capital cost would be in the order of $100bn — about three times the cost of the National Broadband Network.

“Basically, we’d be spending another $65bn on turbines to effectively get no more output,” Mr Hyslop said.

Australia will need about 300,000 GWh total in 2030 according to ACIL — We’d need another 92,000 GWh of “renewables”:

The ­Coalition and Labor agreed in May to trim the RET from 41,000 GWh a year by 2020 to 33,000 GWh, to allow for the fall in electricity demand that was projected to lift the share gener­ated from renewables to 26 per cent by 2020, rather than the 20 per cent envisaged. The new RET is forecast to provide 23.5 per cent.

ACIL estimates a total power demand of 300,000 GWh in 2030, of which half would come from renewable sources under the Labor plan. The firm believes 25,000 GWh would come from rooftop solar systems, with another­ 16,000 GWh from existing hydro-electric plants, leaving 110,000 GWh to be provided by large-scale renewable projects — or 92,000GWh more than existing capacity.

In terms of carbon emissions, wind turbines are almost the last choice on Earth. They cost $50 – $100 per ton of carbon, seven times more than the Coalition’s Direct Action plan. No one who cares about the environment would want to waste money doing something so inefficient when they could spend the same money and achieve a lot more.

Australian electricity prices are rising much faster than inflation.

The big leap in electricity prices in the graph in 2012/13 below is due to the carbon tax, but some of the rise before that is due in part to other policies to “green” our electricity.

Australian Electricity retail prices, ABS

Electricity prices in Australia. The Carbon Tax was introduced July 2012.

Source: Parliamentary Library

 The electricity price is rising much faster than inflation. The Rudd Labor government was elected in November 2007.

Graph, CPI, inflation, ABS, Electricity prices, Australia

Modeling shows the RET scheme cost up to $28 billion and lost 5,000 jobs. The current scheme is 23% RET (Renewable Energy Target). Labor want to make that 50%.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Kate Carnell said it was disappointing the ALP was advocating significant changes on renewable energy because bipartisanship was critical for long-term investment certainty.

“A 50 per cent RET will put jobs and growth at risk,’’ she said. Modelling undertaken last year by Deloitte Access Economics showed the existing RET pushed up electricity prices, costing the economy up to $28 billion and a net loss of 5000 jobs, she said.

Bill Shorten doesn’t argue with economics, it’s a herding thing:

To support its argument, the opposition points to the targets of a range of other places: Denmark, 50% by 2020; California, 50% by 2030; Germany, 55-60% by 2035; Sweden, 63% by 2020; New Zealand, 90% by 2025; and Norway, 114% by 2020.

– Michelle Grattan on The Conversation

And which of those countries is flat, dry, 4,000 km wide, and its major exports are energy-intensive commodities, coal, and gas?

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (66 votes cast)
Labor wants to waste $100b to make Australian energy 50% renewable, more expensive, by 2030, 9.0 out of 10 based on 66 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/o354n9t

206 comments to Labor wants to waste $100b to make Australian energy 50% renewable, more expensive, by 2030

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    Albert Einstein
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html#WZLcBog3vQ7du2xs.99

    Obviously Bill is fighting off the Greens with a “loonier than thou” strategy.

    422

    • #

      You’re being very modest Graeme. Your latest piece highlights a few “problems” with the whole renewables schtick.

      https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/drowning-in-the-big-green-pond/

      Pointman

      150

      • #
        steve

        proven liars, crooks, corrupted, morally bankrupt and yet they are ahead in the polls. I know, you will tell me how stupid the Australian voter is, but I blame the Libs. They do not fight dirty like Labor. They need to demand costing over and over and over again on every single policy

        421

        • #
          Dennis

          I agree Steve, the LNP does not get down into the gutter like Union Labor does, and for many reasons I prefer it that way however, the gutter dwellers can be exposed over and over without adopting their smear and deceive tactics, in my opinion.

          By the way, Earth could have at least 500 million years before a greenhouse effect causes problems, bit early for carbon taxes, let’s fix the real problems;

          https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29018252/nasa-discovers-closest-earth-twin-yet/

          81

        • #
          Bulldust

          So sShorten has been completely swallowed by Orewellian language:

          “Instead of giving big polluters fistfuls of taxpayer dollars to keep [polluting], Labor will cut pollution with a market solution,” he will announce to the delegates.

          and

          “Let me say this to our opponents, in words of one syllable: An ETS is not a tax.
          Link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/bill-shorten-to-challenge-abbott-on-climate-change/6644446

          So CO2 is now a pollutant and an ETS is not a tax. Let me see – going to grab a couple definitions:

          The presence in or introduction into the air of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects: ‘diesel exhaust and other forms of air pollution’
          Link: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/air-pollution

          In the absence of any evidence of harmful effects from increased CO2 concentrations in the tamosphere, we have a disingenuous statement by Shorten, if not an outright lie.

          A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions: ‘higher taxes will dampen consumer spending’
          Link: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tax

          Last time I checked an ETS imposed a compulsory cost on emitters (generally corporations)which generated government revenues. It is by definition a tax. The High Court of Australia agrees with this. Bill Shorten is a liar or exceptionally ignorant about taxation.

          ABC Fact Check?
          Bueller….
          Bueller….
          Bueller….

          80

        • #
          aussieguy

          The problem with Libs is that they have no idea how to deliver their message. In fact, I notice Libs often have the “quiet professional” mentality. They don’t like to brag about their achievements. More often than not, they are willing to compromise more readily compared to their Left-leaning opponents. (Who utterly refuse to compromise unless there is no choice.)

          And when there is a chance to kick the Left in the balls, they don’t take it. They rarely point out the hypocrisy, contradictions, and the inconsistency of the Left.

          The fact is, Conservatives (in general), suck at delivering their message to the public. Its pretty much known they have lost the culture because they don’t speak up and make their case in a straight-forward and direct manner; despite winning the economic arguments.

          You see this in the USA with the current Presidential Primaries on the Republican side. You may not like Donald Trump, but he is gaining the popular support because other Republican candidates simply refuse to say what their supporter base is thinking. Trump is pretty much giving the Social Justice Lefties the middle finger, and people like him for it.

          The only exception seems to be a rare Lib that comes through once in a while and achieves respect with the results they produce. ie: Scott Morrison. No one in the media dares to treat him the same way as they do Abbott or Hockey.

          In regards to the ALP, they have NOT learned a thing. They are outright telling all Australians that if given the power to govern again, they WILL return us to the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years. They have a single-minded intention to do it. This ALP conference tells us their objectives. They will re-open the border. They will impose an eco-tax burden on the Australian people. And will focus on “equal results” in regards to gender in their own party. (Despite what that has produced last time around!)

          This needs to be repeated. They have NOT learned a thing!
          => No one wants an opened border, given the consequences it has produced.
          => No one wants an eco-tax, given the economic burden it places on the Australian people.
          => Quotas put incompetent people in positions who should NOT be there. eg: Gillard. …It is also sexist in the form of soft bigotry.
          ie: “You’re a woman, and you can’t achieve anything unless we change the rules for you. Your individual merit and competence don’t matter. What is between your legs matters more.”


          They delude themselves into thinking they are the “Compassionate Party”. (Bill Shorten’s own words!). But look at the results they produce!
          => Is it compassionate to leave a debt/deficit for future generations to pick up the tab?
          => Is it compassionate to piss away taxpayer’s money on policies that have no strategic significance in the long run?
          => Is it compassionate to have a policy that results in approx 1200 drownings of illegal immigrants?
          => Is it compassionate to dump illegal immigrants into Australian suburbs without telling local councils/police and not expect problems?
          ==> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/asylum-seeker-charged-with-abduction-two-counts-of-rape/story-fn9hm1gu-1226863696740
          => Is it compassionate to tinker with superannuation over 30 times because they see it as a trillion dollar cash cow to be raided? (Causing loss in confidence to contributors and investors).
          => Is it compassionate to punish the country’s economic future in order to bring down Abbott? (Willing to hurt all Australians in order to achieve a political objective).
          => Is it compassionate to bring more immigrants in when a city like Sydney has yet to upgrade its infrastructure to meet the increased population demands? (Sit in Sydney peak hour traffic and you’ll understand why more roads need to be built and expanded).
          => Is it compassionate to indoctrinate young minds with Climate Hysteria at the cost (time) needed for reading, writing, and arithmetic? (Time spend on Climate narrative is less time spent on academic fundamentals!)
          => Is it compassionate to give money to someone like Tim Flannery while every State Premier are economically struggling to maintain the Medicare system? (Current trend is unsustainable, this is why the proposal of raising GST or the Medical Levy itself. The current numbers indicate a serious problem ahead.)
          => Is it compassionate to recklessly come up with ideas that have no economic merit? (Back of a beer coaster idea and no realistic way to pay for it).

          You know what they suffer from?
          => Pathological Altruism

          Its described by a number of characteristics:
          => An unhealthy focus on others they feel sorry for, at the detriment of one’s own needs.
          => Falsely believe that they have the means to relieve the person of suffering.
          => Often involves self-righteousness.
          => Impulsive and ineffective efforts to equalize or level the playing field.

          eg: They ignore Australia’s homeless and the poor in favour of illegal immigrants. This behaviour is clearly demonstrated by our semi-taxpayer-funded SBS.
          => Their show “Struggle Street” reveals the problems of Western Suburbs of Sydney (more like the real world consequences of welfare state) and ignore them once they’re done filming.
          => Constantly advocate or talk about asylum seekers in news and other shows like “Go back to where you came from”.

          Oddly enough, it is commercial Radio (2GB) and TV (Ch9) that sticks around.
          => http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/9010691/struggle-street-fights-back
          …It was a radio personality on a Conservative radio station (2GB) who organised the volunteers of private business owners to help out the locals. Where is SBS? NOWHERE to be found!

          Isn’t that interesting! The ones who claim to be compassionate are often the ones who behave with the least compassion! No SBS! No ALP! Pathological Altruism demonstrated in the real world.

          In relation to Climate Change, its about economically punishing one’s own citizens in favour of “helping” developing nations. You would think (common sense), one would lead by example and demonstrate how developing nations can achieve what developed nations have accomplished. If others see how you’ve achieved success and prosperity, they are highly likely to listen and apply your practices in order to achieve the same for themselves. (Apparently, this seems like a foreign concept to someone who is suffering from Pathological Altruism).

          30

      • #

        For the Greens ‘ramping’ means hysterical
        reaction to climate change … nothing to
        do with problems involving intermittent
        renewable energy.

        160

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I was talking to a fellow Engineer last night. Very very bright guy, but he seems oblivious to common sense. His idea was to remove all cash from society to fight the drug problem so people had no-where to hide so they cant buy drugs with cash…..

        Er…..lessons from history, anyone?

        My point is that labor whats to remove any form of energy freedom from us, by forcing us to buy a renewable dead dog and then expecting it to woof….

        70

        • #
          gnome

          Perhaps Labor is trying to remove the cash from the economy by forcing us to buy renewable power generation capacity so we can’t buy drugs.

          It makes as much sense as the other reason!

          30

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Excellent article, that one of Greame’s. Explained a very complex issue in layman”s terms, so much so that even I could understand it. The worrying thing is, our politicians will never see it!

        10

    • #

      What does it matter to the Left when it’s not their own money? This will be another way to get more people onto welfare and thus in the long term become dependent on a welfare friendly government.

      70

    • #
      Annie

      Sorry G no 3…accident knocked the red button…definitely not intended

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        No problem. I always expect 1 anyway as there seems to be a lurking troll who hits the red button without bothering to read the post. Lurking trolls are the worst sort.

        10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Oh there’s PLENTY of money. Labor just has to print more of it. “Quantitative easing” is the politically correct term for that.

    200

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      David, Quantitative Easing” took the US debt so high it now exceeds the GDP. It is a fiendish scheme in a fiendish program to destroy the economy of a nation.

      190

    • #
      Annie

      Which wrecked the value of savings.

      10

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Nice for comments to start with tag team advertising, whereas I however, flushed with success and the wealth that followed my previous editorial comments have once again come to provide editorial heroics.

    Change, “Bill Shorten that…”, to, “that Bill Shorten”.

    Thanks for the thumbs.

    537

    • #

      Aw gee, was that your best shot? Troll tactic #1, divert the discussion off the topic as quick as possible, and preferably with a bit of a personal attack. Renewable polices are being dumped around the world, and all the paid trolling in the world won’t stop that.

      Pointman

      351

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Yes that was my best shot. And? Anyway did you also notice the first two words of the title? “Labors want”, should be, “Labor wants”.

        Who edited your so very on topic blog post?

        631

        • #

          Awgee, it was a terrible shot. You really are going to have to lift your game or that 50 cents they pay you for a comment might just move offshore to some cheaper but perhaps better talent in Asia.

          I notice you actually never contribute to the topic (obviously because of the previously referred to troll rule #1), but do you actually know anything about them anyway? If you perhaps read the articles, you might realise that the renewables movement is a sucking chest wound for the whole green killing machine.

          They don’t work, nobody can afford them and increasingly people resent obscene massive windmills blighting the landscape, never mind the seascape. I have to admit, I do enjoy watching the death of the renewables craze around the world and the resultant victimhood whinges from the real Greenies.

          Pointman

          441

          • #
            nzpete

            Well said Pointman.

            100

          • #
            James Bradley

            On the other hand, Pointman, if you want to target a troll, ta da, I give you Thejerker.

            21

          • #

            hmm my best dig at a pattern of your online behaviour certainly induced a vehement response. Lucky for me I am not more talented otherwise I’d be so humiliated by your superiority.

            011

            • #

              Ahgee, not troll ploy #2 – start the high-pitched victimhood whine. Are you a Pom by any chance? I feel slightly complimented in a revolting sort of way that you’re trying to make this topic about us two, but really – at least mention renewables in one comment. And make it sensible.

              Gowon, do it. Pretty please.

              Pointman

              30

        • #

          Thanks for the proof reading Gee Aye. Fixed. Thumbs up from me. I’ll have to sack the editor.;-)

          Onto other matters — do you think we should spend the $100 b ?

          210

          • #
            Thejoker

            How is it you can claim the promise is uncosted on the one hand and worth 100B on the other?

