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

What Green Future? Spain adds solar tax, punishes the wind industry, loses “65,000 renewable jobs”

Solar Panels, Subsidies, Cost, Money

Remember, all developed countries are going Green, and Clean Energy is everywhere. It’s only (insert your country) that is falling behind. 

When you hear this, think of Spain. It is so green it’s just passed a tax on solar panel generation, so solar users finally pay for grid backup. This Spanish government has been building a renewable future with so much enthusiasm that their wind industry is described as “striken” and it’s estimated that the current government there has cost “65,000 green jobs”.*

That solar tax:

“The tax will be introduced in the next six months, according to a statement from the Ministry of Industry, Energy, and Tourism. It will apply to solar power systems with a capacity of over 10 kilowatts.

The Ministry said the tax is intended to ensure that solar panel users contribute to the cost of maintaining the country’s electrical grid, as they use it as a backup supply. “

They’ve been trying to get this tax through for a long time. It’s described as unpopular by the usual suspects and, improbably, as a tax on the “Sun” (but will the sun pay, I wonder?). Supposedly, I imagine, the indignation at solar users having to pay is because it’s a human right to have access to a national grid and back up generation, and slaves should install and maintain that without being paid?

This evil government thinks businesses selling solar energy to the grid should be treated …  like businesses, and worse, suffer from free market prices. Oh the horror:

“At the same time, residential customers have to pay a series of charges — dubbed a “tax on the sun” by detractors — and have to give away any power they deliver to the grid for free. Energy producers wanting to sell excess power to the grid at spot-price rates must register as a business.

Zero wind power megawatts were installed in Spain in the first half of 2015:

Madrid, 27th July 2015. The worst predictions have come true: Spain does not attract investment in new wind power capacity. In the first half of 2015, not a single megawatt has been installed in the country, leaving the total at 22,986 MW

Wind power, remember, is competitive and cost effective. I can’t think why Spanish investors have all disappeared. (Which strangely happened in Australia too. No subsidies to suck on?)

Clean Green Energy is not blooming in Spain:

“…the government, whose policies in the current legislation have led to the loss of around 65,000 renewable-energy sector jobs, has announced measures to support growth of Spain’s stricken wind industry.”

I don’t know if that 65,000 number is real or the usual exaggeration. It doesn’t really matter since green jobs produce nothing much that we can’t get cheaper and more efficiently from other sources. That’s 65,000 people freed from unproductive lives who can now work in more useful sectors.

Do I think the “solar tax” is good? Not especially. It’s better than nothing, but the government should get out of the energy market and let the free market solve the mess properly. The government’s role should be to reduce corruption and ensure a reasonably level playing field so the honest players in the free market can compete most efficiently.

Bear in mind that this Spanish government faces an election on Dec 20, and the opposition says it will repeal the “sun tax”.  Any Spanish readers who want to give us more local information?

h/t to GWPF

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (102 votes cast)
What Green Future? Spain adds solar tax, punishes the wind industry, loses "65,000 renewable jobs", 9.2 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

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

177 comments to What Green Future? Spain adds solar tax, punishes the wind industry, loses “65,000 renewable jobs”

  • #
    handjive

    Feb 05, 2015:
    Exclusive: 92% of PV installations on verge of bankruptcy

    Spain:
    92% of the photovoltaic systems in our country and 55% of the wind farms will enter into bankruptcy or will be forced to renegotiate with banks their financial conditions, after the application of the order of parameters EIT/1045/2014.

    These are the findings of a damning report drawn up by Alberto Ceña to the law firm Holtrop, and that Renewable energy published exclusively.

    (This is via microsoft translator. Hope it all works!)

    370

    • #
      Peter C

      It all sounds a bit crazy. Did all these people borrow heaps of money and mortgage their houses to but extra large photovoltaic systems, way beyond their needs?

      120

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yep, and from what I have heard.. diesel generators to provide solar feed-in at night. ! ;-)

        360

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Oh España! Just like the 80 year old mendicant women with her shawl and small box of strawberries aside the newly completed EU super highway.Poignant!

          161

  • #
    Peter C

    A step in the right direction! And just in time for discussion at the COP21 conference in Paris in December.

    Actually I think a tax is the wrong response. No feed in tarrif and the higher level of cost for electricity used should be enough. Everyone pays the connection fee.

    170

    • #
      StefanL

      The feed in tariff from domestic solar panels should be exactly the same as the wholesale rate paid to large-scale generators (usually a few cents per KWh).
      And they should pay the normal connection fee and the normal cost of any electricity they consume.

      300

      • #
        Peter C

        I would agree with that except maybe for the feed in tariff. Do power companies actually want the feed in at the times when households have excess. In a free market they should not be forced to buy it.

        200

        • #
          Rollo

          If households want to get the maximum feed in tariff they could be given the option of installing a battery bank to store and forward energetic electrons as required. All of the hardware should be at their own cost, needless to say.

          190

        • #
          James Murphy

          I would think the better choice would be to ds is done already – when there is an excess, then the people generating the power should have to pay to get rid of it (negative pricing is the technical term, I think?)

          50

      • #
        Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

        StefanL: Probably they should get a lower rate because (a) their supply is less reliable and (b) it is only offered “when convenient” to the supplier, not “when needed” by the customer. In a normal market both of these factors reduce the value of the commodity being traded. How much do you expect to get for raincoats in Arizona in the summer? A rational market quickly recognizes that is a stupid use of raincoats and sends them to Portland or Seattle in the winter instead.

        The proper way to evaluate PV systems is strictly to replace some portion of local consumption. If some of the time the PV system is producing a surplus, it is the PV owner’s responsibility to either dump the excess or acquire and maintain a storage system so it can be used later. When the PV system produces less than demand, the site will have to draw from either local storage or the grid to make up the deficit.

        In certain climates, such a system might make sense even absent subsidies and feed-in tariffs. However if enough people acquire PV systems and consequently reduce their purchases from the grid, it will create an upward pressure on the unit price of a KwH. Basically a lower output from a conventional plant means the fixed costs have to be recovered from a lower volume of power units produced. If PV installations remain an insignificant percentage of power consumers, the price pressure will be negligible. But if PV really takes off as some people claim it is poised to do, the power bill for everyone else will rise.

        Just as if everyone suddenly got cars that only used half the fuel and they did not change their driving habits, the tax on each gallon sold would have to double to maintain all the same roads.

        50

  • #
    el gordo

    “Increasingly, I am [of] the view that there is some validity on the health effects” of wind farms, Ms Goward was reported in the Yass Tribune as saying on Friday. “There are a number of people with health problems…it is clearly not psychosomatic.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/assistant-health-minister-pru-goward-says-wind-turbines-must-be-probed-over-pressure-waves-20151019-gkck5s.html#ixzz3ozpJZAik
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    192

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I have been aware of the Very Low Frequency problem for almost 20 years now.

      VLF is NOT noise as many greenflies would have us believe; it is pulsing which penetrates the heart/lung system and leads to serious health issues.

      The only research done on this is at NASA in relation to inter space travel where there is continuous LF vibration on long trips

      and, wait for it, Iron Curtain Countries.

      You can’t get a grant to study this widespread industrial health issue in the west because if it became public

      the drivers of heavy trucks and trains to start with, would be looking for compensation for heart lung problems and general VLF associated issues.

      Then there are the wind-farms !!!!!!!!

      No health issues there ; we’re GREEN and untouchable?

      KK

      320

    • #

      I have spent many years working in and around turbines, along with having responsibility for the health and safety of hundreds of full time technicians who work in and around them all day, many for over 10 years now. I am in contact with probably over 20 of the worlds longest serving and most experienced wind farm workers every day. I actually take it pretty personally when this debate comes up because I take my responsibility for worker safety extremely seriously and the assertion that turbines pose serious health risks, basically accuses the international wind industry OHS community of negligence. This is not an accusation I take lightly.

      Additionally I have a Grad. Dip in OHS management which included most relevant subjects to this matter including occupational hygiene related to noise, electro magnetic radiation and epidemiology.

      Having read much of the literature regarding the pro and con arguments about the health effects of wind power generation systems and combined them with my own experiences and the extensive questioning of hundreds of people working in the industry and affected by it. My position is that there is no credible evidence to support any of the major claims associated with ill health effects from wind farms.

      However….I do strongly believe that there is a sort of negative placebo phenomena, mostly related to people on the fringes of windfarms. There are many strong arguments regarding the reasons behind this and to the extent people’s individual testaments have to be taken into account in the same way as we define bullying or harassment. It cannot be said that windfarms have no effect on people’s health and wellbeing. But in my opinion it is only to the same extent and nature as any effect that could be caused by living near anything from a pig farm to a trucking yard. If you don’t like it, its going to upset you and it is certainly accepted in health studies that unhappy people are potentially more susceptible to a range of health effects than happy people.

      I don’t claim to be an expert on “infra sound”. But I accept the argument that there are literally hundreds of sources of similar noise in our urban and rural environments and people have complained about them for as long as we have had industry. This again leads me to conclude windfarms are just the “nearby train track”, or “airport” of our age.

      As per usual, I remain open to being converted in a heartbeat. But at this time I have neither seen nor read anything convincing.