            Another piece of Nova logic.

            319

            • #
              Catamon

              Nova logic.

              There’s phrase to induce cognitive dissonance. :)

              112

            • #

              Perhaps the three of you might take five minutes and read this. I have attempted to make it easy to understand and I’ve also purposely tried to give the best case scenario as well.

              There’s every chance that you won’t believe a word of it, but then the truth, when it’s on a scale such as this, is almost impossible for the ordinary person to comprehend, and that’s why people like Shorten can get away with saying what they do, because they know no one will ever bother to check, let alone understand it, and if the truth is told, they don’t even understand it themselves. That’s the problem when the numbers are just so huge. No one believes it.

              Tony.

              131

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Thejoker,

              You wrote:

              How is it you can claim the promise is uncosted on the one hand and worth 100B on the other?

              The promise is uncosted by those making the proposal.

              Jo wrote:

              As Andrew Bolt points out, it’s “not costed, not modelled, and not effective”.

              A simple computation based on publicly available data shows the cost to be 100B.

              Abe

              81

          • #

            depends on what it is spent on and the value of keeping it somewhere.

            05

        • #
          James Bradley

          Pointman, Gee Aye isn’t a troll. Gee Aye often has a valid argument that properly challenges and is rarely appreciated, well except for the recipes.

          Spend $100 billion – hell yeah – if they are stupid enough then I’m putting together submissions, I want me a share of all that free gummint money.

          100

          • #

            Toad in the hole last night. With mash!

            41

            • #

              What mix do you use for the base?

              And do you use pork snags or beef?

              Tony.

              20

              • #

                basic yorkshire puddings and any sausage will do even vegetarian ones. Also used onion gravy as made in actual Yorkshire.

                01

              • #

                Do you keep the sausages whole?.

                My Mum used partially cook the sausages first and then cut them into pieces and just poke them into the batter mix for baking.

                My good lady wife does it the same way, but most recent recipes I have seen keep the sausages whole.

                Tony.

                10

              • #

                I like them better with the fried outside skin. Chop them up to suit the size of the sausages and the pan. You can even do little ones in muffin pans if you want.

                Nothing though beats a giant pud full of onion gravy as served in the best and worst pubs of East Riding.

                21

              • #
                Annie

                Don’t exclude the North Riding!

                10

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Maybe I should use tags like / parody to save you wasting your time. the fact that I can produce the exact response I expected means that you don’t know who is the victim.

        00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Maybe I should use tags like / parody to save you wasting your time. the fact that I can produce the exact response I expected means that you don’t know who is the victim.

        00

  • #
    ROM

    Read that in this morning’s Australian.

    My reaction;

    Labor is becoming a bunch of raving utterly ignorant lunatics, hell bent on destroying the lives of the poorest half of Australians for no other reason than a warped twisted ideological belief in the green leftist created scientific cesspit of climate change that will destroy Labor if they are stupid enough and arrogant enough to go there in the utterly ignorant and futile belief they have the ability to take control of the global climate.

    360

    • #
      john karajas

      Gee, ROM tell us what you really think!

      Seriously, though, Labor is becoming less and less an alternative government and more of a rabid bunch of ideologues. So, ROM, I guess that you are very close to the mark. When I think of my beloved Dad handing out how to vote cards for the ALP back in the 1970′s I feel great sadness. Representing the Australian working class-forget it!

      240

      • #
        ROM

        Well I did wonder if I should post what I really think! :-)

        I can’t recall but I think I voted for Whitlam, a big mistake.
        I voted for Hawke and I still think that the Hawke / Keating combo was definitely one of the better governments with Keating covering for Hawke in some political sectors and Hawke keeping Keating on a tight leash.
        Which as Keating subsequently proved when he got off the leash was nothing more than a rather ugly mean looking bit of bark and bite.
        You have a odd Liberal PM in there as well that should have stuck to sweeping the party room out.

        90

      • #
        Dennis

        Following the witness statements at the Trade Union Royal Commission it has become absolutely clear that “the workers” are being exploited, by their unions manipulating their “bosses” and the rank and file membership. An example that stood out for me was the union allowing their members to work covered in Asbestos, the union had done a deal with the employer, a cash deal. Bill Shorten was a senior union executive at the time and in the know, as they say.

        40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          As I have been saying for a looooooooong time, both sides of poolitics are manipulated by the same globalist pay masters.

          This is why policies are so similar between the two “sides” and why the same zombie socialist ( green ) agenda of lifting the cost of living sky high, ramming PC down our throats and destroying our standard of living ( whether via energy policy or other mechanisms )- continues regardless of who is in power.

          I believe people will believe what they want to believe, rather than accept the raw evidence directly in front of them. In someways I’m a politics skeptic…

          40

          • #
            Annie

            I feel a bit the same way. I hope though that Labor really do for themselves now…they deserve every lost seat. The same goes for Labour here in this green and pleasant land. I still don’t trust David Cameron none the less.

            21

  • #

    Looks like your Labor Party is about to commit electoral suicide just like our Labour Party in the UK.

    Instead of accepting that the electorate is sick to death of class envy and economic illiteracy they think the answer is to swing ever further leftwards towards some sort of ideological ‘purity’.

    481

    • #
      Dariusz

      Don,t understimate the stupidity of the Australian voter.
      Get Shorty did not produce any policies, not declared income, involved in trade union corruption, even accused of rape that is not cleared … and his party is leading in the polls. The guy who can never answer a simple question with a personalty of a virus that politically back stabbed 2 PMs. Imagine if a liberal candidate had even one of these allegations suggested?, but not the Shirt On. He wants to embark on yet another madness like Krudd and his crazy schemes. Australian debt is quickly approaching Greece position and we want to spend another 1000 billion? No respect for money, no respect for science, no respect of the tax payer.
      How is that possible with ALP in front?
      Answer: see the 1st sentence again.

      213

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Stephen & Dariusz:
        I think their intent is to bring the country down to a mire of bankruptcy and suffering which only leftists can cure with a one party political system. No more worrying about the opposition party once a totalitarian party has its boot on the throat of the people. The leftists/greens all seem to be Marxists.

        140

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Stephen & Dariusz:
        Ever notice how in the run-up to the 2012 elections the “Occupy Wall Street” mob of Marxists in anarchists clothing raised a nationwide demonstration and captured the press attention in the US elections while trashing many parks and urban areas.
        Now it just happens that Obama was a community organizer and Romney was a successful businessman.
        Now it also happened that when Obama won the election the Occupy movement melted away.
        I do not believe in coincidences and I do not believe you can overestimate the depravity and evil that the radical leftists will use to destroy democratic countries and their institutions.

        132

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Nicely said Leonard.

          You are spot on the money.

          The one (and probably only) thing the left can do well, is to organise ‘events’, involving a cast of thousands.

          And, even if you can’t get your own “cast of thousands”, you can always contract one of several “rent-a-mob” (i.e. astroturf) companies, who can supply head-count to order, complete with appropriate chants and signs. They don’t come cheap, but they do look very impressive on television, especially if you can pack them into a narrow camera angle.

          102

    • #
      doubting dave

      For those Australians that don’t know UK politics that well,what stephen is alluding to is that the labour party are electing a new leader and the most left wing candidate Jeremy Corbyn is streets ahead,if he wins and later becomes PM it might not be a total disaster if he sacks Slingo and gives his brother Piers the big chair at the Met office !! [ O WELL I CAN DREAM ]

      50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Stephen, I recalled seeing an interview with a british MP who was gobsmacked at how labor had spectacularly self detonated prior tot he last election.

      Even people who normally never commented on politics described it as a “grubby” time.

      The back story to this is that no one every saw abbott as electable – and I recall commenting at the time that Australia ( and the US / UK ) have a long history of ensuribng the “right” person is elected to suit the globalist agenda at the time.

      So heres Tony – unelectable – what to do, what to do….hmmm….the only option was to make labor so badly on the nose, people would have elected the snotty nosed kid who does the newspaper rounds to be PM for life….and surprise….guess what happens – unelectable Tony is PM.

      As such, the general public would never work out they had been manipulated into voting for an un-electable Tony.

      Truth be told, the only way we have any form of govt legitimacy in this country is because peopel are *forced* to vote, otherwise the whole system would break down because people see it for what it is.

      The USA & UK suffer the same globalist manipulations, just more tailored for the local audience…..

      Food for thought.

      00

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Simple answer guys – Labour is controlled by a ‘bunch’ of greenies with strong communist tendencies!
      Geoffrey Williams
      Sydney

      31

  • #
    James Murphy

    To their credit, a couple of my friends have seen reason with regards to that contextually bankrupt facebook meme about Denmark and wind power generation.

    Once they looked at the generation data, and could see just how much, and how often Denmark ‘imports’ power, they gained some perspective. Unfortunately, people thinking like this are not as common as they should be.

    Judging by the reaction in comments over at ‘our ABC’s’ The Drum, Bill will save us all with this plan – and batteries! Batteries will make everyone self sufficient, and we will no longer need to have a power grid at all. The continued willful ignorance is profoundly astonishing, and ultimately detrimental to Australia.

    290

    • #
      bobl

      star comment
      Oh no, but it’s true, affordable batteries would destroy the grid and the makings of a disaster would be upon us. Right now in Queensland, grid power is price neutral with small diesel power. That is it costs about 25c per kWh to generate your own power. If you have solar, then it’s cost effective to export all your solar power while powering your house by diesel. Except:

      Diesel (or petrol) power isn’t very linear with load, it takes a certain amount just to run the engine (like when you idle the car). If you have a battery though, you can run the generator at full load for a short time to charge batteries and that helps to get that best cost profile of 25c per kWh (and avoid bothering the neighbors with the noise) – less if you can get the fuel rebate. You can get by with a relatively small battery system because you can charge it multiple times a day at any time, not just when the sun shines.

      Now consider the Short On thought plan – 2 Trillion dollars pushed onto consumers electricity bills with grid power cost approaching $2.00 per kWh or more, but you can generate your own using diesel for 25c per kWh – what do you do? As more and more consumers retreat to self contained systems reducing the revenue base for generators – what happens? The power price goes up even more and the economics of centralised grid power collapses.

      Consider further, most large businesses have the generators installed for backup purposes NOW, they are ready to start moving off the grid tomorrow, as soon as it’s economically sensible to do so, batteries only make it more practical. Some businesses already do this at peak times if they are peak demand billed.

      Can you see how cost effective batteries are a disaster in the making, they make the break even point for opting out much lower.

      Can everyone also see that this scenario actually increases CO2 emissions. Raising prices only works while substitution is not cost effective.

      341

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Diesel (or petrol) power isn’t very linear with load, it takes a certain amount just to run the engine (like when you idle the car). If you have a battery though, you can run the generator at full load for a short time to charge batteries and that helps to get that best cost profile of 25c per kWh (and avoid bothering the neighbors with the noise) – less if you can get the fuel rebate. You can get by with a relatively small battery system because you can charge it multiple times a day at any time, not just when the sun shines.

        Very interesting bobl. Thanks.

        Now, if only someone would have a crack at putting some $ figures around that proposition.

        40

        • #
          TedM

          Sam here’s a couple of minor figures. Just saw on “Gumtree”. (West Australians will know what that is). An advertisment for a stand alone home solar power system. 3kw solar panels, 1000ah AGM battery bank, 4kw inverter. Price all up $9,000, but your too late it’s just been sold. However don’t despair you can just ring Maggie for lots of other cool off grid stuff, and it’s probably good stuff. Link here http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/regency-downs/other-tools-diy/off-grid-1000ah-battery-4kw-inverter-3kw-solar-panels/1042978866

          However I’m one of those rich parasites with grid connect solar that makes you mugs (tongue in cheek) pay more tax and more for electricity network maintenance, because when I’m drawing from the grid I’m not paying my share. Actually I’m a pensioner who is trying to minimise his cost of living but needs something to do so……….. I’m also putting in a standalone solar power system as well. I got lucky and picked up some really cheap panels because they had minor imperfections. I ran some tests and they work fine.

          Any way back to the subject, in hand and Electricity Bill’s demonstration of crass ignorance and disregard for the future of all of us who use power.

          A question for bloggers on this site.

          Will Bill’s gaggle cook his goose at this weekends ALP conference.

          71

          • #
            bobl

            Ted, if you want to on sell a couple of those I need some for my own off-grid project.

            10

          • #
            James Bradley

            TedM,

            The Plebasek (not checking the spelling don’t care) Albanese factions will cause as much grief as they can for Shorten in the hope that the destabilisation is enough to warrant taking it back to the comrades for a vote of confidence and a possible spill.

            40

      • #
        bobl

        Oooh, look – a FLY spot!

        Thanks FLY, mods are so under rewarded and the mods here do a really good job. Ta for the spot….

        Bob

        40

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I am interested in your determination of $250 per MWH for diesel, Bobl.
        Is that just the cost of the fuel?
        I was a maintenance superintendent for many years with a very large natural gas pipeline.
        For the purposes of reliability, we were self sufficient in electricity at the compressor stations (and even head office).
        The fuel was essentially free.
        The cost for that reliability; i.e. the difference between the true cost including the cost of capital, and the cost of maintenance, was at least twice the cost of electricity from the grid. The thinking was sound at the time. In a Northern Canadian winter, the last thing people need is to be deprived of electricity and heating fuel simultaneously. As the grid became more reliable, it became economic to connect to the grid and use the old generating equipment for standby only. And, as I said, the fuel was essentially free.

        00

        • #
          bobl

          That’s based on the fuel cost alone. You need to bear in mind that commercial and domestic applications have quite a divergence in cost. For one, in a commercial setting the business has to pay for the person who does the maintenance.

          In a domestic setting you do the maintenance unpaid. If you are backed up by the grid then a failure of your generator isn’t so bad either. The economics are quite different.

          The genset I looked at was a honda 6 KVA which if I recall burned 185g per kWh the generator was only about $1.5k, of course you need a remote starter and a changeover contactor installed. You’ll also need a battery array and a islanding inverter. Peaky stuff like the oven can be interlocked to run up the genset. I reckon 10K.