      128

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Safety guy

        I am speaking from a theoretical point of view and I know that there is the POTENTIAL for VLF issues with wind farm turbines.

        Whether the problem exists in reality is one of those very unfortunately issues where we have been deceived by government and business interests in so many areas that trust that the government will look after us is gone.

        What makes it really sad is that VLF problems in the transport industries I suspect are very real but there is NO SCIENCE that can be trusted one way or the other on the windmills issue.

        This is a sad state of affairs; a reflection on politics and universities that leaves us arguing about maybes.

        Recent reports into the wind industry have always said that the noise levels are acceptable; that may be so but the issue has never been NOISE.

        The problem is the NOISELESS DANGEROUS PULSING.

        With the level of trust in all reports being close to zero I am still unsure whether wind turbines are a source of this very real potential issue.

        Hope we can get some definition into it.

        KK

        .

        181

        • #

          Like I said Keith. My position is evidence based. As soon as I see some solid evidence turbines are a safety risk, you will see my position change to fit the evidence as it always does.

          54

      • #
        ivan

        Safetyguy, it is very unlikely that you will notice anything in the those working on the turbines themselves.
        A) Usually the blades are stationary when the machinery is being worked on.
        B) The workers are not not being subjected to the VLF for any appreciable length of time as are the people that live nearby.

        While your observations are good for those working on site they DO NOT apply to those living in range of the VLF waves generated by working turbines. I also doubt that you OHS qualification gives you the ability to distinguish long term VLF symptoms, something never considered in workplace medicine.

        291

        • #
          gai

          Ivan, I was thinking the same thing. The workers in the industry are not subjected to the same vibes day after day 24/7.

          130

        • #

          All good points but I would argue the techs exposure amounts to a similar situation to nearby residents when taken over the long term.

          In the more remote windfarms we stay on site in dongas and the turbines run 24/7/365. While the turbine techs are working in is generally shut down, all others are operational. We only ever shut them down reluctantly and all that are unaffected by requiring work, stay running.

          My point is that I would have expected to see one case, of headache or something similar to the claims made by residents on the fringes of the installation in all the time I did this work. But I have never seen a single case of a resident who is compensated or a worker directly or indirectly working in the turbines. Not a single complaint. As a safety professional and a sceptic, what am I supposed to conclude from a zero evidence situation?

          46

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            You have a very strong case there Safety.

            My main worry is that media reports always seem to contain the fudge element ie the report is biased.

            On top of this I know that in other areas eg transport, mining it’s another story.

            Another concern is that I don’t know how far away from the turbines the effect if any can be active.

            What I know is that there have been adverse reports and that there is a very real theoretical case for VLF damage.

            Alpha waves in the brain operate at about 10Hz, our heart beat range is 60 to 90 generally all within the operating area of turbine frequencies.

            A comment from an article online :

            “People living near turbines have described the effect of these pulses on their homes as “like living inside a drum”. ”

            Ref https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbine-noise-a-simple-statement-of-facts/

            The reference seems to be reasonably coherent and I will certainly have another look at it.

            We are all working towards a better future but sometimes Governments just can’t be trusted to do the right thing.

            KK

            91

          • #
            ivan

            To support your point you need to some statistics like number of workers, number of days off sick, actual measurements of VLF amplitude at the actual work site, the amount of worker rotation and the amplitude of the VLF waveform over distance.

            Your description sounds as if the wind farms you work on are in very wide open spaces far from human habitation so there would be very few focused VLF waves.

            You also say that all of the turbines except to one being worked on are operational all the time. Is that operation generating power – a very unlikely event in a real world situation or your wind farms have found the magic place where the wind blows constantly 24/7/365 – or are they taking power from the grid and being driven? The two events produce very different VLF waves of very different amplitude.

            80

            • #
              ivan

              I should have added the the effects of VLF on a person in large open spaces is vastly different to that on a person in a small box that can and will produce secondary VLF waves at non constant amplitude which also vary as that person moves about.

              30

      • #
        brill

        When you take it personally your mind closes to other options. From my reading I believe Denmark, the ‘home’ of the wind industry, is not as comfortable with the health affects of wind farms as we are lead to believe.

        151

        • #

          Please Brill…. you dont know me.

          Go back and read my posts on this site. I am perhaps the loudest anti windfarm campaigner on this site.

          My opinions on everything are based on evidence and evidence alone, why do you think I am an AGW sceptic?

          My judgement is not clouded. My judgement is informed by the fact that in my experience I have seen no evidence other than individual claims of health effects from people not compensated for the installation. Simple as that. I have no feelings towards this topic other than I dislike people with no industry experience and a few sound bytes of research telling me how to think.

          Cheers

          134

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hello Brill

          I did not take Safety’s comment as being anything but someone stating the facts, and from what has been said, those facts have been very carefully observed and stated.

          My own comment was based on my distrust of Government, the media and people with vested interests as well as a degree in

          Neuroscience where one of my main assignments was on the human organisms response to stimulation over a wide frequency range,

          including hearing but mainly focused on the low, VLF end of the spectrum.

          I have described generally what I found in another post above.

          I feel very comfortable with the position taken by safety; he is obviously a well informed person concerned about workplace safety.

          O/T but I also remember reading that wind turbine technicians work in very dangerous situations and that this is reflected in safety stats.

          The world can be a tough place.

          KK

          61

      • #
        Arsten

        I am in industries that have vibrations (though not windmills specifically) also, but I have noticed something different than your observations: VLF seems to affect smaller frames more than larger frames.

        Those that get heart/lung issues after being in production for 10+ years always seem to be the smaller framed men and not the larger framed men – and this seems to hold true for both overweight and average weight individuals. I suspect that this is due to either resonance or absorption differences between the individuals.

        This is merely anecdotal as I have no access to medical histories to even start a study, but it is still a trend I have noticed.

        100

        • #

          Dusting off my old reference Mechanical Vibration and Shock Measurements published by Brüel & Kjær in 1980 (isbn 8787355361), there’s a whole but small chapter on the Effects of Vibration and Shock on Man. The chapter’s bibliography has entries going back to 1932.

          The chapter deals mainly with direct mechanical excitation of the body or parts thereof; not pressure pulses. The book does identify different responses based on the size and type of body. Reference given for that in the book is Dieckmann, D. Einfluß vertikaler mechanischen Schwingungen auf den Mensch. Arbeitsphysiol. Vol 16, S. 519, 1957 — and the publishers still want money for reprints!

          The importance of studying the effects of mechanical vibration on the body cannot be understated. But studies are often restricted (and proprietary) because of the value and the need for volunteers to be paid to submit to “torture”. The results are evident in the comfortable ride of motor cars and airliners.

          One cannot reasonable expect that the physiological response to air pressure pulses is close to that of the mechanically excited body. Air pressure works firstly on the “whole” surface of the body and is transmitted by soft tissue. Mechanical vibrations are transmitted from the exciting surface via muscles and skeleton. Soft organs are only indirectly influenced by the latter.

          110

          • #
            Arsten

            Very interesting. I will have to get a hold of that book.

            I always figured that the VLF would be causing some sort of mechanical vibration in the body to cause an issue, as even continuous wind doesn’t really cause an issue with a body (it’s what the wind carries that causes issues!) After thinking about your reply, though, that might have be an assumption I shouldn’t make – the pulse would be fairly weak when carried by the atmosphere so as to not hit the body with enough force to cause a mechanical vibration.

            40

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Interesting Bernd.

            Arsten, I recall that air pulsing enters the lungs and can act internally as well as the overall body surface mechanism Bernd mentioned.

            40

      • #

        Construction and maintenance teams don’t have to deal with the continuous pressure pulsing which occurs during nominal operation.

        The effect of VLF (air pressure pulses) for extended periods on humans has been the case of studies for decades. There are some NACA (NASA) references to studies on multi-engined aircraft with (propeller) engines turning at not precisely the same speed (resulting in beat frequencies) reducing aircrew performance during the 1940′s. Other than vague references, the exact studies have not yet been identified, nor have those of e.g. miners exposed to similar pressure pulses for extended periods.

        The ability for humans and other animals to find restful sleep may be compromised by external air pressure fluctuations that act mainly on the whole exterior of the body, not via the hearing senses. Conventional acoustic studies fall far short or reproducing the pressure pulses which have periods as long as 4 seconds.

        121

        • #
          Doug Proctor

          Significant noise (and shaking) bothers all of us. I have come to believe much of the mental tiredness we get from long train, plane and automobile travel is noise related. Does this apply to infrasound? I would expect so.

          It could be an attention issue. We are wired to pay attention to potential threats, which low sounds represent- every scary movie uses low frequencies to presage death. We respond by instinct.

          That said, is the reality significant? Don’t know. Not everything potentially bad is bad.

          80

          • #
            Annie

            I know that I am sometimes aware of a sort of throb on aircraft. I am usually tireder after a 6 to 7 hour flight on a 777 than I am after a 12 to 14 hour flight on an A380. I find the 777 noisier, with more vibration, than the A380. The tiredness is also more flying Eastwards than Westwards, just to add to the effects!