          00

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Hi Bobl
            You might consider yourself competent to maintain such equipment yourself. I consider myself competent to do so. Any guesses as to the size of the population component that is similarly competent?
            I hear you. Commercial and domestic applications have a significant divergence. Full stop.
            The equipment to which I referred earlier consisted of Waukesha engine generator sets, Caterpillar sets, Solar Saturn turbine gen sets, Ingersoll Rand PSVG gen sets etc. I would not even wish to consider the comparison of the reliability, longevity, and maintainability of that equipment with a 6 kva Honda. Perhaps it would be better than I expect. The other characteristic you mention is still being connected to the grid. As someone else pointed out, if your scheme becomes popular, who is it that will maintain the reliability of the grid?
            Please understand that I am not being purposely obtuse. My MBA research report years ago advocated a similar strategy for an energy provider under duress.
            It is just that schemes such as this can appear quite attractive until all the questions are asked, and all the i’s are dotted and all of the t’s crossed.

            00

            • #
              Bobl

              I haven’t run all the numbers on this, The point I was trying to make is that on a fuel for fuel basis diesel is now becoming grid parity. If you foolishly drive up grid prices much more substitution becomes affordable. We already have generators with built-in inverters, just firmware and access to the inverter dc bus for batteries is the only thing that stands between these generators and domestic applications.

              The technology to do this is simple, the price is the only thing stopping it. I estimate that by the time grid power reaches 50c per kWh these things will be on the market.

              00

      • #

        Diesel generator is also marginally useful as a source of heat; especially in winter. Hooking up the liquid coolant circuit to a domestic hot water system via heat exchange means that you’re not reliant on e.g. solar.

        As a rough guide, the heating power available via the cooling circuit from the diesel engine is between 50% and 100% of the output shaft power. So if you turn on an electric heater powered by the generator, you get up to double the value for money. In really cold places, it’s also worthwhile to put a heat exchange “jacket” around the exhaust pipe to capture some of the waste heat which’d otherwise go into the air.

        If you’re using 20kWH of electrical power a day, then you have up to that much available to e.g. heat your water for long, hot baths under infra-red lamps in the bathroom on the coldest winter’s day. It’s called “civilisation”. ;-)

        A cheap heat storage reservoir can be built using HDPE (High density poly-ethylene) IBC’s (integrated bulk containers), insulated on all sides. Keep the temperature below 90°C or thereabouts and it’ll be sweet for many years. Fill the who thing with coolant suitable for the generator; draw off coolant from just below the minimum level and feed in the nominally hot coolant from the engine near the bottom, letting it find it’s way up by buoyancy dependent on its temperature, relative to the rest of the coolant in the IBC.

        The heat exchange coil for heating e.g. potable water should be below the lowest level of the coolant. Mains pressure water runs through that coil and, depending on relative temperatures and flow rates, will probably need to be mixed with cold mains pressure water to be safe for domestic use. If central heating is desirable, then the heat exchange coil for that can be near the bottom of the IBC. If central heating systems were foolproof, then its heat exchanger in the IBC can be omitted; i.e. share the same liquid as the diesel engine does for coolant. Thermodynamically more efficient but vulnerable if there’s a leak in the central heating.

        Although a slender (tall) tank is optimum for stratification, the cubic 1000-litre units should be OK if one accepts a long time to warm up from cold. An intelligent installer would include an instantaneous gas heater for potable hot water anyway; with a thermostat controlling its outlet temperature.

        A small variation on the central heating system employs a second heat reservoir which is “topped up” by interconnection with the main one in the colder months, but can be isolated and employ a cooling loop (e.g. cooling tower) for to use the central heating in summer to cool the house. Personally, I’d not run the central heating plumbing into the house but rather draw off air from the interior and pre-condition fresh air for heating/cooling via an enthalphy wheel before heating/cooling it to the desired level via a liquid to air heat exchanger connected to that second IBC.

        None of that is even close to rocket surgery. It’s bog-standard mechanical engineering of HVAC systems.

        You need to do some sums to see how much of it is worthwhile for you.

        P.S. Diesel engines have a fairly constant specific fuel consumption (SFC) over much of their operating range; fairly flat from 30% to 90% of rated power for non-turbocharged ones; from about 10% to 95% for turbocharged. Avoid cheapies for standby power. Look for “prime load” in the specifications.

        20

        • #
          David Maddison

          In regard to diesel generation at home, even if seemingly cost effective compared with grid power you still have the hassle of getting an endless supply of fuel. How much fuel would you use per kWh produced and how much would be a reasonable amount to store at home? What would be the extra cost of home-delivered diesel? Also, I don’t imagine insurance companies would be too happy with hundreds of litres of fuel stored at home, they even have limits for normal domestic situations.

          Also, it is a testament to how outrageous the cost of grid electricity has become that you might actually be able to make your own cheaper with a diesel generator! I would have thought that the grid power should cost an order of magnitude less.

          Instead of generating your own power with diesel, what about using natural gas to power a fuel cell to generate electricity and also generate hot water? A company in Melbourne, BlueGen makes these devices. I would be interested in your opinions on these. http://www.bluegen.info/

          Today, I just got my electricity bill…not happy….

          20

          • #

            For all you Australian readers, take out your power bills and look at the unit cost for electricity that you as (Residential) consumers pay, and it’s in the vicinity of 25 to 30 cents per KWH. (and more in some places I might guess)

            Now, take this link and look at the wholesale cost of electricity, in other words, what your retailer buys it for.

            Now, keep in mind that this is the mix of all power generating entities, so that’s why the cost varies from State to State.

            Note the States with the largest amount of coal fired power and how they are invariably cheaper than other States, say South Australia, which can sometimes vary quite wildly, and I’ve seen some SA prices as high as $866.41/MWH (03Jun2013, and that’s the 15 hour average cost during Peak Power Consumption, translating to 86.6 cents/KWH, more than 4 times the retail price)

            Coal fired power consistently sells its power (at a contracted price) for around 2.7 to 3 cents per KWH, which is less than 10% of the price you pay at retail for the electricity.

            It’s been that low for years and years. Coal fired power (if they ever need to increase their cost) will increase the cost of power by the smallest fraction of a cent.

            During the period of the CO2 Tax, the cost of coal fired power (wholesale) all but doubled.

            That’s how they get away with saying that the CO2 Tax/ETS will not cost all that much to electricity consumers, because the wholesale cost is so low.

            In the U.S. Nuclear power consistently charges less than one cent per KWH for the power it generates.

            Why?

            Because they generate absolutely humungous amounts of electricity, so even at that wholesale price, power generating entities still make a profit.

            And, as you read those wholesale prices, and without being told, see if you can pick the days in South Australia when the wind power is generating such small amounts of power. (hint – look at the higher charges)

            Tony.

            20

          • #

            Also, I don’t imagine insurance companies would be too happy with hundreds of litres of fuel stored at home, they even have limits for normal domestic situations.

            Diesel fuel is quite innocuous. It won’t explode and is very difficult to set on fire.

            The specific fuel consumption of a good diesel generator will be less than 200 g/kWh; about a quarter of a litre. 20kWh — nominal average daily consumption — is therefore about 5 litres. A 200-litre drum should see you through for a month and a bit. Bulk wholesale price without the excise (i.e. for off-road use) is about 70 cents/litre+GST.

            If it weren’t for the scaredy-cats, I’d suggest it as engine coolant/thermal store as well. It won’t corrode most stuff and it can be continuously renewed as the generator uses the coolant supply as a fuel supply. It’d gobble up 1000 litre in about half a year. Diesel has about half the thermal capacity of water, but water by itself will rot the machinery so it needs to be doped up with all sort of inhibitors; which aren’t cheap. It doesn’t “freeze” until temperatures get well below 0°C. (Some coolant hoses and coolant pump impeller on the engine may have to be changed to have a compatable chemistry.)

            As an “extreme” cost indicator for whichever fluid is used, it costs about $20 in additives to make just 6 litres of water fit for long-term use in a modern engine. Diesel works out cheaper in kJ/$. NB: HDPE is used in automotive fuel tanks for continuous fuel temperatures of 55°C so either a liner material or another low-cost material will have to be used.

            Some of you may ask about using diesel as a coolant in a diesel engine when the coolant pump has been dimensioned for pumping water, so the cooling capacity is halved. But that’s only superficially. Diesel fuel is a much better conductor of heat than water and it wets surfaces better resulting in better removal of heat from parts of the engine’s interior. Lots of water is pumped through engines that isn’t needed to remove the heat, but to keep the surfaces wet and the water well mixed because it’s a thermal insulator. Further, diesel fuel can get more than 20°C hotter before it boils at atmospheric pressure. So in all respects other than thermal capacity; diesel is the better coolant.

            I did some research on the idea of using diesel fuel as coolant and discovered out that the Germans learnt that lesson in the first cold winter of the Russian front in WW2. Lacking sufficient supplies of anti-freeze, they were directed to fill their cooling systmes with diesel for the next winter; even the petrol-engined vehicles.

            So I lost out on another Patentable idea due to prior art. ;-)

            Of course many jet engines also use their fuel as coolant for the tricky mechanical bits; and have, as far as I can tell, since the first ones flew in the 1930′s.

            Thank you for your attention. There’ll be a quiz next week.

            20

          • #
            bobl

            Well I have to say that there is at least 120l parked in my garage right now. A small modification to draw off diesel from my vehicle and it can all be built into the lifestyle.

            00

          • #
            James Murphy

            Bluegen! I had almost forgotten they existed.

            I know when they started to get some small amount of media attention quite a few years ago, 1 of their units was about $40-50K (including scheduled maintenance for some number of years). I recall that they were mightily annoyed that they were unable to get any government funding (i’d like to blame Rudd (v1), but it could have been Howard) for further development on the fuel cell technology, as gas isn’t classed as renewable. The funding was for alternative energy sources. Somehow Geodynamics and Petratherm got millions at about the same time, although their hot-rock technology isn’t technically renewable either…

            If I was living somewhere which had access to reasonably priced gas, I’d seriously consider Bluegen (assuming they are slightly less expensive now). The problem is, Australian gas prices are getting as ridiculous as electricity prices…

            20

            • #
              David Maddison

              If I was living somewhere which had access to reasonably priced gas, I’d seriously consider Bluegen…

              Yes, it would be a risky proposition spending all that money only to find the Lib/Lab/Greens jack up the cost of gas to even more ridiculous levels.

              Meanwhile, Australia sells LNG to China for about 1c per litre on 30 year contracts. (That is, 1 litre of liquid, not gas.)

              00

            • #

              Fuel cells have finite life. And they’re made using precious metals.

              00

          • #
            Aussieute

            David Maddison
            BlueGen looks cool however I dug a bit further to discover that the owner of this business is Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited is in liquidation.

            Another green dream

            00

      • #
        Konrad

        This could really take off. Especially if Dodgy Don sets up some “restaurant supply” warehouses around the place. Truck loads of clean canola oil, drain cleaner and methanol go in, then unmarked white vans drive out and ply the streets selling untaxed biodiesel to happy home owners for cash.

        People could power their homes and fuel their vehicles free of the grasping government. Of course the economies of scale would be lost for the commercial grid, and most power dependant industries would collapse. But given that’s the Labor/Green objective there shouldn’t be too many complaints from 53% of the population if current polling is to be believed.

        10

      • #
        Turtle of WA

        Excellent point, bobl.

        I’ve heard a few warmists using’batteries’ as a come-back lately. They all get excited by this Tesla Wall thing.

        I’d like to see more investigation of this unforseen consequence of improved battery technology.

        00

    • #
      Dennis

      I heard Frantic Kelly on ABC Radio National talking up the new age of batteries, a commercial for Tesla battery packs for domestic application on the public broadcasting network? Her breathless comments of how the renewable energy age was now upon us and we can get rid of dirty fossil fuel burning relics of a past age.

      61

      • #
        bobl

        Except of course they make such a wonderful energy store for your diesel geni.

        20

        • #

          For a couple of years. Then you have to cough up $20,000 to replace them.

          00

          • #

            That’s what gets me with these people who say that battery assisted solar power (eg, off grid) is going to be the way of the future.

            They have no concept of what is required.

            They have no concept of the true cost.

            They assume that the battery life will be enormously longer than what it is in the real World.

            They expect that the batteries are cheap, and getting cheaper all the time.

            In the Real World, the recommendation is for five days backup as the minimum, and as soon as people hear the cost for that, they go the cheap option, in the hope that will get by.

            They naturally expect the batteries to last for at least ten to twelve years I have heard some say, when 7 years is best case scenario, and five years is probably closer to the truth, provided all the careful maintenance is carried out.

            When real life does not live up to expectations, will you hear from them?

            Well, no, because that would be too embarrassing.

            All you hear is how the panels actually generate more than they are rated at, everything is hunky dory, and that it’s the best thing they have ever done.

            When you add up the cost of the correct system, the cost of the original outlay for batteries, the replacement batteries, the replacement inverters, keeping in mind that they are now operating 24/7/365 with battery backup, and all other costs, It’s cheaper to actually stay on the grid itself, in fact a whole lot cheaper.

            Whenever I say any of this, I’m all of sudden a stocking thread count term.

            Tony.

            90

            • #
              David Maddison

              I have heard it said that wind power can be made to work in a country the size of Australia – and this belief might be driving policy – because if you have enough of the things there will always be enough working to provide power. However, I understand that honest modelling has proven that this is not possible. Perhaps we need to tell politicians of this fact (and many others).

              00

            • #
              Ceetee

              My argument Tony is that our battery technology is crap, hardly advanced past my Dads pre WW 2 years with the milk float. Still expensive and inefficient. No point talking about batteries at all. Am I wrong?

              00

      • #
        gnome

        If all you d-worders were to do your social duty and buy tesla electric vehicles they wouldn’t need to try to sell them as household batteries.

        10

    • #
      Brill

      I clicked your link because I wanted that info. Only the one day came up with a few hours showing. Have you a link showing how much energy was produced by each system, when it was produced and how much was used or exported, and how much was imported. Thanks

      00

  • #
    pat

    jo – am going to forward this link to everyone on my mailing list. thanx for the thread.

    a minor point. end of second para:
    “putting off the promises til long after most people will NOT be around”.

    should that be:
    “putting off the promises til long after most people will be around”.

    can u believe the mighty BBC would pick up a Fairfax nonsense – Leading Tory MP calls Tony Abbott’s climate change policies ‘incomprehensible’ – when Benyon is a nobody pollie & BBC knows it? yet they also call him a ***”leading UK MP”? nothing is as deceptive as CAGW zealotry:

    22 July: BBC: Australia’s climate change stance attacked by UK MP
    Australia’s climate change stance is “incomprehensible” and “profoundly un-conservative”, said a ***leading UK MP.
    In an opinion piece published in Fairfax Media, Conservative UK MP Richard Benyon criticised PM Tony Abbott’s leadership on the issue.
    The former UK environment minister and member for Newbury said Australia was ignoring climate change at its peril.
    The comments come as Australia expands its fossil fuel industry and weakens support for renewable energy…
    Mr Benyon said conservative UK leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron had proved it was possible to deal with climate change while pursuing economic growth…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-33632240

    23 July: Bolt Blog: Obscure and dumped British MP lauded as prominent statesman for criticising Abbott
    So it turns out that this “prominent” Tory is actually just a backbencher.
    And he was never actually “Environment Minister” but a parliamentary undersecretary in the department of environment, in the third level of the ministry and barely equivalent in rank to a parliamentary secretary in our own parliament.
    In other words, the Sydney Morning Herald found some dumped British backbencher of no particular profile who just happened to say something that agreed with the paper’s own alarmist opinions. And it puffed his credentials to promote its own agenda…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/obscure_and_dumped_british_mp_lauded_as_prominent_statesman_for_criticising/

    LOL:

    from Wikipedia – Richard Benyon:
    He is the richest MP of the House of Commons, with an estimated wealth of £110 million.
    Controversies: In 2012 while Wildlife Minister he refused a request from other MPs that possession of carbofuran, a deadly poison used to kill raptors that is banned in Canada and the European Union, should be made a criminal offence. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas was quoted as saying: “The minister’s shocking refusal to outlaw the possession of a poison used only by rogue gamekeepers to illegally kill birds of prey would be inexplicable were it not for his own cosy links to the shooting lobby…
    In 2013 Benyon succeeded in preventing any cuts in fishing quotas. He claimed that if British fishermen had their quotas cut they would dump even more fish overboard, and the more fish they are allowed to catch, the better it will be for “the health of our seas”. Back in 2004, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution proposed that 30% of the United Kingdom’s waters should become reserves preventing fishing or any other kind of extraction…
    Also in 2013 Benyon’s policy relating to access to rivers and his role as an owner of fishing rights was criticised. Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot wrote that he “repeatedly wields his power in ways that promote his own interests” and being “so enmeshed in potential conflicts of interest that were he to recuse himself from all the issues in which he has a personal stake, he would have nothing to do but order the departmental paperclips”…
    In 2014, Benyon’s family firm was part of a property consortium that purchased New Era estate, one of the last affordable housing estates for working-class Londoners. The consortium increased the rents and announced plans to increase them further to match the rest of the market, effectively displacing its current residents…


    Thanks for the editing suggestion. Have changed to: “..after most people alive today will be gone.” – Thanks for all the news you share here. -Jo

    121

  • #
    John Watt

    Which heavy industries could function effectively with an electricity supply system that relied on renewables for 50% of its energy production? Who is going to pay for poles and wires sitting around as back-up when renewables aren’t generating. Who pays for standby generators needed when renewables aren’t generating?
    I suspect the reality is that Shorten knows he loses Green support when he “turns back the boats” so he chucks in the wildly impractical 50% renewables as a compensatory carrot.

    100

  • #
    William

    ACIL chief executive Paul Hyslop said: “If this were met by wind power it would require 10,000 to 11,000 additional turbines … with capital costs for the turbines alone of $65 billion.”

    My comment on on this yesterday was OT but I am impressed with Paul Hyslop’s analysis. I think he is quite right! (Although I feel like Dr Brian citing myself …)

    My back of the envelope calculations based on renewables current (alleged) contribution to Australia’s power with solar 2%, wind 4% and hydro 7%. To bring that 14% to 50% would have hydro still at 7% – unless some dams were built immediately and we had sufficient rain – so solar, wind and other renewables would have to contribute 43%. If wind provides say 28% and solar and any emerging sources 15%, we would need an extra 11,000 turbines spread out over 800,000 hectares of wind farms scarring our hills and coastlines using nearly 3 million tonnes of steel and 9 million tonnes of concrete to construct them. (based on Capital and Macarthur wind farms and Suzlon S88 turbines) Plus the roads and electrical infrastructure, plus the battery arrays, and so on.

    60

    • #
      bobl

      Read my points in the last thread on this. ACIL was using nameplate capacity. Apply the capacity factor and intrinsic system losses to the calculation and allow for demand growth between now and 2030 and it’s more like 100,000 turbines needed. Not only that you need interconnects that don’t exist today!

      80

      • #
        Spetzer86

        And in 12-15 years you get to start building them all over again! The scheme that never ends.

        60

      • #
        William

        I agree it would likely be many, many more bobl, you can see that I started my calculations based on the “alleged” contribution so my 11000 is calculated accordingly. It is, as Spetzer points out, the gift that keeps giving.

        20

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    inb4Ruairi

    Labor Party thinks we can get by
    just collecting power from the sky.
    It’s in a good cause!
    Except, with The Pause
    we’ve success without needing to try.

    131

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nah, sorry. The way it scans, doesn’t have the same je ne se quoi as the original.

      Good try, but don’t give up your day job.

      (I am practicing to be a judge on a talent show).

      51

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Nah, Reckers, get with the programme.
        The 7-7-5-5-7 style is sooo 19th century.
        This new 9-9-5-5-9 format will catch on, I’m just ahead of the curve on this one.
        You’ll see.

        … and what I meant by that was….

        Rereke you’re likely mocking moi
        when you say it lacks je ne se quoi.
        But art can surprise.
        Limericks survive
        adding words like a ménage à trois.

        51

  • #
    ROM

    When I see turbines being erected right in the heart of Toorak and Malvern Melbourne, Darling Point, Edgecliff, Point Piper Mosman. Vaucluse and etc in Sydney, Cottesloe and etc in Perth plus other wealthy investor infested suburbs in Adelaide, Brisbane, Hobart and etc I will accept them here in rural Australia as being benign in their effects on human health which from recent research they are anything but for the foreseeable future.
    A situation that is now starting to concern the Danish health authorities as well as psychosomatic disease problems are now showing up everywhere in Denmark which are being attributed to the infra sound output of the turbines that infest Denmark.
    Plus the flicker pattern projections at certain times of the day from interruption of sunlight or reflection off turbine blades giving a strobing effect from which for a period of minutes to hours there is no avoiding for some unfortunate individuals.

    Why the hell rural people have to be forced to put up with health destroying and scenic devastating, utterly useless, intermittent , unpredictable, unforecastable non viable in any way commercially except with massive tax payer subsidies power generating wind turbines forced upon rural people by non caring politicians trying to make themselves look good is way beyond my understanding of responsible ethical behaviour on the part of politicians ,
    [ the greens are exempt from this description on the grounds that they haven't heard of either ethics or the concept of responsibility to their fellow man ]

    Now we can start on the economics of turbines!!

    191

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … the flicker pattern projections at certain times of the day from interruption of sunlight or reflection off turbine blades …

      I am wondering if there has been any noticeable increase in the number of people suffering from epilepsy in the rural areas with wind farms.

      I am surprised that the epidemiologists haven’t been all over it?

      40

      • #
        ROM

        First came across the Flicker pattern effect a lot of years ago well before turbines while sitting in the local optomerist waiting room and got to reading one of the industry journals he had there.

        First up is a rapidly increasing irritability along with an increase in stress, something I have found is a personal effect when I’m driving along roads with heavy timber along side them and the sunlight throwing the shadows of the trunks across the road every few metres like a shadow picket fence.
        And I found that out for myself long before turbines were ever thought of here in Australia.
        Such a location exists on our main [ Adelaide to ] Horsham to Melbourne highway around the timbered Ararat area.
        And I only experience that effect for a few minutes. It would drive me mad to have to live with such a flicker pattern shadows across our house especially from turbines
        But for some it gets much worse as one of the factors health wise associated with the proximity of turbines, leading to the recorded abandonment of long lived in houses by those worst effected.
        I have seen reports of the turbine companies buying up whole villages in Denmark due to health effects on the villagers and bull dozing them rather than miss out on the subsidies.

        For more on the health aspect of turbines which is anything but properly researched as the quite close to a level of criminality turbine companies will do anything in their power including non legal activities [ re picking up protected bird killings and refusing to admit to any destruction of millions of bats and birds ] to prevent any proper survey and examination of their operations in just about every field.

        There is just too much public money there for those nefarious exploiters of the public purse to walk away from those lucrative subsidies, subsidies being the only way they can ever operate as they are completely non viable economically without those massive public hand outs.

        Re the information below; I wonder just how many wind turbine set ups here in Australia actually conform to those reccommended clearances as set out below?
        —————–

        Adelaide University

        Systematic review of the human health effects of wind farms

        Page ;124

        BQ3. WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF FLICKER EXPOSURE FROM A WIND TURBINE AND HOW DOES IT VARY BY DISTANCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TERRAIN SEPARATING THE WIND TURBINE FROM POTENTIALLY EXPOSED PEOPLE?

        The timing, intensity and location of shadow flicker are influenced by turbine size and shape, landscape features, latitude, weather and wind farm layout. Reviews by Harding, Harding and Wilkins (2008), Verkuijlen et al. (1984) and Rideout, Copes and Bos (2010) provide guidance on the design of wind farms in order to reduce the risk of flicker-induced seizure, as summarised below:

        • Shadow flicker wind turbines should only be installed if flicker frequency is maintained below 2.5 Hz, under all conditions.
        Turbine blades should be programmed to stop when blade rotation exceeds 3 Hz (60 rpm for a three-blade turbine).
        Most industrial turbines operate between 30 and 60 rpm.

        • The layout of wind farms should ensure that shadows cast by one turbine upon another should not be readily visible to the general public. The shadows should not fall upon the windows of nearby buildings. The reflection from turbine blades should be minimised.

        • Wind farms should be placed at a distance sufficient to reduce contrast; that is the degree of sunlight occlusion by turbine blades. According to Harding, Harding and Wilkins (2008), assuming that contrasts of less than 10% occur when the width of the turbine blade subtends at the eye an angle that is 10% of the sun’s diameter (0.05 degrees), it is possible to set a limit for the distance at which shadow flicker is likely to be seizure provoking.
        For a turbine blade that is
        1 m in diameter, this distance is 1.14 km (Harding, Harding & Wilkins 2008).

        • The resulting flicker frequency, from a combination of blades when several turbines are aligned with the sun’s shadow, could be higher than that from a single turbine. If the blades of a turbine are reflective, there is the possibility of flicker from reflected light at viewing positions that are unaffected by shadows.

        Frequency thresholds and seizure risk from shadow flicker or blade glint

        The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers suggest that the health effects of flicker can be categorised into those that are immediate (effects resulting from a few seconds’ exposure, such as epileptic seizures) and those that take time to develop (effects resulting from long-term exposure such as malaise, headaches and impaired visual performance). Epileptic seizures are associated with visible flicker, typically within the range 3–70 Hz, while human biologic effects due to invisible flicker (that which is not consciously perceivable by a human viewer) occur at frequencies above those at which flicker is visible but at <165 Hz (Wilkins, Veitch & Lehman 2010).
        Seizures induced by visual or photic stimuli are usually observed in individuals with certain types of epilepsy, particularly generalised epilepsy (Guerrini & Genton 2004).
        Approximately 3% of people with epilepsy are photosensitive (Rideout, Copes and Bos 2010).

        &
        The Wisconsin Wind Siting Council notes that there is some evidence that the interruption of sunlight by helicopter blades has caused seizures, and that there have been two unconfirmed reports of seizures due to shadow flicker (McFadden 2010).

        Aspects of flicker that pose a seizure risk include:

        • flash frequency in a frequency range 3–70 Hz (Harding, Harding & Wilkins 2008; Verkuijlen & Westra 1984; Wilkins, Veitch & Lehman 2010), with the greatest likelihood of seizures occurring at the frequency range 15–20 Hz

        • brightness—stimulation in the scotopic or low mesopic range (<1 candela or cd/m2) has a low risk, while there is a monotonic increase in risk with log luminance in the high mesopic and photopic range

        • contrast with background lighting, such as the sun—contrasts above 10% are considered a potential risk (Harding, Harding & Wilkins 2008).

        30

  • #
    Random Comment

    My understanding is that 50% is an aspiration so possibly about as likely as full Gonski or NDIS funding. There may be very little intention of any action, the purpose is the seeming not the doing (as Mr Bolt is fond of saying).

    50

  • #
    pat

    Figueres provides the laughs, as always:

    23 July: UK Daily Mail: Gemma Mullin: ‘Science is telling us that time is running out’: UN climate chief warns the world is ‘playing with fire’ unless agreement on climate change is reached at international summit
    Christiana Figueres says upcoming meeting is last chance for agreement
    Senior official has highlighted economic advantages of renewable energy
    Americans should see China as model of top polluting countries, she said
    She told The Associated Press on Wednesday that with another decade of dawdling ‘we are going to be playing with fire.’…
    The current version of the draft text is a bewildering 85-page list of options, incorporating the demands of the nearly 200 nations participating in the process…
    The message from this week’s two-day gathering in Paris of around 40 countries’ delegations, including 26 with ministers, and an earlier meeting of the world’s major economies was that the negotiating text should be short – around 40 pages – and ambitious, de Brum (Tony de Brum, Marshall Islands’ foreign minister) said…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171075/Science-telling-time-running-climate-chief-warns-world-playing-fire-unless-agreement-climate-change-reached-international-summit.html

    competing for laughs:

    23 July: CarbonBrief: Robert McSweeney: London ‘imports’ climate change risks, warns capital’s Economy Committee
    Financial services and other businesses in London are increasingly vulnerable to climate change through their investments and supply chains that stretch across the globe, a new report from the London Assembly warns.
    More than half of companies do not have an adaptation strategy to cope with climate change, says the report, led by Baroness Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly…
    Among its recommendations, the report urges Mayor Boris Johnson to “commit to the principle of a transition away from investment in certain fossil fuels, namely coal”…
    Sitting on an estuary with £200bn of property in the Thames floodplain, London already has its fair share of climate-related risks, such as tidal flooding, heatwaves and intense rainfall events. The graphic below shows some of the impacts that businesses in the the nation’s capital will need to cope with as global temperatures rise.
    But a new report warns that the global reach of London’s economy means it’s also vulnerable to climate change impacts on the other side of the world…
    London’s financial services have around £10trillion of investments held overseas, the report says, and many of these assets will be in countries more vulnerable to climate change than the UK…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/london-imports-climate-change-risks/?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=581b84fb19-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-581b84fb19-303449629

    81

    • #

      We’re using fire, not playing with it. Using it to keep warm, to make stuff that is useful, including food!