            40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          There are some NACA (NASA) references to studies on multi-engined aircraft with (propeller) engines turning at not precisely the same speed (resulting in beat frequencies) reducing aircrew performance during the 1940′s.

          I know that from experience. I spent a miserable hour and a half flight on a small twin turboprop one night that drove me right up the wall. I had the urge to jump. :-(

          I find it hard to believe the props were not synchronized, actually kept in phase with each other, not just running at the same RPM, because both the importance of it and the way to do it have been well known for a long time and it happens automatically. The pilot doesn’t have to do anything but make sure the synchronization system is turned on. But I can’t think of any other explanation for the vibration that was pounding on my ears for the whole flight — pure torture.

          In retrospect I wondered if getting up and moving to a different seat might not have mitigated the problem but I didn’t think of it at the time.

          Low frequency vibrations, especially at a high level can be murderous on your nervous system. And those turbo powered propellers turn at a higher RPM than piston engines do. The propeller blade tips can be doing close to the speed of sound and produce a shock wave similar to helicopter rotor blades. A beat frequency of a few Hz is all it takes.

          90

        • #

          Completely wrong Bernd. Apart from the turbine being worked on. All other turbines run while techs are on site. They vary in distance from workers from hundreds of meters to many kilometers on larger sites. Im sorry this notion that techs are not exposed is just wrong.

          33

          • #
            gai

            I would think you are looking at a couple of different confounding factors.

            The industry workers are there for 8 to 12 hours and not during the night (Unless they are camped near by???) Homeowners are trying to sleep not work in the environment. They Workers are outside. Homeowners are within a building.

            I have one room that I sleep in that magnifies sound for some reason. I can hear every lamb bleating for its mother a thousand feet away. In no other room can I hear the bleating. So you may have something similar happening in the houses of the complainers. While it is useful to hear what is happening at night on my farm, I certainly would NOT want to try and sleep in that room if a wind turbine was near by. The freight train a mile away is enough to wake me every night when it goes by.

            50

            • #

              Buildings can act as “amplifiers”, focusing the pressure pulses.

              The physical response of the buildings is for walls, windows and doors of the enclosed space to deform in response to the pressure pulse. How this translates into air pressure inside the building depends on the building and the source/orientation of the pressure waves. It’s plausible for resonances to establish inside building cavities where the pressure peaks in a particular place are substantially higher than those of the exterior, free-air pressure pulses. i.e. you might be better off in a tent outside of a building than inside the building.

              10

              • #
                gai

                Thanks Bernd,

                I had the evidence but not the actual physics.

                It looks like the wind turbine noise problem is multifaceted just like many other things. This makes it really tough on the people who are actually suffering.

                For individual reactions you can look at response to strobes.
                I think the individual reactions are similar to the problem of the flashing blue strobes lights used by the police in NC. I have no real problem with them and can easily mentally block them out. My husband goes nuts and can’t see anything but the strobes unless he physically blocks the sight of them. Two of my friends have epileptic fits. One lost control and drove through the window of a restaurant when a cop suddenly turned on his strobe lights.

                10

      • #
        F. Ross

        Safetyguy:
        It may well be as you contend as far as humans are concerned, but windfarms have certainly proven to be “health” hazards to bird and bat populations.

        91

        • #

          F. Ross.

          I dont contend anything. I am saying my extensive experience has revealed to me zero evidence of the claims made in alarmist reports. Simple as that.

          Given that fact….. I must conclude the claims cannot be supported at this time.

          Im frankly surprised I have to defend an evidence based position on a sceptic site and would argue that it is many of the other posters who are affected by opinion and emotion and not me.

          32

      • #
        Richo

        No research therefore no evidence. Problem solved.

        50

        • #
          Bill

          Here are only a few of the many scientific results of study regarding this issue. It’s a very real issue, not just a few people whining.

          http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_sdt=1,5&q=very+low+frequency+sound+health+effects&hl=en&as_vis=1

          60

        • #
          ROM

          Actually quite a lot of research has been done on the high trauma inducing effects and impact of a wind turbine’s very low frequency pressure pulses on mammalian bodies.
          It is just that the research has not been done in any depth on humans but this is now changing rapidly as wind generated energy is fast losing its allure for all those other than the grasping scammers of the wind turbine industry and the Green Borg adherents who intellectually [ if you can ever locate their "intellect" that is! ] seem totally impervious to rational thinking at any level.

          The impact of the turbine blade pulsing effect has been studied extensively in bats which , like humans are mammals and have lung systems which unlike humans is encased in a quite rigid skeletal framework to enable the support of the muscular system for flight .

          Bats don’t even need to come in contact with the blades of a wind turbine to be killed by what is medically known as “Barotrauma”

          From Science Daily

          Why Wind Turbines Can Mean Death For Bats

          Power-generating wind turbines have long been recognized as a potentially life-threatening hazard for birds. But at most wind facilities, bats actually die in much greater numbers. Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology, a Cell Press journal, on August 26th think they know why.

          Ninety percent of the bats they examined after death showed signs of internal hemorrhaging consistent with trauma from the sudden drop in air pressure (a condition known as barotrauma) at turbine blades. Only about half of the bats showed any evidence of direct contact with the blades.

          “Because bats can detect objects with echolocation, they seldom collide with man-made structures,” said Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary in Canada. “An atmospheric-pressure drop at wind-turbine blades is an undetectable—and potentially unforeseeable—hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures.

          “Given that bats are more susceptible to barotrauma than birds, and that bat fatalities at wind turbines far outnumber bird fatalities at most sites, wildlife fatalities at wind turbines are now a bat issue, not a bird issue.”

          The respiratory systems of bats and birds differ in important ways, in terms of both their structure and their function
          . Bats’ lungs, like those of other mammals, are balloon-like, with two-way airflow ending in thin flexible sacs surrounded by capillaries, the researchers explained.
          When outside pressure drops, those sacs can over-expand, bursting the capillaries around them.

          Bird lungs, on the other hand, are more rigid and tube-like, with one-way circular airflow passing over and around capillaries. That rigid system can more easily withstand sudden drops in air pressure.

          [ edit; USA ] The majority of bats killed at wind turbines are migratory bats that roost in trees, including hoary bats, eastern red bats, and silver-haired bats.
          While little is known about their population sizes, the researchers said, those deaths could have far-reaching consequences.

          more;

          The point I make is that there are very significant and fast air pressure changes as in severe air pressure pulsing effects that are inherent in the flow of air around turbine blades that are rotating with tip speeds well in excess of 300 KPH.
          Those pulses or extremely rapid changes in air pressures are severe enough to kill small mammals , ie ; bats without the bats ever been struck by the turbine blades.

          Bat kills are very high around particularly new turbine farms with one anecdotal example from a wild life expert told to myself where a new turbine farm in SE Australia counted some 40,000 bats killed in the first year alone.
          The following year saw on a few tens of bats killed .
          The local bat population had been to use a rather horrific wording, exterminated by the wind turbines of that farm in a single year.

          Now research is showing that about 20% of the human population is susceptible to this very low frequency pulsing pressure changes that are created by primarily the tip vortices of the turbine blade where the high pressure air on one side of the blade, [ lower underside surface in an aircraft wing profile ] flows around the tip of the wing into the lower pressure air on the other down wind side of the blade in a wind turbine and the upper low pressure surface of a wing profile.

          This creates a fast spinning , very large pressure changing wing / blade tip vortice which is shed off of the tip of each blade and continues to rotate at high speed for quite some distance down wind of a turbine blade.

          This photo is a classic example of wing [ aerofoil tip as in turbine blades ] tip vortices which are created by aircraft in flight.
          &
          Visualization of the tip vortices in a wind turbine wake

          There is a loss of aerodynamic efficiency for a meter or more of the bade/ wing tip span which in a short wing span aircraft amounts a considerable percentage of the wing span and can have a strong effect on it’s flight efficiency.
          Hence we see in high performance gliders, long wing spans to reduce these tip vortice losses to a small percentage of the wing’s overall span.

          And if you have ever wondered why helicopters have such large long blades, they in effect have nothing more than a fast rotating set of wings as do turbines and their long blades, all to increase the efficiencies of the blades aerodynamic performances.

          Furthermore accelerating a large volume of air ie; long wings / blades, to a moderate velocity is far more efficient than accelerating a small volume of air to a high velocity to achieve the same aerodynamic performance.

          The turbulent tip vortices along with the fast constant pulses created as each blade passes the tower and the effects of the 150 metres diameter turbine blades passing from slower moving wind speeds near the ground into the faster wind speeds at height all create large pulsing pressures changes which are shed by the turbine blades and will then radiate away and around the turbine and / or drift down wind for often some kilometres before completely dissipating.

          If you are one of those approximately 20% of the population then these VLF and very regular pulsing pressure changes which are felt by the body and it’s organs rather than by the normal senses can be a very psychologically and physiologically traumatic experience when those pulses are continuous for hours or days on end.

          Anybody who has stood for a few minutes alongside of a large helicopter with its fast rotating rotor blades as it warms up and the pilot does his checks will know that apart from the continuous pulsing noise as each blades passes you, there are also fast pulsing pressure changes which are felt often quite significantly, deep in your body organs as each blade tip and the vortices it is shedding, passes you and the pressure changes from the blade smash against your body.