      She needs to get her story aligned with Prince Chuckles; he “reckons” 35 years.

      10

    • #
      gai

      London Mayor, Boris Johnson, writes a reply in The Telegraph (2013):

      The weather prophets should be chucked in the deep end

      For more than 20 years now, we have been told that this country was going to get hotter and hotter and hotter, and that global warming was going to change our climate in a fundamental way. Do you remember that? We were told that Britain was going to have short, wet winters and long, roasting summers. It was going to be like 1976 all over again, with streakers at Lord’s and your Mr Whippy melting before you could even lick it, and Hyde Park scorched into a mini Kalahari.

      They said we were never going to have snow again, and that we should prepare for southern England to turn gradually into a Mediterranean world. There were going to be olive groves in the Weald of Kent, and the whole place was going to be so generally broiling in summer that no one would be able to move between noon and 4pm, after which people would come out to play boules and sip pastis, to the whine of a mandolin, in the dusty square that had once been a village green.

      H/T WUWT

      00

  • #
    Eliza

    Why not elect the guy and let him destroy your country. Once this happens 100% people will no longer beliewe in AGW which is what is needed because just 1% of those crazies will do more damage than 99% who say nothing

    81

    • #
      James Murphy

      Unfortunately, I think that would be a Pyrrhic victory at best, even if, on some level, i too would like to see a very public, and definitive destruction of the CAGW cult.

      71

    • #
      Manfred

      Yep. It would be truly epic to watch The Conversation become a silent black hole on the subject. Doubtless, that particular Kollektiv would deny that they had EVAH demonstrated any support for the idea of CAGW in the first place.

      But then again, come to think of it, much of the Kollektiv would be absent, given the absence of funding.

      00

  • #

    Late last night, I worked on this and posted it here at Joanne’s site at this link, and admitted, I wouldn’t have expected many people to go back two Threads to see it.

    I was surprised this morning to see that Paul Hyslop at ACIL came to almost the same conclusions that I did.

    I still think that the real elephant in the room is the load curve for Australian power consumption.

    We generate 210TWH of power, and assuming that total power consumption remains the same in 2030 as it does now in 2015 (eg, the complete stagnation of growth in Australia) then Shorten’s call for half from renewables means 105TWH.

    That Load Curve shows that around 60 to 65% of all power consumed in Oz has to be available for the full 24 hours of every day, and that’s almost 135TWH, then those renewables cut right into that, and while some Hydro can cover that absolute physical requirement, renewables just cannot deliver power on that 24/7/365 basis.

    Besides the ultimate cost being out of the question, because where are they going to find that sort of money from any investors, the fact that is is almost physically impossible to construct that much renewable power in the time frame, as I explained in that earlier Comment, just having it in place is only half of the equation, because they would still need to keep constructing at that same rate, as those older plants become time expired.

    All Bill Shorten has done here is just open his mouth.

    Pity it was only to change feet.

    Tony.

    281

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Tony a few threads ago you recalculated Australia’s minimum base load from 18,000MW to 22,000MW, apologies if I’m misquoting you but I feel that’s a very important figure to show the public just how much power is needed just to keep everything in their lives ticking over.

      60

    • #
      Robert O.

      We are very fortunate that the greens were not around when Sir William Hudson initiated the Snowy scheme, but Bob Brown with the help of PM Hawke (under the external affairs powers) torpedoed the last large Hydro scheme, Gordon Stage 2, but now they are happy to count these as renewables. If Bill wants to go renewables why not Gordon Stage 2; at least it would produce far more power than countless windmills.

      80

      • #
        Robert O.

        The Gordon below Franklin scheme was going to produce 180 MW of power; thus at 5 MW a piece it would save 36 / 0.3 = 120 Windmills.

        20

        • #

          Robert O.

          This is from the Windustry site. (my bolding here)

          The costs for a utility scale wind turbine range from about $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW of nameplate capacity installed. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.

          Note here that this is a U.S. site, so these are U.S. Dollars, so you need the conversion rate, and then add more because it costs more to get them here to Australia

          The most used average currently is 2.5MW.

          This is just the cost of the turbines alone, in other words the pole and the nacelle stuck into the ground. Then add on the extra to bring the whole farm plant up to power delivery operational status.

          Macarthur wind plant has 140 X 3MW towers. and cost around $1.2 Billion, (in 2012 Dollars) but they are cagy about the real cost, understandably.

          The now failed King Island project was 200 X 3MW and proposed to cost $2.2 Billion all up.

          Contrary to popular belief, the cost for wind plants is not coming down at all, and in fact is increasing.

          Tony.

          90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        If Bill wants to go renewables why not Gordon Stage 2 …

        One word: Tokenism!

        20

    • #
      Spetzer86

      TonyfromOz: I found a presentation on a Finnish concept for 100% renewable energy by 2050 claiming economic and technological feasibility. Has some estimates and assumptions, but I don’t know if there’s sufficient detail to confirm the concept. Thought you might be interested. http://www.lut.fi/documents/10633/70751/LUT-Vision-and-initial-feasibility-of-a-recarbonised-Finnish-energy-system-for-2050.pdf

      10

  • #
    Robert O.

    The reality of Mr. Shorten’s scheme of 50% renewables is close to nil, but unfortunately there are many disciples who believe that renewables will save the planet and that is the problem.

    I mentioned the problems that Tasmania had in 1963? when it literally ran out of water for power generation due to drought: no street lighting, no neon signs, introduction of daylight saving, a diesel electric boat tied-up to keep the Aluminium smelter going, general encouragement to save power, … Surely this portends Labor’s policy based on windmills which only operate 30% of the time!

    111

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      “but unfortunately there are many disciples who believe that renewables will save the planet and that is the problem.”

      Yes, it is a eco-belief system, trying madly to substitute logic and common sense with a house of cards “logic”.

      10

      • #
        gai

        …it is a eco-belief system, trying madly to substitute logic and common sense with a house of cards “logic”.

        Actually the ‘logic’ is based on Classic Hegelian Philosophy.

        The philosophical basis of Marx’s thought were laid early and remained unchanged throughout his life. As a student, Marx accepted the philosophy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the universe.

        Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the mind, and any change was a change in ideas. Therefore, to account for these changes in ideas was to account for change in the universe.

        …. in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created. All action or change occurring in the universe was, under the Hegelian philosophy, the product of thesis, antithesis, and resulting synthesis—all in the realm of ideas, since objective reality could exist only in that sphere. Since this process was universal and never ending, it offered a complete explanation of the causal processes creating all phenomena within the universe.

        This is why there is such an emphasis on a CONSENSUS. The Marxist Warmists really do believe in fairy tales like the Wizard of OZ.

        Glinda: ….. Now those magic slippers will take you home in two seconds!

        Dorothy: Now?
        Glinda: Whenever you wish….

        Glinda: Then close your eyes and tap your heels together three times. And think to yourself, ‘There’s no place like home’.

        So we have a portion of the adult population who think that if they collectively wish real hard they can MAKE renewables a viable reality. This is why no amount of scientific logic will EVER penetrate their believe system.

        From the deliberate ruination of independent farmers since WWII to the change in child rearing practices calling the palm of the hand on the bum of a child and even yelling ‘Child Abuse’*** children have been deliberately divorced from learning actions have consequences and schools have substituted reality based Objective Philosophy with the Hegelian Philosophy. The welfare system has continued this insulation from the consequences of a person’s decisions into adulthood.

        ***See The Hand that Rocked the Cradle: A Critical Analysis of Rockefeller Philanthropic Funding, 1920-1960

        00

  • #
    skeptic56109

    The Green people are now saying that energy payback for a windmill (or wind turbine if you insist)occurs in a matter of months. How is it possible for a power plant to have such a ridiculously short energy breakeven and still require subsidies?
    Is it because only 20% of its output is produced during peak hours when it is actually useful?
    Or is nameplate output used in calculating energy breakeven time while actual output is 20% of that?
    Until the wind industry can prove that existing windmills reduce the amount of fossil fuel used by the grid for a mwh of electricity, not one new windmill should be erected.
    Because of the inefficiencies a wind farm forces on a utility, the power produced by said wind farm should be used only to pump water uphill (pumped storage)

    40

    • #
      Spetzer86

      I’ve seen a reference for that timeframe where it’s considered an energy payback. The turbine will generate the energy it took to make it in about 8 months. Doesn’t sound like it considers material cost and I’ve not seen the actual calculation.

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        If you did deeper, I suspect you will find that the comparative figure they are using is the construction cost, i.e. the cost of erecting and commissioning the wind turbine on site.

        It will not include the infrastructure costs of roading, cabling, control equipment, distribution network, etc, nor the purchase cost, or rental fees, for the land; on the basis that, “those costs will need to be born, anyway”.

        And it will almost certainly not include the manufacturing, storage, and transportation costs of the wind turbine itself.

        They will also assume that the turbine is capable of producing nameplate capacity for 100% of the time, during that entire 8 month period. Oh yes, and the weather will remain perfect for the entire eight months.

        Does that make me sound cynical about Green economics?

        80

    • #
      Graeme No. 3

      The ‘costing’ only extended to the cost of the materials used, although apparently forgetting the hundreds of tons of concrete required for the base. It didn’t have anything to do with the cost of an assembled turbine on site. Just getting the turbine in place adds 50% to the base cost.

      So you have to pay for the materials, the assembly, the transport to the site, the lifting into place, the cabling to get the power out (and in, as turbines draw power also) and the maintenance. The last is around 20% of revenue in german on-shore turbines. The cost of the materials is truly a minor part.

      If you then generate electricity and sell it at $40 when it costs you $90 (Australia, more like $120 UK) you will rapidly go broke, unless you can find some looney who will subsidise either your cost of building or your running costs, or both. Since politicians are gullible on technical matters and LOVE spending other people’s money guess where the money comes from?
      All this to possibly avert the unknown consequences of an unproven and rapidly being discredited scare ( I refuse to call something so insubstantial a theory ).

      10

  • #
    lance

    Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake!!

    120

  • #
    JB

    This is one Elecricity Bill we cannot afford!

    100

  • #

    Here are the facts:
    a) solar pv has an EROEI of 0.48 (Odum, Energy Accounting, Table 8.1)
    b) wind power has an EROEI of 0.29 (Livermore Pass CORRECTED)

    Here is the problem:
    No amount of facts will deter the renewable crowd from the inescapable truth – wind and solar are unsustanable; they will never produce more energy than went into their design, manufacture, erection, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning.

    60

  • #
    handjive

    We have turned the corner on green energy.
    We have turned the corner on asylum seekers.
    We have turned the corner on green taxes.
    We have turned the corner on the economy.

    Everyone knows when you have turned 4 corners, you have gone ’round the block’ and are back where you started.

    100

    • #
      Manfred

      handjive, it’s far more interesting and much more expensive than just going round in circles, don’t you think?

      Where else are circles (or squares) closing?…..well here for one, and here for another.

      In the case of the former, this’ll wind-up the eco-marxist Malthusians big time. Good.
      In the case of the latter, the ironies are breathtaking, given their perpetual chatter about their imminent demise under rising sea level. It now seems that they’re compelled to wake-up from their Green Wet Dream and are….(best whispered behind shielding hand)….seeking new investors.

      20

  • #
    el gordo

    Albo is more green than Bill.

    40

  • #
    William Astley

    It is pathetic, sad, surreal, that no one in the liberal media and/or in the Democratic party (Australia, substitute Labor Party) has gotten to the bottom of the green scams. Bad ideas that do not work, are bad ideas regardless of the party pushing the idea.

    The green scams fail without including the cost and energy input for battery systems. The costs and energy input for battery systems are never discussed as the cost and CO2 ‘savings’ calculation becomes ridiculous, absurd if battery systems are included.

    1)The number one pathetic analysis fact is the CO2 saving calculation does not include the CO2/energy required to construct the green scams and the reduce grid efficiency which is a consequence of forced on/off/on/off/on/off hydrocarbon back-up for the green scams. There is almost no energy savings and almost no CO2 savings from using green scams if the calculation is unbiased, accurate.
    2)The number two pathetic analysis fact is due to fact one, it is not possible to say reduce CO2 emissions by let say 40% using green scams, regardless of how much money is spent. We are at point A in CO2 emissions, can never get to point B in CO2 emissions with the green scams. CO2 savings decrease exponentially as more green scams are added and cost increases exponentially the higher the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions without nuclear power and without Stalin like restrictions on everyday life such as banning commercial air travel.

    Comments:
    A fundamental error/scam in the calculation and discussions is the cost comparison is not ‘green scam’ vs hydrocarbon, as 100% hydrocarbon backup is required in addition to the green scam. ‘Investing’ in green scams mean doubling the installed power equipment to power the grid, in addition to more power lines as power must move from region to region.

    The second fundamental issue which is not understood by most people are the implications of the fact that wind speed varies independent of load requirements.
    The power generated from a turbine varies as the cube of wind speed and can vary 30% in less than an hour and does vary from 0 to 100%. As a power system must always be balanced when the wind blows other power sources musts be shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and so on.

    The wind power scam quotes wind power as nameplate rated power which is the maximum output of the wind farm. Germany average wind power output is less than 20% of nameplate.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555
    ” Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded. ”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
    ” The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
    A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”. “

    80

  • #
    Dennis

    Former Treasurer Peter Costello estimated when the federal debt reached ONLY $270 billion that assuming the terms of trade, that tax revenue was no worse than during the Howard LNP government years when he was treasurer it would take approximately 40-years to repay debt and interest. When Labor left office that debt was over $400 billion plus the accounted for off budget NBNCo debt, estimate plus $50 billion.