          And you can hear these highly distinctive pulses of the blade tip vortices of a heavy helicopter as it passes thousands of feet above you and at distances that are similar to the distances that many rural residents are forced to live with newly established wing turbines.

          That really is the whole gist of what the so called “Very Low Frequency” pressure pulsing of wind turbine tip shedding vortices are creating so much suffering amongst rural residents who rarely ever wanted any turbines in their vicinity and who are forced to live with those grossly inefficient monstrosities.
          it is just that unlike helicopter rotor blades, the pitch of the very large turbine rotor blades decreases with the size of the rotor diameter or blade span. compare a model aircraft small propellers sound against a much deeper helicopter rotor sound and then you get to the point where the pulses of the hundreds of metres diameter turbine rotor blades are in the sound spectrum well below human hearing frequencies ‘

          So the city “experts” hired by the turbine industry, who drive out into the “Bush” for the day to “ascertain” the problem and then drive home again to their city residences by 5 pm will deny that they heard anything and that the whole problem is a psychosomatic problem and resides purely within the psyche and imagination of the ignorant hicks from the “bush”.
          And why bother about them if it is going to cost us some money.[ sarc]

          As I have said many times previously. when we see wind turbines erected in the Dandenong Ranges around Melbourne or along the foreshores of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane Adelaide ocean beaches and etc to capture those fast moving ocean winds then we will accept wind turbines as safe and free from debilitating and trauma inducing health effects.

          100

  • #
    Konrad

    “Remember, all developed countries are going Green, and Clean Energy is everywhere. It’s only Australia that is falling behind.”

    When you hear this, think Malcolm Turnbull.

    Do I hear you yell “Yay Malcolm!!” ?

    140

    • #
      wert

      Remember, all developed countries are going Green, and Clean Energy is everywhere. It’s only (insert your country) that is falling behind.

      Oh I love this tactic.

      Remember China. China is increasing their clean energy production, just ask any of the following: Greenpeace, WWF, FoE. In reality, of course, China will increase both consumption and coal based energy production at fast pace, but that doesn’t mean were are not falling behind.

      60

      • #
        Doug Proctor

        I can’t believe the eco-greens believe China has committed to anything. We are living in a time when intelligence, knowledge and smarts are demonstrably separate qualities. Denial, self-serving ignorance or naively wishfulness are necessary to think China has done anything other than play to the childish idealism of Western Rousseauian idealists.

        I despair about the future of Western civilization. We line up to get in those cattle cars as if we are the first people to ever be told a clever lie.

        70

    • #
      Angry

      Turncoat turnbull……..

      http://stopturnbull.com/

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    That’s not a tax! It is a simple invoice for the cost of providing the backup system and infrastructure and for the cost of having to buy unwanted solar power in the middle of the day when the country is having siesta. A tax would be to raise general revenue for public services or subsidize something useful, like building a new coal fired power station which works at night or on cloudy days. You cannot run a manufacturing country on power which is only there when the wind blows or the sun shines.

    271

  • #
    AndyG55

    Peak Renewables…..

    … happens as soon as the subsidies and feed-in mandates are removed.

    Then a massive collapse.

    310

    • #

      ‘Look yonder, Sanchez, here are at least
      thirty terrible giants whom I intend to
      encounter, and having deprived them of
      their lives, we will partake of their
      spoils, for in knight errantry, these
      are a lawful prize.’

      110

    • #
      ROM

      Peak Renewables; The physical realities;

      OK,Its modeled but it seems realistically so.

      From Pierre Gosselins NoTricksZone blog ; 15 July 2015

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

      Selectively quoted;

      As Germany piles on more sporadic energy from wind and solar into its power grid, stability concerns are growing.

      Increasingly volatile energies like wind and sun are turning out to be more of an expensive nuisance rather than a benefit.

      Researchers at the Germany-based Fraunhofer-Instituts für Optronik, Systemtechnik und Bildauswertung, Institutsteil Angewandte Systemtechnik (IOSB-AST) have studied the risk of grid overloads caused by renewable energies at the community level, the online Ostthüringer Zeitung (OTZ) writes here.

      The result, reports the OTZ:

      Already in just a few years power will have to be stored locally as well. […] And the answers in their study are, depending on the perspective, thoroughly alarming or spurring for policymaking and economy.”

      According to the OTZ, a team of researchers led by Peter Bretschneider at the Fraunhofer’s IOSB-AST conducted a 3-year study, where they literally built a statistical mock-up city of 30,000 that included a downtown, residential areas, commercial district, solar installations and wind parks. “A total of 1847 residential and business buildings that included everything from grandma’s little house to office complex for public officials.”

      And so that the mock-up city simulates what is typical today in Germany, it also had everything a town would expect to have with the current German feed-in act:

      4456 ‘grid elements’, i.e. power lines, transformers, large points of consumption and feed-in systems, foremost photovoltaics on the roofs.”

      Even the homes were provided with the thermal insulation that they are expected to have later on.

      The OTZ continues:

      Next the Fraunhofer scientists electrified their simulated city. Then using meteorological data they allowed the sun to rise and set, the wind to blow, the temperatures to change – just like in real life.”

      Next they extrapolated outwards to the expected conditions of the year 2018 and 2023, leaving the local power grid unchanged and allowing more wind and solar energy to come online as expected from the provisions of the feed-in act. How did the city’s power grid fare? The OTZ tells us the shocking results, and they aren’t pretty:

      Already today in the simulated city one of the 14 network nodes gets sporadically overloaded. In 2018 the impacted transformer comes under serious stress 22 days a year, and so does another transformer. Five years later three nodes are impacted by long-term frequent back-feeding of surplus solar energy in the medium-voltage grid. At least one cable in the area exceeds ‘the limits of thermal loading’. […] ‘Yes, a transformer would be glowing – and the cable would go up in smoke,’ system engineer Sebastian Flemming explains the results in layman’s terms.”

      The OTZ asks what this all means for the citizens? Flemming responds: “Blackout, for the entire city.”

      In the wintertime this would be most inconvenient, and for some possibly even fatal.

      Flemming adds that even if a blackout were averted, the wild frequency fluctuations in the grid would have “grave consequences” for many electrical appliances and systems. The OTZ writes:

      None of today’s productions systems in the economy could function under such fluctuations, especially everything that is computer-controlled.”

      In other words, it would not even take a blackout to cripple a city.

      170

      • #
        gai

        “…Flemming adds that even if a blackout were averted, the wild frequency fluctuations in the grid would have “grave consequences” for many electrical appliances and systems….”
        ….

        Tell me about it!

        North Carolina is going into renewable big time. In 2014, 6.6% of North Carolina’s electricity generation came from renewable. A few month’s ago the transformer on the road exploded, my computer surge protector caught on fire. One of the house circuits blew and my computer, microwave, frig and freezer got fried and had to be replaced.

        This sort of stuff never reaches the news outlets.

        130

        • #
          Spetzer86

          Just think of the good you’re doing for the economy. New purchases of major appliances, but more modern and efficient units! Just think how well things will be going when this happens every year.

          71

          • #
            gai

            “New purchases?”
            No way in Hades!

            I do not want an appliance with a built in chip that communicates with a Smart Meter to tell the utility company what I am doing and when. Also a chip that allows the utility company to shut down my frig or freezer because SOMEONE MORE IMPORTANT deserves first dibs on what electricity is available. — The some piggies are more important equal than other people rule.

            80

            • #
              Ryan

              Pay extra for a washing machine with malware pre-installed which makes it not work outside the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 am. Where do I sign up?

              40

      • #
        Ryan

        Energy policy as brought to you by electrical engineering skeptics.

        30

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      More links of interest on this global fraud and mass waste of financial and natural resources that will achieve nothing positive , just amuse true b’lver idiots and satisfy thieves and criminals >>>

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGYXXRzKlTY

      http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3827/the_great_renewables_scam_unravels

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35E5Tt-QWf8

      http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/03/18/governments-rip-up-renewable-contracts/

      20

  • #
    pat

    “ground zero for climae change”?