    My concern is not only the federal gross debt (reducing it to net debt by offsetting assets to reduce it is ridiculous, gross it what is owed) but add the debts of the state and territory governments and local governments, most of it borrowed by Labor when in office, and I guess-timate that the total public debt well exceeds $800 billion. Maybe the Shorten goal is to exceed one trillion dollars of debt, after all former Treasurer Wayne Swan, the one day it will happen budget surplus guy, has commented a number of times that government debt is not a problem.

    60

  • #
  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    more and more of the grid is taken over by a massive erratic and unreliable supply

    This is actually a very serious issue. Here are two articles this week about the situation in Germany.

    “Alarming Results” From Fraunhofer Institute Study On Grid Overloading From Wind, Solar Power…Crippled Cities

    Minister Slams German Government’s Green Energy Reform Plan: “Nonsense…Little To Do With Reality”!

    Moreover Untersteller is puzzled as to why Germany has opted to use solutions that have already failed in other countries, recounting a meeting he had with managers of California power company PG&E: “When I told them what the German federal government was planning, their eyebrows went up. California had a similar system, but only until the year 2000. They had blackout situations.”

    Germany has about a 25% proportion of their energy coming from renewables, mainly wind. Their grid is at breaking point, and they have been exporting instability to adjacent countries like Poland and Austria. This has caused several diplomatic incidents.

    Mr Shorten by contrast wants to have 50% renewables. And as an island we don’t have adjacent countries to use as giant batteries.

    I think his plan will cause such disastrous instability to the grid that it will prove technically impossible.

    70

    • #
      • #
        gai

        OF COURSE the German public Resoundingly Says “No!” To Clearing Forests To Make Way For Wind Parks.

        The Germans are relying on those trees for cord wood to heat their homes in winter once they finish Clear-Cutting Romania — Logging Threatens One of Europe’s Last Virgin Forests.

        ….Schweighofer’s largest customers include Austrian manufacturers of wood pellets, who also supply Germany. Their monthly purchases from Schweighofer amount to over €1 million.

        ….In Romania there is a hotline to check the origins of lumber transports. The system can use the license plate number to track each truckload of wood. Paun dialed the number and an employee at the Environment Ministry’s wood tracking section picked up the phone. Her answer left no doubt: She said the lumber was “illegal.” Paun followed the truck to the entrance of the sawmill, which belongs to Austria’s Schweighofer Group, and informed security guards working for the company. But instead of taking the wood out of circulation, they put Paun out of commission: first with blows, then with pepper spray, causing Paun to fall to the ground. Everything was captured on shaky video images and uploaded to YouTube.

        The film snippet is a hit in Romania, where it has become a symbol for the Romanians’ concern for their forests — and for their powerlessness to stop it from disappearing. At stake here is one of the last virgin forests in Europe. These are regions roamed by brown bears, wolves and lynxes, and many of these areas have remained untouched for centuries.

        The Carpathian Arc contains the largest contiguous forested region in Central Europe. Roughly one-third of the area of Romania — 6.6 million hectares (16.3 million acres) is forest, but Romanians are seeing it hemorrhage on a daily basis.

        Meanwhile, activist Alexander von Bismarck says he simply cannot get it into his head that one of the last European virgin forests is being illegally cut down so it can be sold to heat homes in Austria….

        00

  • #
    Ruairi

    The warmists are easily had,
    To be duped by this climate-change fad,
    As they think a vast spend,
    Would make climate-change end,
    Which is throwing good funds after bad.

    101

  • #
    Amber

    The Liberal Party of Canada must share the same, How To Not Get Elected , play book with the Labor Party of Australia .
    They ran on a carbon tax , goofy green agenda, and got soundly thumped last time and amazingly are doing it again .
    Clearly they like being in opposition and with their popularity dropping like a stone they are assured of possibly third place this time if they can beat the Greenie Party out of fourth .

    Australia , Canada and a growing number of countries have refused to be bullied into blowing $Billions while pretending to adjust the earth’s thermostat.

    That is one reason they will keep getting elected. People are on to what an overblown scam scary global warming is and they are calling BS where they can , at the ballot box .

    50

  • #
    el gordo

    Bill believes that climate change is not ‘absolute crap’.

    ‘And at the conference he will say that “the evidence is in, the science is settled. Climate change is not ‘absolute crap’, it is an inescapable fact. And if we take a do-nothing approach, there will be more and more extreme weather.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shorten-dares-tony-abbott-to-bring-on-climate-election-as-albanese-criticises-leader-20150723-giipzy.html#ixzz3gktA4TYw

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      In all fairness, Bill is right.

      Climate change is not ‘absolute crap’. It is only ‘predominantly crap’.

      71

      • #
        Dennis

        Socialism masquerading as environmentalism: Prime Minister Tony Abbot remarked

        50

        • #
          TdeF

          Climates change. What is absolute crap is man made CO2 driven rapid Global Warming.
          (Actually perhaps absolutely crap, as crap is limitless and cannot be absolute. You can always have more.)

          21

          • #
            TdeF

            Also you will note that the Green political machine has managed to create a segway from Global Warming to Climate Change without any connection to CO2. What is the scientific connection between CO2 and Climate Change?

            32

  • #
    Ross

    Sorry to be well off topic but John Cook ( Skeptical Science)
    has been caught out big time !! I hope there is a court case.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

    61

    • #
      gnome

      Wow- just wow! I had been ignoring that, thinking it must be just some inconsequential bickering to discredit an already unworthy opponent, but WOW- just wow!

      What really stands out, reading through the WUWT comments, is that no-one at all, not even the usual mentally-ill believers, are trying to defend the Kook.

      Go and have a look folx- this is bigger than big! Thanx Ross (and someone else above whose link I didn’t follow earlier).

      31

  • #
    David Maddison

    Consumers should be given the right to choose the source of their electricity (e.g. wind, solar, coal, gas, hydro, nuclear (I wish)) and it should be sold to them at true actual unsubsidised cost.

    When the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining those consumers that choose “renewables” have their electricity go off (and then come on for a few seconds if their is a gust of wind etc.).

    I believe the smart meters we now have should be able to manage such a scenario. Is that right?

    50

    • #
      ROM

      David Maddison @ # 31

      Smart meters or at least the computer programs controlling Smart meters from the power / grid operators central control computer programs should be able to allocate the power and the timing of power availability to those who chose a specific source of power without too many problems.
      The only real requirement would be to program the central controller with the relevant data on customers demands and requirements and choices.

      I posted this in reply to your question back on Jo’s “Wind Farm” post. Maybe you missed it as it was at the end of that post.
      ——————
      ROM
      July 18, 2015 at 7:31 pm · Reply
      David Maddison @ #77.4.1

      First; smart meters are interactive; information can flow both ways through the short range meter to meter node radio communication system.

      Control of the smart meters ability to remotely control the customer’s power use is currently only available to the grid or retail operators

      There is no actual need to modify the “smart meters” to only allow the consumer to access electricity from a particular generator at a particular and perhaps changing price.
      The price flexibility is already there via the smart meters.

      The meters can remotely switch off and switch on power to the specific household consumer.

      The smart meters can already adjust your grid power usage to take account of any solar power you might be generating for your own use or to feed back into the grid.

      Smart meters are actually the dumb individual remote interactive terminals at each consumers location that are merely extensions of how the central Smart meter controlling program controls and can enable the adjusting of prices and usage if required at the individual customer’s power consumption and point of power supply.

      They merely carry out the individual physical adjustments and pricing of the customers power supply at his / her access point for power depending on what programming has been loaded into the retailers and / or grid operators central controlling computer system.

      So it is reasonably easy I would think and possibly is already a part of the commercial grid and retailer’s retail power supply controlling programs needing only to be activated to switch consumers into and out of different sources of power as well as or alternatively switching “off power” and “on power” whenever the renewable or other forms of power generation energy systems were supplying power to the grid and in accordance with the customers previously stated requirements and demands.

      As a thought , If insufficient renewable energy supplies to meet demand, the consumer / client could indicate to the supplier the maximum price they were prepared to pay for power and this financial auction for renewable power access would delineate the the order in which renewable power consumers would be switched into renewable energy supplies as it again became available.

      If they didn’t want any fossil fuel generated power, easy!.
      Central computer switches their power off via the smart meter until the wind and solar kicks back in and then they are placed in line according to the maximum price they have nominated and which they are prepared to pay for renewable power to get switched back on again which can be done in an instant via the interactive Smart meters.

      NOW that would sort all the wannabe and pseudo greenies out very quick smart from the real dyed in the wool dedicated greenies, a sorting out which would be very obvious the first time the greenies who had nominated renewable energy only, got switched off.

      The howls of outrage would be deafening particularly when they looked out the door or window and saw the rest of the world with all the lights and heaters and coolers going full blast and just going as usual about their business, burning all that fossil fueled generated electricity without a care in the world about all that deadly nefarious carbon from that despicable coal being dispersed around in multi tonne lots.

      In the washup, with Smart meters it is just a case of programming the central controller of the short range radio interconnected Smart meter network and just about anything in the specific consumer power availability and pricing and timing requirements can be implemented.

      80

      • #
        David Maddison

        Thanks ROM for that very detailed answer. You’re right, I did not previously see your response to my previous question.

        20

  • #
    TdeF

    Why not nuclear? Apart from Astley’s single comment, nuclear is not even mentioned even here! This shows the underlying dominance of insane Green thinking.

    Australia’s peak capacity is 45Gwatt with peak demand around 35Gwatt

    At say $US14Bn, currently $A20Bn and 2Gwatt a station, we would already have three for the huge desalination plants which are not being used
    and for which we will be paying for another 25 years. We could have had 6Gigawatt of Nuclear base load, which would not vary with the wind or sun.

    Plus another $60Bn for more windmills and another three , so a total of 12 Megawatt and we would have 36% without any CO2 output?

    So it’s not about CO2 and the fantasy science (‘The Science’) of CO2 driven Global Warming is it? It’s about wind, sun, water worship, the religion of Gaia, the new Shamans and the utter destruction of Australia’s economics to bring about the Socialist(Communist) revolution so dear to the hearts of every Green senator in one of the worlds least democratic institutions, the Australian Senate.

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      What happened to the Inquiry into nuclear power stations commissioned by the Howard LNP Government?

      20

  • #
    Kevin Hearle

    We in New Zealand are trying to get to 90% by 2025. We are over 75% renewable already. Given we are using one of our dams to supply electricity to process your bauxite to make the highest grade Al in the world as part of the mix we will have no problem in getting to 90%. We have been over 90% twice in our recent history it shouldn’t be a problem, for us it is deciding which of the abundant renewable resources we decide to turn the tap on. If the Tiwai Point smelter contract is not renewed in 2017 we would probably exceed our target that year because of the change in mix that eventuates. Prices would fall.

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      Similarly with Norway. However Australia is a near dead flat arid country with huge distances which kill distribution and 5x the population and far less water let alone running down mountains. Perth is running on desalinated water and further from Melbourne than Auckland. In fact most of the world lives on flat land and getting both huge amounts of unwanted water at height is near impossible.

      Lake Baikal was interesting, the largest lake in the world at 9km deep and with as much fresh water as the entire great lakes, 20% of the world’s supply but smack in the middle of Siberia. The Russians dammed it to raise the water just a few meters, drowning some of the old Trans Siberian railway. This was enough with the incredible volumes to increase hydro output from the rapid Angara river. Any country would love to have such water. No, New Zealand is privileged to have such an abundance of ‘natural’ energy.

      However it raises the other subtle Green agenda, the demand of ‘sustainable’ or eternal, another fantasy. Nothing In Australia we have the Snowy Scheme. However it is not ‘sustainable’. If the water is gone, the power stops and there is very limited water anyway. Then you have the city of Dubai, the size of NZ with no food, no water, surrounded by unliveable desert where the bus stops and train station platforms are air conditioned. Sustainable? Much of the modern world is not ‘sustainable’. Singapore, a single island as big as NZ in population has no water at all.

      So by demanding ‘sustainable’, the Greens have moved the agenda away from dams (Hydro), nuclear (not even discussed) to solar and wind. Solar is impossible, given that quite absurdly you would have to cover the entire state of Victoria in solar panels just to match current demand, leaving nowhere to live and Victoria alone is bigger than NZ but has no hydro, just 150 years of brown coal.

      There is only wind and building tens of thousands of (short lifespan) Windmills? Will someone tell the Greens they’re dreaming? Or is that the charm of being Green, to live in a fantasy world without a care?

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        Nuclear is the only power source possible. Unfortunately world uranium is not unlimited, so breeder reactors would be required, producing plutonium. So we should be working with India to build Thorium reactors as between ourselves and India, we have over half the world’s supply of Thorium. No risk of explosion. No plutonium.

        So lets build windmills, as Labor chase the Don Quixote vote.

        80

        • #
          Robert O.

          That is the problem Ted, a lot of people actually believe that renewable energy will replace coal /gas/ generation. The other night I saw some guru on our ABC saying wind energy find was much cheaper than coal, so where does the average voter find out the truth? We should have had a nuclear industry going decades ago but the best we can do is export yellow cake due to the politics. And remember PM Hawke killed the last decent hydro scheme, the 180MW Gordon below Franklin scheme.

          Interestingly enough without the nuclear stations as a back-up, mainly in France, a lot of Europe would be having problems with their power supply.

          80

    • #
      Manfred

      Kevin – not all is as it might appear in la-la land.

      Auckland’s power supply is particularly vulnerable to even minor incidents, and major interruptions have occurred in recent years. Nationally, new base-load capacity is required.

      There appears considerable stasis, indeed reluctance existing around the requirement to construct new generational capacity in the face of a growing Auckland region that relies heavily on the Cook Strait cable and the gross inefficiency of transmission loss from hydro sources. A local nuclear option could be a positive step (Thorium reactors technology for example)…if only NZ were be properly educated to consider such technology rationally…and if Kiwi’s could fly…

      The proportion of New Zealand’s primary energy supply that came from renewable resources was 38.2% in 2013.