    19 Oct: ABC: World’s largest protected marine area could soon be declared by international Antarctic conference in Hobart
    For the fifth consecutive year, the Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) will consider establishing two massive marine protected areas.
    The two proposals cover a combined area of 2.2 million square kilometres.
    One of the proposed sites, based in East Antarctica, was put forward by Australia, France and the European Union in 2010 and would create the world’s biggest marine protected area if approved…
    The East Antarctic Marine Protected Area (MPA) has been endorsed three times by CCAMLR’s scientific committee but to be approved it needs unanimous support from all 25 member nations.
    Last year it was blocked by China and Russia but it is hoped this year their opposition has thawed.
    The commission was picketed by conservationists dressed as penguins who voiced their displeasure at the blocking of the proposals…
    Behind closed doors, 240 delegates from across the globe will spend the next two weeks thrashing out the proposals…
    Mark Epstein from the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition said he was hopeful this year with Russia chairing the international meeting…
    “As climate change becomes ever more present the need for marine protected areas as reference zones in the climate change era is critical.
    “After all, Antarctica is ground zero for climate change.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-19/conservationists-hope-opposition-ends-southern-ocean-protections/6866846?section=tas

    60

  • #
    pat

    read all “the bull”:

    19 Oct: The Bull: Bob Kohut: Will Turnbull Boost Renewable Stocks?
    Deutsche Bank has released several research reports in 2015, reaching the overall conclusion that cost effective solar power energy storage is “just around the corner.” DB analysts point to the possibility that total solar energy revenues around the world will reach $5 trillion dollars within 20 years. Perhaps of greatest importance is the prediction that energy storage batteries for large-scale use will be ready and cost-effective within five years…
    The latest positive predictions come from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Their research shows the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for solar and onshore wind power technologies is now actually cheaper than coal and gas in both the UK and Europe and is rapidly approaching parity in other markets…
    It would appear even without a boost from the new leadership, wind and especially solar power have solid growth prospects. The ASX has one major wind producer and a smattering of small players in the solar space. The following table includes four stocks to consider. All have been around for some time but have yet to show consistent profit and not all have generated revenue…
    These are high risk stocks, regardless of the positive sector tailwinds…
    http://www.thebull.com.au/premium/a/56151-will-turnbull-boost-renewable-stocks.html

    70

    • #
      AndyG55

      The Adani Carmichael coal mine is being built with ZERO government subsidies.

      If wind and solar are truly viable, green investors should front-up the money under the same zero subsidy arrangement.

      I DARE them to !!

      220

      • #
        AndyG55

        And one should also remember the royalties paid by these coal mines.

        These are royalties that prop up the whole of the Australian economy and allow the rather high standard of living we are all lucky enough to enjoy.

        Would one of the brain-dead trolls please list the royalties paid by the wind and solar industries?

        Nope???

        Wind and solar are a total suck on the economy.. they TAKE, never GIVE.

        A true leftist ideal.

        402

        • #
          AndyG55

          Come on little red thumb.. I DARE you to bring your argument.

          Nope?

          Another worm !!

          172

        • #
          AndyG55

          ps.. its not the red thumbs that annoy me..

          I cherish them, I know the message is getting through.

          I just don’t understand the cowardice that is behind them.

          Got something to say.. have the guts to say it. !!

          141

      • #
        Glen Michel

        I’ll raise a glass of sangria to that! Watch the Die Grünen squirm!To note that they push that area near Clermont as pristine- a word over used if there ever was one- and abused.

        110

    • #
      diogenese2

      The inestimable Paul Homewood nails the outright lie that “wind power technologies are now cheaper than coal and gas in the UK…”

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/18/the-real-cost-of-wind-power/#more-17695

      Surely comments like these given in the context of investment advice is little short of fraudulent.

      80

      • #
        diogenese2

        my apologies for using the F word, I should have said “comments like these could be prone to misinterpretation by less diligent investors.”

        60

    • #
      Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

      I remember over several years back in the 1980′s reading regular articles in the trade rags that this was going to be the year when installed base of token ring networks would overtake ethernet. They all had pretty graphs with projected rates for new installations and quoted all kinds of experts. All the big companies were lined up with IBM; it was a sure thing. The market didn’t listen to the experts and didn’t follow the pretty graphs. So when I see an expert claiming that large scale storage batteries will be available and cost-effective “soon” (within five years), my response is come back when you can show me a couple of major installations that were financed, designed and built with actual at-risk money (no subsidies or government guaranteed loans).

      PS: I’m still waiting for those flying cars that were sure to be in my garage by now …

      40

  • #
    ROM

    I’ve been taking a bit of a sabbatical as events and life’s problems and a project that I now seem to have by the tail and don’t know whether to let go has sort of got all of my attention for the present.
    But onto Spain’s renewable energy situation.

    The subsidies that the past Spanish governments promised to the renewable energy scammers got way out of hand when a couple of years ago the Spanish governments renewable subsidy debt reached some 31 billion Euros and this in an economy with a GDP very similar in size to Australia’s GDP even though spain has a population of around 43 millions compared to Australia’s 23 plus millions.

    Unemployment figures for Spain reached 22% of the workforce around the same period.

    A 2009 -10 study from researchers at Spain’s King Juan Carlos University titled “Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources”, a study which is now hard to find on the internet as it has been what seems to be a quite deliberate attempts to erase all evidence that this study exists or overwhelm it with a whole battery of utterly frivolous factoids,
    And is also a study which has copped barrow loads of vehement, spittle flecked denigration, repeated ad infinitum until the real study is safely buried and dead at the hands of the supporters of the grossly over-hyped, massively subsidised renewable energy scammmers and their grasping machinations for ever more lucrative financial largesse from the public purse without giving anything of any visible of lasting substance, vaporous and totally and laughably spurious claims on the viability of renewable energy for long term power generation being the only item promoted in return.

    The following points are quoted from the Executive Summary of the above study;

    5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, two-
    thirds of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out
    of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.

    6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy.

    7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

    8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.

    9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco industries.

    10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.

    11. These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

    12. The total over-cost – the amount paid over the cost that would result from buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at the market price – that has been incurred from 2000 to 2008 (adjusting by 4% and calculating its net present value [NPV] in 2008), amounts to 7,918.54 million Euros (appx. $10 billion USD)

    13. The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD).
    [ edit 2008-9 ]

    14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables,according to Spain’s energy regulator.

    15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spain’s model.

    16. The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the relatively most electricity-intensive companies and industries away, seeking areas where costs are lower. The example of Acerinox is just such a case.

    17. The study offers a caution against a certain form of green energy mandate.
    Minimum guaranteed prices generate surpluses that are difficult to manage.
    In Spain’s case, the minimum electricity prices for renewable-generated electricity, far above market prices, wasted a vast amount of capital that could have been otherwise economically allocated in other sectors.
    Arbitrary, state-established price systems inherent in “green energy” schemes leave the subsidized renewable industry hanging by a very weak thread and, it appears, doomed to dramatic adjustments that will include massive unemployment, loss of capital, dismantlement of productive facilities and perpetuation of inefficient ones.

    [ A brief outline of this study in the Australian context ;

    Renewable energy drive "economically counter-productive": Spanish study
    Spain's Green Disaster a Lesson for America]

    So now Spains renewable energy industry has just lost some 65,000 jobs, a quite startling loss of jobs for an industry and in a a nation with now 20% unemployment level, down from 22% unemployment a few months ago.

    BUT!

    Look again at points 8 and 10 above!

    And then; From Business Insider; May 5th

    Spain’s unemployment is falling at the fastest rate ever recorded

    Spanish unemployment fell twice as fast as analysts expected in April — will a massive plunge of 118,923. It’s the season for hiring in Spain, but analysts had expected a drop of less than 65,000.

    According to Spain’s government, that’s the best figure ever seen in April, and with 351,285 people leaving unemployment in the last 12 months, the fastest drop on record.

    In the last seven years, unemployment fell by just 25,000 on average, underscoring just how impressive this month was.

    There are still well over four million people out of work in Spain, with an unemployment rate over 20%, so celebrations might have to wait.

    But April’s jobs figures are just the latest suggesting that the country is in the middle of a solid recovery. GDP rose by 0.9% in the first quarter, smashing analyst estimates.

    Each of Spains renewable energy jobs costs at least 2.2 jobs [ a UK study of a few years ago claimed up to 4.5 jobs lost elsewhere ] in other industries.

    Now 65000 jobs are gone on Spains renewable energy industries .

    But 119,000 jobs created are created in one month in the rest of Spain’s economy right when the job losses in renewable energy were hitting their peaks.

    Two jobs created for every Renewable Energy job lost and the Spanish economy finally on the up and up for the first time in a many years!

    A simplistic perspective perhaps!

    Coincidental?
    I don’t think so !

    Not in my book as the preponderance of evidence supports the debilitating impact of renewable energy on employment and jobs in just about every such study so far done anywhere.

    401

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Welcome back ROM !

      100

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        You beat me !!!!

        And ROM, the change of heart of the Spanish government would no doubt be a big morale boost to potential employers sitting on the fence.

        The EEU is currently a very hard place to risk starting a business but at least if the government shows it is becoming saner then people will have a go.

        KK

        101

    • #
      Peter C

      As usual ROM, you give a well researched rebuttal!

      The situation in Spain is far worse than I had understood it to be. A lot of seems to be due to seeking subsidies for Renewable Energy!

      I hope Jo follows this up with another post.

      111

    • #
      StefanL

      Thanks ROM — very enlightening. That 2009-10 study needs to be carefully preserved against all attempts to erase it. And should be required reading for our politicians. I would love to send a copy to Senator SH-Y.

      In my opinion, point 17 from the Executive Summary gets to the heart of the matter.
      “Minimum guaranteed prices generate surpluses that are difficult to manage.”
      This would apply to almost any commodity, but is especially dangerous for an intangible commodity like electricity.
      Anyone remember the European Common Market’s “butter mountains”, “wine lakes” etc — not to mention Australia’s very own “wool stockpile” ?

      61

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    I say Good ……Tax ‘em into the ground !

    No Corporate Welfare for anybody Coal or Renewables

    Let’s see how well so called renewables stand up with no taxpayer handouts !!