      ‘Most of New Zealand’s production of renewable energy is used for electricity generation. In 2013, a total of 75.1% of electricity generation came from renewable resources, increasing from 72.8% in 2012′. (Geothermal 54%; Hydro 25%; Bioenergy 19%; Wind 2%)
      Goverment Ministerial source

      Interestingly, counted among this is the following:
      Wood is also burned to heat many private homes in New Zealand, with the 2013 Census reporting that over 36% of New Zealand households use wood to heat their homes.
      This is an ad hoc supply of variable cost depending on personal wood source and is usually considered the only viable alternative for the provision of dense radiant energy to the useless heat pumps struggling uselessly and expensively in ambient temperatures around zero C.

      Of concern is that New Zealand has experienced
      generation related shortages in four of the last ten
      years. The security of supply situation is serious and will
      remain so until a substantial amount of new peaking
      generation is in service to cover dry winters and high
      demand periods. Transmission grid bottlenecks worsen
      the situation. Upgrading the high voltage direct current
      connector in 2012 will help to relieve immediate
      pressure.

      A significant emerging security of supply concern is the
      need to provide backup for intermittent wind generation. IPENZ —- electricity generation achieving NZ’s objectives.

      In the October 2007, the government published its New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050, which included a target for renewable sources to provide 90% of electricity generation by 2025.2 However, following the 2008 general election, the new Minister of Energy and Resources announced that the country’s energy strategy would be updated. The draft replacement strategy, published by the Ministry of Economic Development in July 20104, retains the “aspirational, but achievable” target of 90% renewables by 2025. No mention of nuclear power is made in the draft strategy.

      Nuclear Energy Prospects in New Zealand

      00

  • #
    pat

    23 July: KHTS California: Wind Turbines Banned In Unincorporated Los Angeles County
    A motion by Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich to ban utility-scale wind turbines in the unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County was approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
    “Wind turbines create visual blight, contradict the county’s rural dark skies ordinance which aims to protect dark skies in areas like Antelope Valley and the Santa Monica Mountains,” Antonovich said.
    Edwards Air Force Base and defense contractors also met with Antonovich to discuss what kind of effects wind turbines could cause.
    “Both said that wind turbines disrupt flight and weapon test ranges and will negatively affect the research operations,” Antonovich said
    http://www.hometownstation.com/santa-clarita-news/los-angeles-county-news/wind-turbines-banned-in-unincorporated-los-angeles-county-157288

    the Dr. is not a sceptic. he just thinks biomass would be more economical. however:

    23 July: Irish Times: Dr. Anthony White: More wind turbines would be ‘madness’, says energy expert
    Achieving the target of generating 40 per cent of Ireland’s electricity by 2020 from renewable sources would require another 200 wind farms around the country, energy specialist Dr Anthony White has said.
    Dr White, a director of consultancy BW Energy, told the MacGill Summer School that building more wind turbines around Ireland was “madness”…
    “Attainment of the 40 per cent target will require another 200 wind farms, 700km of new transmission line and hundreds of new towers to carry these lines. These transmission reinforcements alone will cost up to €3.9 billion, according to EirGrid.”…
    “Some of these turbines are 169m in height – almost three times taller than the Liberty Hall building in Dublin, or one-sixth the height of Ireland’s tallest mountain, Carrauntoohil.”…
    Oisín Coghlan of Friends of the Earth said the fossil-fuel age was over, “or we risk civilisation being over”…
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/more-wind-turbines-would-be-madness-says-energy-expert-1.2294038

    21

  • #
    PeterS

    If money was not obstacle then by all means let us build all the wind mills and solar panels we need to power the nation. Problem of course is the lack of base load since the sun isn’t in our skies 24 hours a day and the wind doesn’t always blow or blows too much. Yet most ignore the elephant in the room. We don’t have a limitless amount of money. So pretty much all of us here should be in agreement Labor’s new policy is absurd. In fact I believe its treacherous because it will lead to the economic and social destruction of our nation, and inevitably make Greece look like paradise. Yet there is so much hatred of the present government, who happen to be trying to stop the economic madness of the left, that we face the real prospect of having a Labor government in power next year. Can anyone convince me Australian voters are not stupid? Oh one other thing. What happened to global warming? It hasn’t been occurring for almost 20 years now so what’s all the fuss about by the socialists? Their argument for using renewable energy is certainly not based on any scientific argument.

    50

  • #
    ROM

    As India has been mentioned!

    Via the GWPF >
    __________________
    F.India

    Greenpeace India faces cancellation of registration, blames MHA

    Greenpeace India faces shutdown. The Tamil Nadu Inspector of Registration issued a showcause notice to the NGO for cancellation of its registration as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Earlier in April, the Home Ministry had suspended the registration of Greenpeace India under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and had frozen all seven bank accounts of the NGO, alleging that the organisation was encouraging ‘anti-development’ campaigns.
    Hitting back, Greenpeace India on Thursday said it will move court against Tamil Nadu government’s notice threatening cancellation of its registration and alleged that the “perversely framed and maliciously designed” charges were levelled at the behest of Union Home Ministry.
    Representative image. AFP
    According to a report in The Economic Times, the Inspector of Registration found major irregularities. “It was noticed that the NGO had failed to either file the required documents/returns on time or file these altogether,” the report noted.
    “Greenpeace is working illegally from Bengaluru,” an officer was quoted as saying by The Times of India. The report added that the Chennai office of Greenpeace has been working from an address other than the one applied for at the time of registration.

    [ more ]
    —————-
    Seems that operating illegally has become a very arrogant western based Greenpeace’s main modus operandi in the belief the ‘natives’ in the undeveloped countries were too damn dumb to find out.

    To paraphrase Churchill re Greenpeace’s probable future;
    Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Oh dear. That is so, so, terribly sad, how simply awful for the poor dahlings, I do hope they are not too traumatised.

      10

  • #
    pat

    read carefully:

    23 July: MoneyControl: Approval delays halt work on Australia coal project: Adani
    Adani Mining said the latest suspension of work on its USD 10 billion (USD 7.4 billion) Carmichael coal mine in Australia was ***due to delays in government approvals for the project, which environmentalists say could damage the Great Barrier Reef…
    Output from the mine, one of a handful under development in the Galilee Basin of Queensland state, will be mostly exported to India, where it will be ***central to plans by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to bring electricity to hundreds of millions of people living off the grid…
    Parsons Brinckerhoff and Korea’s POSCO Engineering & Construction Co Ltd, which is also touted as an investor in the final project, were told late last week to stop work on the Carmichael mine.
    “The preliminary works contracts were previously sustained due to the level of investment Adani had maintained for more than 12 months in anticipation of a range of government decisions and approvals timeframes,” Adani said in a statement emailed to Reuters…
    POSCO E&C said Adani had asked it to halt its design work as of July 16, with tentative plans to ***resume work in early October.
    ***Greenpeace on Wednesday called on the Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt to revoke the project’s mining licence…
    Adani has signed up buyers for about ***70 percent of the 40 million tonnes Carmichael is due to produce in its first phase…
    http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/approval-delays-halt-workaustralia-coal-project-adani_2106421.html

    do you think ABC/Buckley will inform the public about the complexities outlined in the above?

    AUDIO: 24 July: ABC Breakfast: Adani dismisses 50-person project team from Carmichael coal mine
    This week, Adani, the Indian coal company behind the project, has dismissed 50 staff involved in taking the mine project to construction.
    This latest development comes as little surprise to Tim Buckley, Director of Energy Finance Studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
    ***Mr Buckley concluded long ago that the mine was not financially viable.
    Tim Buckley joins Fran Kelly on RN Breakfast
    Guest:
    Tim Buckley, Director of Energy Finance Studies, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/adani-dismisses-50-person-project-team-from-carmichael/6644898

    “Their ABC”.

    31

    • #
      ianl8888


      Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt to revoke the project’s mining licence …

      Some people will regard this as nit-picking, of course, but the Environment Minister cannot revoke a mining licence unless he/she also happens to be the Resources Minister

      The obvious potential for conflict of interest between the two portfolios is the basic reason the portfolios remain separated

      The conflict between CAGW demands on expunging fossil fuel use and civilised society’s need for base load is becoming sharper and sharper. The imminent Paris festival has at least done that

      40

      • #
        RichardN

        Doesn’t it also ignore the fact that the mining license would have been issued by the Qld govt?
        I can’t see the federal govt to try a dodgy legal trick extending foreign relations power to mining licenses.
        (unlike a former labour govt)

        10

        • #
          ianl8888


          the mining license would have been issued by the Qld govt?

          Yes, but it’s the Feds who actually issue the license to export the product (which is the whole point for the Indians)

          Rex Connor, initial Resources Minister in the Whitlam Govt, withheld export licenses for Q’ld coking coal mines until he got agreement for an export tax (Yes, for a time there we actually taxed our own best exports – sort of a selective mining tax)

          Greenpeace is attempting to get Hunt to renege on the port construction

          10

  • #
    pat

    READ ALL – lol:

    23 July: USA Today: Matthew Diebel: Summer is so bad here that cops arrest weathermen
    Fed-up police in the Canada’s Newfoundland and Labrador have become so desperate about the lack of good weather in recent weeks that they have issued a plea to locate the missing season.
    Yes, the hunt is on for summer — that period of hot weather fueled by that bright, amber-colored orb otherwise known as the sun.
    “SUMMER was last seen in early August of 2014,” said a pitiful press release from the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC). “When last seen, SUMMER was described as being between 20-30 degrees Celsius (68-86 degrees Fahrenheit), blue skies with a bright and warm source of light in the sky. There have been sporadic sightings of this bright object, but these sightings have been rare since May 2015.”
    Local meteorologist Ryan Snoddon of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) even launched a competition asking residents to come up with a new name for July, explaining on his blog that it has been the worst summer in more than 20 years…
    “This July is not only shaping up to be the coldest since 1993 …, it will very likely end an amazing run of 21 straight years where the average July high was 20° or warmer. That stat is even more impressive when you look back between 1942-1993 and find that the previous longest trend of 20° or warmer, was just four years in row!”
    But Snoddon’s weather-geeky excitement cannot hide the fact that he and fellow prognosticator Eddie Sheer of NTV are taking much of the blame for the lousy conditions. In late June, Snoddon predicted sunny weather for July, a month that, so far, has delivered a diet of rain, drizzle and fog (RDF, to locals) in the province, which is situated in the far east of the country.
    An RNC officer even came by the CBC and NTV stations in the provincial capital, St. John’s, to take the woeful weathermen into custody…
    Said police spokesman Constable Steven Curnew, tongue somewhat in cheek, after he arrested Snoddon: “He’s being charged with impersonating a meteorologist, failing to provide the essentials of summer – that being sunshine, good forecasts and blue skies – and we also have him on trafficking of RDF.”
    And at NTV, Curnew had similar comments about Sheer, adding, however, that the consequences could be more dire. “With Eddie being from the United States,” he warned, “he could possibly be facing deportation. Unfortunately, due to the weather, it could be two weeks before we could get a flight out of St. John’s Airport.”…
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/23/canadian-police-issue-plea–missing-summer–newfoundland-meteorologists–blamed/30565885/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

    31

    • #
      el gordo

      Frobisher Bay is behaving badly, its a sign of regional cooling. They have had to bring in the ice breaker.

      ‘Special ice warning in effect: 8 tenths of first-year ice including 4 tenths of old ice. Unusual presence of ice in the northwestern section of the bay. Difficult ice conditions present.’

      20

  • #
    TFH

    OT,You gotta love scientists at the moment NASA is wetting itself over finding a new planet,one they really can’t see but already they have given artistic licence for a cloudy blue planet,considering that there is no sign of an atmosphere that is 60% bigger than ours and that it is 1.5 billion years older,wow these NASA people sure know how to tell a story.
    According to some religions there are billions of habited planets,maybe there is a reason we haven’t found them yet,they aren’t interested enough in us to worry themselves!

    70

    • #

      TFH,

      this is absolutely amazingly wonderful news.

      Just imagine.

      Only 1400 light years away too.

      Sooooo, at current technology, it will only take us 53,568,000 YEARS to get there.

      Yep! 53 million years plus.

      Still, if I could inject some levity into this fantastically wonderful awe inspiring news, the Greens are selling tickets already in an effort to raise funds for the Party. The blurb is that our World is (insert two words for what a giant Oak tree is here) so we need to find a new one, and this is just purrfect.

      Tony.

      Umm, two words for bracketed phrase – (thoroughly r00ted)

      40

      • #

        I hope some of you can see what NASA is doing here.

        They are angling for funding for the construction of a multi directional focused wormhole generator!!!!!

        The funding application mentions climate change as the reason for looking for the, umm, Planet in the first case, and that the installation will be powered by its own dedicated wind farm plant.

        Tony.

        40

        • #
          TFH

          Tony I remember during Clinton’s tenure as President that he was going to take the axe to NASA funding,lo and behold NASA finds 2 rocks sitting up in the tundra and boy did they have a story to tell about each rock,they both came from mars and one rock was 600 million years older than the other one and they were blasted out of the Mars gravity pull at different times and both rocks ended up at the same place on earth eons later,they then had the cheek to say that there looked like life forms were in the rocks ,which of course turned out to be fissures that permitted water to seep in and various bacteria etc grew.
          Clinton increased NASA funds by $billions,since then anything that comes from NASA I completely take with a very big grain of salt.

          50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        If this planet is 1400 light years from Earth, and assuming that the inhabitants of said planet had telescope technology that could actually see what was happening on Earth, they could be watching a very earnest man, making his first religious speech, in his home town of Mecca.