    Or is it fair for non house owners to subsidize via taxation the wealthier house owners cheap or free solar power ???……..Green welfare for the wealthier , while slave labor and questionable manufacturing processes are incorporated in 3rd world polluting countries !

    But typical Green Borg thinking …..out of site ,out of mind !

    China ‘s Smog is not harmless and beneficial co2 , but dangerous chemical and particulate real pollutants .

    150

    • #
      David Maddison

      Of course, the Left’s answer to the inherently higher cost of “green” energy is the false claim of huge subsidies in tbe coal or nuclear industries. But those claims are based on the lie that legitimate business tax deductions for input costs such as interest or depreciation are “subsidies” even though all businesses are entitled to them.

      141

      • #
        gai

        Yes and it is amazing how the Warmists will twist and turn and stick their head in the sand rather than admit a tax deduction, where you get to keep a bit more of YOUR HARD EARNED $$$, is not the same as being handed tax payer $$$ to throw down a rat hole. They continue to refuse to understand even when you explain it is a tax deduction just like they get for the interest on their mortgage, or dependents.

        60

      • #
        Bulldust

        The big daddy lie of them all is the diesel fuel rebate included in their fossil fuel “subsidy” totals. Just to be clear… road users pay a high diesel fuel excise and off-road vehicles attract a lower diesel fuel excise. The difference being the diesel fuel “rebate.” Only in perverse Greens’ logic could a tax be considered a subsidy. It is economically illiterate, but economics was never of interest to the Greens, only ideology.

        41

  • #
    David Maddison

    And the Leftoids keep telling us that “green” energy will be so cheap it will make coal generation uncompetitive…

    202

    • #
      AndyG55

      roflmao..

      That just isn’t going to happen.

      Coal provides royalties and helps feed the world and provides for economic development.

      These are things that wind and solar can NEVER do.

      Wind and solar can ONLY exist by sucking on subsidies.

      171

      • #
        gai

        Not quite Andy, wind is good for pushing a boat around if you have lots of food, water and time to waste. It is good for pumping water and grinding grain if you live in a country that is so poor it has no other power except muscle power and biomass burned in open fires.

        Wind mills are anything but a ‘new energy’ source.
        3,500 BC — Egyptians made the earliest known sailboats

        ~2,000 BC — Windmills used to pump water

        200 BC — Windmills are used to pump water in China.

        600 AD — The Persians of present day Iran used windmills to grind grain into flour.

        In the 1800s Americans use windmills to pump water and by the late 1880’s, there were six million windmills in the USA.

        What the Wind enthusiasts don’t tell you is American farmers and ranchers gleefully abandoned windmills and installed diesel engines to pump water for their pastures and fields that were far from grid electric. WHY? Because windmills are a royal pain in the rump to keep running. Heck, I just took a trip to a wholesale supplier of farm equipment. They have a commercial windmill up in their front yard as a demo model. It sits there unmoving, rusting with wires trailing. I asked about it and they said. “windmills are a royal pain in the rump to keep running and their customers complained.”

        80

  • #
    pat

    subscription required:

    19 Oct: UK Times: Graham Keeley: Nothing in this life is free, even Spanish sunshine
    Spaniards are feeling burnt by a new tax on the resource that most take for granted — the Sun. The country’s conservative government has passed a law to levy charges on homes or small businesses that produce electricity from solar panels.
    Solar energy groups estimate that homeowners will have to pay €8.90 per kilowatt, while small businesses will pay up to €36. Those whose panels produce less than ten kilowatts or who are located outside mainland Spain will be exempt from the charges which come into effect early next year…
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/naturalresources/article4589493.ece

    70

  • #
    Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

    Looks like the wheels just fell off the energy pirates’ combi in Spain!

    121

  • #

    Look, I know it’s one of my own Posts, but people who are new to Joanne’s site here may not have seen it, so I’ll link into it again.

    For so long now, Spain has been pointed to as being the poster child for renewable power, especially solar power, and that hoped for future for power delivery, Concentrating Solar Power, (CSP) referred to as Solar Thermal.

    All Spain HAS actually proved is that this form of power generation is as much a turkey as all the others which are in favour right now.

    Read the information at the Post which analyses all of Spain’s CSP plants and shows an overview that they are in fact only (just) on par with wind power.

    Keep in mind that the image showing power generation is one of those dreaded theoretical models.

    Solar Thermal Power (Concentrating Solar) Fail – Just Look At Spain

    Tony.

    230

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Those solar fields are enormous.

      40

      • #
        ROM

        Pssst! KK,.
        you-a-lisnening!
        Gotta deal for ya!

        Dat solar inverter thigamuginnie that went tits up on ya , well I gotta real goodie and dirt cheap one specially for ya.
        You gimme de folding stuff and you got yaself a real big time inverter thiggymajimmy to fix ya solar whatsit.
        —————

        Yep!
        Those solar fields sure are enormous.
        So damn big that it is damn hard to find out just what went wrong and where and why and even when it went wrong!

        Germany’s Green Crime Wave…Components Being Stripped Off Solar Parks By Mafia

        the Italian mafia is now in the business of running solar parks equipped with stolen components. “For this reason solar parks in Italy are being used to launder money. -

        110

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          :)

          People are so inventive !

          50

        • #

          They also rip out the cables on wind “parks”, usually before they’re connected and powered up but some gangs in Germany aren’t that fussy and have been known to knobble wind generators so that they can steal tons of copper and aluminium.

          80

    • #
      AndyG55

      Well look, they are on the flat area..

      that could be a problem, what with all the precipitation. ;-)

      51

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons…

      http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/104002

      In 2013 Nicaragua produced 40% of its electricity from non-hydro renewable energy and in 2014, on an hourly basis, it produced up to 50% of its generation from wind power alone (CNDC 2015). Between 2009 and 2014 it installed ~190 megawatts (MW) of wind energy capacity (14% of totaled installed capacity in 2014), underwent an intensive geothermal technical capacity training in partnership with Iceland, and received over US$ 1.5bn of cumulative renewable energy investments (2006?2014) (Alta Consulting 2013, CNDC 2015). Furthermore, Nicaragua has experienced this growth while continuing to make impressive progress in its rural electrification efforts (2.8% per year) towards the country’s short-term goal of 87% electricity access by 2017. From Nicaragua having a poor track in electricity access in 2006 (54%), today the country has brought coverage to over 80% of its population (MEM 2015).

      I guess the $1.5B of other people’s money kindof helps.

      10

      • #
        gai

        It doesn’t hurt that half of Nicaragua is mountains

        http://www.freeworldmaps.net/centralamerica/nicaragua/map.html

        10

      • #
        AndyG55

        “2014 it installed ~190 megawatts (MW) of wind energy capacity”

        Bayswater generating capacity 2,640 megawatts.

        Its alright talking about percentages of a very small amount. ;-)

        Might be interesting to put Nicaragua’s national energy consumption up against that of say, Wagga Wagga. Does anyone know the figures?

        And they are NOT decarbonising their energy systems.. they just never had any to start with.

        They are doing the logical thing for a country with mountainous terrain…

        … using hydro to fill the gaps left by the irregularities of wind…

        … while syphoning up as much “climate funds” as they can.

        10

        • #

          Andrew,

          I guess a large part of that $1.5 Billion went towards extending the grid.

          And as AndyG55 mentions, we are talking about a small Country here, so impact with this sort of Wind Power may actually seem to be look like it is large, when in actual fact, it is only 14% of Nameplate, not actual generation.

          The population of Nicaragua is 6.25 Million.

          The total power generation for all of Nicaragua is 4.2TWH, and, umm, half of that DOES come from fossil fuelled sources.

          The population of Adelaide is 1.1 Million and Adelaide consumes 6.2TWH a year.

          And AndyG55, here’s a good link for what you asked for above.

          International Energy Statistics

          Tony.

          10

  • #
    thingadonta

    Spain is sunnier and closer to the Sahara than most of the EU, but that still doesn’t mean the Sun’s rays are economically competitive there.

    And the wort excesses of socialism don’t seem to work any better whatever the local climate happens to be.

    90

  • #
    pat

    as with “their ABC”, BBC/Harrabin allows McGlade to make ridiculous ***claims:

    19 Oct: BBC: Roger Harrabin: UN scientist Jacquie McGlade raps UK over renewables
    Prof Jacquie McGlade said the UK was shifting away from clean energy ***as the rest of the world rushed towards it.
    She said the cuts in renewables subsidies, coupled with tax breaks for oil and gas, sent a worrying signal to the coming UN climate summit in Paris.
    The UK government says it will meet its targets on carbon emissions in the most cost-effective way…
    Prof McGlade said the UK appeared to have abandoned its leadership on climate change, while 150 other nations were making unprecedented pledges to shift towards clean energy.
    She told BBC News: ***”What I’m seeing worldwide is a move very much towards investment in renewable energy. To counterbalance that you see the withdrawal of subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels…
    ***”It’s a very serious signal – a very perverse signal that we do not want to create.”…
    Ministers say they have to force energy bills down. They want new solar and wind projects to be built without subsidy, although the industry says that is impossible at the moment…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34555821

    it’s not like BBC doesn’t know better…read all:

    7 Oct: BBC: Mira Galanova: Spain’s sunshine toll: Row over proposed solar tax
    “We will be the only country in the world charging for the use of the sun,” says Jaume Serrasolses.
    “Strange things are happening in Spain. This is one of them.”
    Mr Serrasolses, the secretary of an association promoting the use of solar energy, SEBA, is referring to the government’s proposal for a tax solely on those who generate their own electricity…
    Although the tolls vary, if you pay an access toll of 0.053 euros per kWh, you could face a backup toll of 0.068 euros per kWh.
    The new tax would extend the average time it would take for solar panels to pay for themselves from eight to 25 years, according to the solar lobby…
    The government is hoping the energy reform will settle a debt of 26bn euros (£22bn; $35bn), which has built up over years as a result of regulating energy costs and prices…
    “Many of these people are going to lose their houses (that they used as collateral to buy solar panels). They are unable to pay back at the bank. They can’t sell the installations, because the government has made them toxic assets,” Mr Holtrop (Piet Holtrop, a Dutch lawyer who is defending over 1,000 of them) says…
    Other countries are carefully watching developments in Spain. The governments in Latvia, the Czech Republic, Italy and Greece seem to be pondering similar cutbacks…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24272061

    30

    • #
      gai

      …The new tax would extend the average time it would take for solar panels to pay for themselves from eight to 25 years, according to the solar lobby…
      The government is hoping the energy reform will settle a debt of 26bn euros (£22bn; $35bn), which has built up over years as a result of regulating energy costs and prices…
      “Many of these people are going to lose their houses (that they used as collateral to buy solar panels). They are unable to pay back at the bank. They can’t sell the installations, because the government has made them toxic assets,” Mr Holtrop (Piet Holtrop, a Dutch lawyer who is defending over 1,000 of them) says

      Oh woe is me!

      What about all the people in Spain who lost their homes AND their jobs because of the money sucked out of the economy to PAY for the renewable subsidies? Sounds like a good 10% of Spain’s unemployed working force ought to be able to counter sue these people.

      110

  • #
    pat

    15 Oct: DakotaFinancialNews: Samantha Reynolds: Analysts Give Average Rating of “Sell” to Abengoa SA (NASDAQ:ABGB)
    Abengoa SA (NASDAQ:ABGB) has received an average broker rating score of 4.00 (Sell) from the one brokers that cover the stock, Zacks Investment Research reports. Abengoa SA’s rating score has declined by 300% from three months ago as a result of various analysts’ ratings changes.
    Brokerages have set a 12-month consensus price objective of $4.51 for the company, according to Zacks. Zacks has also given Abengoa SA an industry rank of 226 out of 265 based on the ratings given to related companies…
    Abengoa SA has a 12 month low of $3.91 and a 12 month high of $22.46…
    The organization is structured into three main business divisions. The Industrial Engineering and Building department comprises the execution of electric transmission lines and turnkey generation power station projects, hydraulic infrastructures. The Concession-type Infrastructure section comprises the operation of desalinization and generation power plants, like cogeneration, solar and wind. The Industrial Production includes the tasks linked to the production of waste treatment, biofuels and the development…
    http://www.dakotafinancialnews.com/analysts-give-average-rating-of-sell-to-abengoa-sa-nasdaqabgb/516289/

    30

  • #

    I heard one of the CEOs of a major player in the Australian retail market recently (AGL/Origin type) saying they would have to adjust the infrastructure component of domestic electricity bills in order to deal with home PV generation. He pointed to the same factors as the Spanish Govt. is using. That people still rely on the grid for the days the sun isnt shining and that grid does not reduce in cost just because of domestic PV installations. So in short the notion you will ever pay less for your power because of renewables, is basically nonsense unless you can go 100% off the grid.

    With the cost of battery setups for a family of 4, its a rich mans option as usual. But as we know AGW is a rich mans problem.

    http://www.offgridenergy.com.au/index.php/off-grid-complete-system

    100

    • #
      StefanL

      Owners of domestic PV generators also rely on the grid infrastructure to transport away their surplus electricity. So they should pay double the standard connection fee. And their feed-in tariff should be exactly the same wholesale rate paid to large power stations (usually a few cents per KWh).

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    Perhaps the important aspect is the attraction of ‘renewables’. You have to admit it sounds like a fantastic idea. The fact that it doesn’t add up is irrelevant to those people who cannot add. That is where they go to ‘scientists’ like Professor Tim Flannery who said with respect to his hot rocks company investment ‘the technology is straightforward’. So they lost $92Million of public money? At least the directors on $400K pa were fine, but how many people put money in, following Tim’s recommendation. Did he make it clear that his degree was in English?

    Not everyone is a scientist, only 1%. Even of those who are, most not take a great interest in Global Warming. So the media are open to anyone who claims special knowledge, which is how we had a public Climate Commission without a single meterologist and no one commented. This is all without politics and there is plenty of that from the Greens, WWF, Greepeace and the UN.

    Still to be fair to those innumerate but enthusiastic and caring people who think wind and sun power is a complete solution, they actually believe it. At the other extreme you have Tony from Oz who just proves with numbers that it is all nonsense.

    That is why there is a problem. Climates do change regardless of CO2. Renewables is a great idea which does not work very well. CO2 does produce a tiny amount of warming but nowhere near enough to explain anything and otherwise a very good thing. What though can anyone think of the people from NASA, BOM, BBC, ‘our’ ABC, Royal Society, American Society of Physicists and the IPCC and so many more who perpetuate this absolute ripoff? How do they sleep nights?

    130

    • #
      gai

      TdeF says
      <i"…so many more who perpetuate this absolute ripoff? How do they sleep nights?"
      ….

      By being sociopaths or in complete denial.

      A Phd at Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) came onto a Climate Skeptic site to teach us, The Great Unwashed, about adjustments and CAGW and why the site owner was so, so wrong.

      I pointed out the thousands of deaths in the UK alone caused by ‘fuel poverty’ to him and indicated he bore some responsibility for those deaths. He went completely ballistic. Seems that is a very touch subject for his conscious or more likely the public persona of GISS. (They really really hate getting pushed off the moral high ground by reality.)

      I figured he was fair game since he is the GISS climate modeler who said something very inappropriate to skeptics.

      80

      • #
        diogenese2

        Gai, excess winter deaths in the UK have become a bit of a political football, the gross total tending to be attributed to “fuel poverty”. All this certainly plays a part determining its provenance is almost impossible because we have too many statistics! What is clear is that influenza weighs in with a large, though erratic contribution. I.e. the “mean” is 20-25k 2012/13, a mild winter with bad flu clocked 30k (an iconic figure like 97%). 2014/15 predicated to be severe (climate) was in fact mild, and predicated 40k excess deaths. the total has not yet been published. There was little flu despite the vaccine having the wrong mix* leaving the majority unprotected. However the dominant strain was not virulent.
        * the mix is determine by WHO predictions the previous March for vaccination programmes starting October, which I am doing like mad at the moment.
        However, far worse, especially if the winter is severe, is the possibility of power failure. The Gov. & the health service is drawing up contingence plans for up to 5 days of outage (locally). I can remember Jan/Feb 1974 when the striking miners blacked out the country sporadically leading to the demise of Ted Heaths government.
        Our infrastructure is now for more dependent on 24h grid and only a few hours of darkness is going to wreak havoc. “excess winter deaths” will reach levels not seen since 1946/47.
        It would certainly be the end of the Global Warming Narrative in this country. Would I welcome this? well I might be one of the fallen!

        40

    • #
      StefanL

      Tdef quite rightly says: “The fact that it doesn’t add up is irrelevant to those people who cannot add”.

      Here’s a more general observation:

      “He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.”
      — John McCarthy, 1995

      60

    • #
      clive

      The same way “All Con-men”sleep at night.

      40

  • #
    Ruairi

    Beware that the Greens make a bid,
    To run the electrical grid,
    Then expect a high tax,
    On candles and wax,
    As the power would out if they did.

    220

    • #
      ROM

      The best cartoonists can define the essentials in a subject and incorporate those essentials of a subject or a situation into their cartoons in a manner that often conveys the cynical or jaundiced view of the subject in just a simple pictorial scene along with a speech bubble or two.

      Gifted cartoonists capable of such skills are quite rare indeed.

      But to sum up and in no more than half a dozen short lines of verse without any pictorial backup, to encapsulate and then often acidly dissect and deflate the overblown pomposity of a self aggrandising group or the personal and highly inflated tawdry egotism as we see done by Ruairi in the above couplet, is a very rare gift possessed by very, very few.

      I indeed bow my head in respect to our master of the short verse and his undoubted linguistic cartoon skills.

      140

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Solar and Wind were originally intended to be RAPS applicable !

    That is Remote Area Power Systems .

    It makes sense to have an expensive power option ,rather than no option at all , where the actual power source is both mostly everywhere and abundant !
    That is , no fuel needs to be transported to the site , as would be the case with a fuel generator !

    Where solar and wind do not make sense , are in areas that are not remote and within city areas that have ready and inexpensive grid power available !