        10

    • #
      Manfred

      You wait. When they detect our Warp signature, the centre of the universe delusion will finally be all over. /rhet

      20

  • #
    pat

    23 July: Fox: Tori Richards: Tesla gets $295M in green subsidy credits for technology not offered to customers
    Tesla Motors has earned more than $295 million in green subsidy emission credits during the past three years for a battery-swapping technology customers weren’t getting, a Watchdog investigation reveals.
    In fact, the electric car company, owned in part by billionaire Elon Musk, may have earned credits up to nearly half a billion dollars in value from the 11 states that use the Zero Emission Vehicle barter as part of a green auto industry mandate. California created the program and leads the pack, doling out $173 million in credits to the Silicon Valley-based Tesla.
    Tesla claimed the credits between 2012 and mid-2014 — part of a program designed to encourage the carmaker to promote its new battery-swap technology. The program did not require evidence the company actually provided the service…
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/23/tesla-gets-25m-in-green-subsidy-credits-for-technology-not-offered-to-customers/

    32

  • #
    pat

    22 July: UK Eastbourne Herald: Eastbourne DJ in court over alleged carbon fraud conspiracy
    An Eastbourne DJ has appeared in court in connection with an alleged major carbon fraud conspiracy.
    Sebastian Brian Duxbury, also known as Sebastian Hamilton, of Linden Close, appeared at Southwark Crown Court last Thursday charged with conspiracy to defraud.
    The 30-year-old, who operates under the DJ name AndMe and Bastian, is one of a number of men charged in August last year with either conspiracy to defraud or money laundering in relation to three companies which allegedly took customer funds without providing any products in return.
    The companies concerned in the alleged fraud were Fast Corporate Solutions, Vero Energy Limited and Oxford Sunergy.
    The hearing has been adjourned for a trial next year.
    http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/eastbourne-dj-in-court-over-alleged-carbon-fraud-conspiracy-1-6863563

    reminder:

    Nov 2013: EnvironmentalLeader: Investors Lose $38.7M in Carbon Credit Sales Scam
    UK regulators have shut down 19 companies selling carbon credits in the past 15 months for cheating investors out of 24 million pounds ($38.7 million).
    The UK Insolvency Service says more than 1,500 investors were swindled by the companies, which largely targeted the elderly with high-pressure sales tactics and promises of returns, sometimes more than 40 percent, Reuters reports…
    The UK Insolvency Service says more than 1,500 investors were swindled by the companies, which largely targeted the elderly with high-pressure sales tactics and promises of returns, sometimes more than 40 percent, Reuters reports…
    Other companies shut down by the UK government include Cavendish Jacobs, World Future Limited, Capital Wealth, FourteenForty Limited, Hildon Green Energy Markets, Tullett Brown Limited, Foxstone Carr Limited, Carvier Limited, Sloane Knight, Bric Global Limited, Foreco Growth Investments Limited, The London Carbon Credit Company, The London Carbon Company Limited, Carbon Acquisitions, Oxford Sunergy, Fast Corporate Solutions, Vero Energy and Eco Global Markets Limited.
    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/11/06/investors-lose-38-7m-in-carbon-credit-sales-scam/

    21

  • #
    Gavanhe

    As already suggested in the book “Climate Change – The Facts”, we’d need to cover an area the size of Tasmania ie 66,000 square kilometers with wind turbines to provide 50% of our energy needs. Has anybody suggesting this ever thought about the practicalities of this. Look out your door to see a wind turbine farm.

    30

    • #
      Robber

      Now there’s an idea worth exploring. Shot down the State of Tasmania, export the refugees to South Australia, and turn Tasmania into the world’s largest wind farm. The money Australia would save by stopping subsidies to the uneconomical Tasmanian government might just about pay for the turbines.

      10

      • #
        ROM

        We don’t want to start importing the Green caste economic and climate refugees from the economic dung pile that those same Greens made of the Tasmanian economy when they ran Tasmania.

        20

    • #
      el gordo

      Talking of Taswegia.

      ‘For the first time, seven of the largest global climate circulation models have been run, to determine Tasmania’s climate outlook this spring.

      ‘The consensus of the computer models is for slightly drier or average rainfall.

      ‘Slightly warmer or average temperatures are also predicted for the state.’

      Weatherzone

      10

  • #
    handjive

    Goin’ O/T …

    Meanwhile, at the conversation:

    Abrupt climate warming, not cold snaps, kicked off megafauna extinction: study
    . . .
    Well, that about 97% explains why they find mammoths frozen in ice.

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      Turney is clutching at straws.

      Interstadials are unlikely candidates for megafauna extinction.

      20

    • #
      el gordo

      Exhibit A

      ‘Some proponents claim a change in the climate alone caused extinction of the megafauna, but these arguments have to account for the fact that megafaunal species comfortably survived two million years of climatic oscillations, including a number of arid glacial periods, before their sudden extinction.’

      wiki

      40

  • #
    Posa

    This folly has to play out, or better yet Labor just vanishes from the political scene.

    In any case likely there will be casualties: people too poor to afford electricity; industry fleeing, and eventually, it can be reliably predicted that there will be brown outs and blackouts even as electric power rates go through the ceiling.

    Freezing (or roasting) in the dark on a regular basis will provide an excellent teaching moment for a few generations in Oz, Germany and elsewhere.

    This is the only education plan that has a chance at reaching those infected with green brainwashing and propaganda. Sad…but effective. Eventually an enraged population will rise up. Heads will roll.

    30

  • #
    Angry

    And here we have the LEFTIST group “getup”………….

    GetUp! striving for an Australia where wind power meets 3am demand :-

    http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/2015/07/getup-striving-for-an-australia-where-wind-power-meets-3am-demand/

    These “individuals” are Traitors to all Australians !!!!

    61

  • #
    el gordo

    O/T

    ‘The federal government has held talks with Flinders University over the possibility of establishing a research centre headed by controversial academic Bjørn Lomborg.’

    Guardian

    20

  • #
  • #
    llew Jones

    Coal vs renewables
    Jul 21, 2015

    Here’s an excerpt from a 21 July Essential Media poll which indicates Abbott needs to get very publicly involved in the energy debate particularly in presenting evidence of the futility of solar and wind technologies pitted against coal in an advanced economy like Australia.

    What does come across is the bogan intelligence, on this issue, not only of ALP voters but also of many Liberal voters:

    “50% of respondents agree more with the statement that the Government should prioritise support for the renewable energy industry over the coal industry and only 6% think they should prioritise coal over renewables. 28% think they should treat both industries equally.”

    “Those most likely to think the Government should give priority to renewable energy were Greens voters (89%) and respondents with university education (59%).”

    Poll here:http://www.essentialvision.com.au/coal-vs-renewables

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    Bill is ‘making pie-in-the-sky, uncosted plans for 2030…’

    By coincidence that is the year of the Gleissberg Minimum, which will throw AGW out the window.

    Labor thinks they can win an election on climate change, instead there is a very real prospect of them languishing in the political wilderness for a generation.

    Abbott would relish this fight, even though its socially divisive. He still has plenty of time to consider the best strategy, but I strongly advise him to sack Hunt.

    40

  • #

    Here in Germany we have a lot of windmills and solar panels – but often no wind blows in the whole Country – and even the sun doesnt bring much light on winter days. So we need 100% backup mostly done with coal power plants, as gas plant are too expensive. In 2012/13 we had even a rise in CO2 output.

    Now, after switching off atomic power plants, I bet CO2 will rise again. We could have found out this by simply looking at the weather patterns and using a simple calculator. But we didn’t and just believed.

    BTW retail electricity prices have gone up 100% since 2000 and are still rising.

    Another funny thing: PV an WP together are only 2.5% of the overall primary energy consumption in Germany, accordingto actual statistics of the energy ministery. You find it there, on their website, but never in the news.

    And they try still decarbonisize us. But I’m shure the game will end soon, and they will confess that the emperor is naked.

    110

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t know if nuclear is cheaper than coal or not, I suspect nuclear is cheaper as TonyfromOz above said it is 1c/kWh wholesale in the USA (above) and coal wholesale in Australia is about 3c/kWh.

    There is no rational reason to exclude the use of nuclear electricity in Australia. It is irrelevant that it doesn’t produce CO2 as that is not a problem anyway.

    It should be used just because it is (possibly) cheaper than coal. We need cheap energy.

    And Australia could make a fortune offering deep geological disposal facilities for waste if that was deemed appropriate.

    Of course, we really shouldn’t be burying nuclear waste. We should be burning it in fast breeder reactors as waste from the civilian nuclear fuel cycle is buried containing about 98% of its energy unused. Yes, I know that means the nuclearsynthesis of plutonium but in a fast breeder that is eventually consumed. And plutonium is less toxic than caffeine in any case.

    61

  • #
    William Astley

    The last two issues that are ignored in the green scam calculation are:

    1) The green scams wear out and must be replaced. As noted above as the green scams require 100% hydrocarbon back up there is now twice the amount of kit required to generate electrical power. A wind turbine has a life expectancy of roughly 10 to 12 years (bearing problems, structural support problems, and so). Battery systems have a life time of 5 to 7 years. The public is thinking of the green scams as a onetime only costs. They are overhead for ever.
    2) Developed countries have run out of money to spend on everything and most are running unsustainable deficits. The green scams do not significant reduce CO2 emissions (if the energy input is included to construct the green scam and the reduce grid efficiency is taken into account), destroy jobs due to high power costs, and are type of indirect tax on the entire population.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33638495
    “But that support must help technologies eventually stand on their own two feet, not encourage a permanent reliance on subsidy.”
    The UK’s policy changes, though, are being noticed internationally.
    Previously the UK Climate Change Act has been regarded as a world-leading climate policy but critics say that accolade is now seriously in doubt.
    They ask if a country as rich as the UK finds clean energy unaffordable, what hope is there for most of the rest of the world?”

    William, Yes good question. Unfortunately green energy is comically unaffordable. The big joke is idiot journalists do not understand the implications of the fact that green energy is comically unaffordable, if one attempt to scale it up to say 40% of total grid usage. Try running a steel plant on green energy.

    Nuclear is the only solution, if the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions as opposed to waste money on green scams that do not work. The problem is the only thing the green parties/Green NGOs hate more the hydrocarbon power is nuclear power.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
    “RE<C was a failure, and Google closed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.
    Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race."

    30

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Paul Homewood has a very relevant post today on the madness of renewable energy for grid management:

    What The Solar Industry Forgot To Tell You!

    The solar industry has apparently been bragging about how much power it has been producing recently. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten to tell us the full story. In overall terms, solar only generated 1.2% of UK’s electricity last year.

    At its peak around 2.00pm, solar was contributing about 14% of the UK’s total demand on 11th April, which would be around half the peak in winter months. This brought many problems with it, which required these actions from the National Grid …

    So two additional conventional power stations were brought online for voltage management and 2,500 MW of wind ‘bought off’ (i.e. constrained) to make room for solar.

    According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, “constraint payment records show that payments to wind topped £500,000 on that day. Not all of that will have been caused by solar, but NG’s figures suggest that a large part of it was so.”

    Nobody with more than one brain cell would design an electricity network in this way.

    I concur with the last statement. If solar penetration of 1.2% of total energy does that, what will Shorten’s 50% renewable energy target do to the grid? Its insane!

    50

    • #
      Dave

      I know this may not be answered

      But when they publish this

      “South Australia hits 100% renewables for a whole working day”

      How does the grid keep all this going?
      I don’t know the details, but how do they keep it at 50Hz etc
      How can a grid cope with ups & downs like wind?

      20

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Dave – SA runs several open cycle gas turbines and has an interconnector to the eastern states. So they are inefficiently burning gas to load level (quick response open cycle turbines are about half as efficient as closed cycle). And they are using Victoria and NSW as a giant battery.

        So when they are “running at 100% renewables” they are still running the gas turbines but are exporting the excess energy eastwards. This is the same problem that Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland had with Germany dumping their rubbish electricity over the neighbour’s fence. Indeed in the text of the article you linked they say this:

        Saddler notes that during this period all of the thermal power stations in SA were shut down, with the exception of the two units at the coal fired Northern Power station, each of which ran at about 60 per cent of full load, and one of the four units at the gas fired Torrens Island B station, which was running at about 25 per cent of full load.

        Considerable volumes of electricity were exported to Victoria. “In simple arithmetic terms, though not of course in how the grid actually operated, the state’s electricity supply was 100 per cent renewable while coal and gas fired electricity was exported,” he says.

        So the claim was basically a lie, or at least a huge misdirection.

        The interconnector is presently being upgraded because of, wait for it, wind turbines:

        This proposed project targets an increase to the capacity of the existing 275 kV Heywood Interconnector to allow increased power flows between South Australia and Victoria, and thereby address congestion, high market price events and restrictions on wind farm output.

        Project Status: In Progress
        Planned Energisation: July 2016

        How strange!

        20

  • #
    David Maddison

    The fact that engineers are able to manage at all the hugely unstable electrical grids that contain significant wind and solar “generation” (as in Europe) is a tribute to their engineering skills.

    Just imagine how much better off we would all be if those skills could be applied to legitimate sources of energy generation such as coal/gas/nuclear and some hydro.

    70

  • #
    Brad

    Over at Climate Spectator it is claimed that achieving 50% by 2030 will cost everyones power bill an extra $25 per year…! What a pile of frog droppings.

    20

  • #
  • #
    G

    hahahaha this article is so funny. He actually believe the numbers in the article, which you’ve noted are sourced from the very people who have an interest to make them up. Or did he make them up? They’re pretty ludicrous, almost impossible.

    Here’s some from a reliable external 3rd party, and you can search for this:

    New large-scale projects, cost per MWh @ July 2015:
    Wind: $74, trending down “modestly”
    Gas: $92
    Solar: $105, trending down fast, “cheaper than gas in ~2 years”
    Coal: $119
    Source: Bloomberg Finance

    I couldn’t care less on the green angle, but on this one both Labor and Libs are full of hot air, as are those who are putting out a scare campaign about prices when Labor has released no plan.

    Coal is now expensive, and therefore dead; wind is only temporarily the cheapest; large-scale solar will keep dropping in price like crazy and has now been able to provide power at night for years via molten salt.
    Most of our power stations are coal, but they’re old and by 2030 a large majority of them will need to be replaced. Labor’s 2030 50% renewable announcement is just as lame as Abbott’s election one of 2mil new jobs (over 10 yrs), when that was the projection at the time anyway.
    A renewable future is inevitable, as the rest of the world has already demonstrated. I wish our pollies would stop screwing our future over with politicking or reality-ignoring ideologies. Instead they should be dealing ASAP with how the issues of this inevitable disruptive situation should be handled.

    00