    Coal or Gas driven turbines operate 100% of when the power is needed and at a fraction of the cost of solar and wind !

    Solar rooftop in cities is supplemental only to grid power , and is only appropriate without excessive feed back tariffs , that is at tariffs that only match grid power supply cost !
    Wind power within cities is ridiculous and is only suitable for RAPS applications !

    Both Wind and Solar are not alternative power to coal or gas but only supplemental at best even if competitively priced .

    The only true , present day Alternate power source to coal/gas is nuclear and serious supplemental is hydroelectric where practical !

    Of course both of these are out of the question for the eco – loons and climate medieval true b’lvers , who only seem content on punishing industry with excessive energy costs and great big new ‘save the planet’ taxes !!!

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3827/the_great_renewables_scam_unravels

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35E5Tt-QWf8

    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/governments-rip-up-renewable-contracts

    110

    • #
      StefanL

      A good example of RAPS is the solar panels (and batteries) that power the emergency telephones installed along some rural (or semi-rural) freeways.

      50

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Jo, do you think you are actually running two blogs overlapping?

    37

  • #
    Walter Horsting

    We need to learn from Europe’s failed Green investment of 1 Trillion Euros that produce only 38GWs of energy http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/31/european-renewable-energy-performance-for-2014-fall-far-short-of-claims/

    This would have built 600 GWs of Molten Salt Reactors for 24/7 emission free energy without needing storage or backup fossil fueled power. http://www.egeneration.org

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      “In spite of their being virtually no costs for fuel, Renewable Energy installations can still cost up to 1.5 – 2.5 times as much to operate and maintain as conventional Gas Fired plant.”

      Now that’s a rude surprise for ‘renewables’.

      100

      • #
        gai

        And that doesn’t get into the REAL COST of renewables, storage!

        Unless you are sailing a boat, pumping water into a livestock tank or grinding grain you need storage to give you a constant supply at the right voltage and amps. Other wise you also need to add in the destruction/shortened life of your equipment.

        90

  • #
    Robert O

    Minister Hunt was quoted recently as saying the AGL solar farms at Broken Hill and Nyngan were a win win scenario. In total 390 ha. for 155MW and projected as 26% efficient (This seems high for a solar PV system). So projected annual production is 155 x 24 x 365 x 26% = 353,028 MWh each year.
    Compare that to the 180 MW second stage of the Gordon Hydro scheme which was canned by the Hawke government: 180 x 24 x 365 = 1,576,800 MWh each year and still would have been operational after 35 years. A conventional coal or nuclear station, say, of 1000MW, would produce 1000 x 24 x 365 = 8,760,000 MWh or 8,760 GWh each year.

    Our black coal exports for 2013-14 were 10,511 Petajoules, which is equivalent to 2,922,058 GWh. This figure make the 353 GWh /yr. solar plants little more than a political token.

    111

    • #
      A C Osborn

      “Political Token”
      I love it.

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Let’s not forget the transmission losses to get that piddling , daytime only, amount of power to anywhere that it would actually be used. !!

      101

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      155 mgw is hourly output at peak power only , which almost never occurs especially as panels heat up in warm climates and lose further efficiency !

      Your calculations are at 24 hours per day output and then 26% of that being actual output is excessive !
      True b’lver Hunt’s claim of 26% efficiency is meaningless and cannot be taken seriously especially as one that helps peddle the grand fraud !

      No panel generates power 24 hours per day ,and in fact peak power is only approximated between 10am and 2pm , with half power from 8am to 10am and 2pm to 4pm !

      General power output is 4.5 Kw per 1 Kw of panel daily average over the year , without tracking and at the fixed yearly optimum angle .

      Therefore on the example given of 155 Mgw , daily output would be 155 Mgw x 4.5 = 697.5 Mgw

      Say 700 Mgw per day round figures x 365 = approx 255 gigawatt , about 2/3rds of your figure or that clown Hunt’s claim ,and of course these figures are with brand new panels ,which deteriorate as they age , especially if they are run at max each day as is the case with a solar farm !

      So my point is that you are even more correct that what you claim !

      Solar and wind are nowhere near alternative power options .

      They are only supplemental at best ,and at many times the cost , not to mention transmission loss and wasted land use !

      I was told by some solar people that this project or another similar come in at an installed price of about 6 aud per watt !
      The same people told me if they could get a job like that even at 2 aud per watt , they would be laughing all the way to the bank as panel cost in bulk cost is only 50 cents per watt !

      The question is …..Who is getting these ridiculously profitable jobs ,priced at 3 to 4 times more than they should be ,and the bill given to the rest of us sucker taxpayers ???

      All supposedly to reduce co2 to stop the planet from warming that hasn’t warmed for nearly 2 decades !

      We’re being fleeced by criminals under a banner of ‘save the planet’ and yet the masses are cheering as they march towards the economic cliff !

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35E5Tt-QWf8

      40

      • #
        Robert O

        I have a 3 KW solar PV system: For the last twelve months it produced 4496 Kwh, so its efficiency ( at 17 degrees latitude) was
        4496/(3 x 24 x 365) = 17%. This seems to be a more realistic estimate than AGL’s 26% parroted by Minister Hunt. My system only produces significant current between 10.30 and 4.30, and the best production I have ever seen is 2.8 Kwh. about 1 PM. in late October.

        Why doesn’t the media provide a more balanced report?

        00

  • #
    fromdownunder

    So when why do people expect to make a profit from a charitable cause? Are these people in it to make money or save the planet? Seriously.

    This is one of the most craziness thing i have ever heard. If your want to save the planet by installing solar panels on your roof or setup up a wind factory in your backyard good for you, just put your own money onto the plate. Just dont profiteer off less fortunate people who can’t afford a similar investments. These people end up paying extra tax or have a smaller share of government support to fund your returns.

    Your organization doesn’t have enough to continue running?, and close to bankruptcy? I know why don’t you try to get some funding by convincing people to donate to your company. Thousands of Not for public organisations have done it decades and remained solvent.

    91

  • #
    Kim

    What happens with off grid systems?

    20

  • #
    Bitter&Twisted

    65,000 green jobs?
    More like 65,000 tax-funded, parasitic boondoggles.
    Get rid of these subsidised freeloaders on Society and you start generating real, productive jobs that actually contribute to Society.
    Keep the good work up, Spain!

    30

  • #
    handjive

    asli bijli

    World’s Poor Reject Half Modern, Half Primitive (Green) Life…Demand “Real Electricity”, Not “Fake” Greenpeace Solar! (notrickszone August 2014)
    ~ ~ ~
    Oct19, 2015:
    DHARNAI, India — One year ago, environmentalists hailed this tiny village as the future of clean energy in rural India.
    Today, it is powered by coal.

    When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, “We want real electricity, not fake electricity!”

    By “real,” they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By “fake,” they meant solar.
    ~ ~ ~
    Feral Green Liberal/LaboUr Australia, 2015:

    > The new joint policy to be launched by the federal and state Greens, who are campaigning for the closure of the Hazelwood mine and power plant, says it is time to prepare the region for the inevitable closure of coal plants.

    “The Greens want to support the Latrobe Valley community to transition from coal-fired power stations to clean, renewable industries,” Ms Sandell said.

    > And Alinta moves to shut its #coal mine and power plants in the SA:
    October 7, 2015, SMH: Alinta to shut SA coal mine, power plants early

    > October 7, 2015, SMH: Britain is considering whether to close all of its 12 coal-fired power plants by 2023 as part of its effort to reduce the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, an official with knowledge of the discussions said

    > 15 Oct 2015, telegraph.uk: Factories may have to shut down on weekday evenings this winter to keep household lights on as Britain faces the worst power crunch in a decade, National Grid has warned.
    The tightening of supplies has been caused by the old polluting coal plants being forced to close by environmental rules more quickly than new plants are being built.

    60

  • #
  • #
    handjive

    Readers@jonova would be aware of David Appell.
    His blog is called Quark Soup.

    Here is a twit from Appell that jonova might be able to help him with:

    Proof that Australia is Heating Up: A September paper in GRL by Sophie C. Lewis and Andrew D. King looks at ho…

    At which Tom Nelson replies:
    “For the BOM, history almost appears to start in 1910 http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/the-mysterious-bom-disinterest-in-hot-historic-australian-stevenson-screen-temperatures/ …”

    David Appell then asks: “Where are the earlier records? And what difference do they make? & they has no impact on the number of recent high-to-low records.”
    . . .
    Quite so. Where are these ‘earlier records’?

    Appell could start by looking for information about the Federation Drought of Australia on the BoM website.

    How inconvenient.

    Any questions, David?

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      On the “year to end of September” basis, 2015 is ranked 20th out of 37 (ie… below the median) in UAH Australia.

      Warming up, NOPE !!!

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Furthermore, since the culmination of the step change from the 1998 El Nino (the effects finished late 2001 in Australia), Australia has a cooling trend of approximately -0.2ºC/decade.

      http://s19.postimg.org/va65su3ar/UAH_Aust2002.jpg

      So, rotten Appell.. don’t let the facts hit kick you on the **** on the way out !!

      60

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    O/t but I read that the “gang” is in Bonn further refining the “agreement” to be made in Paris. I believe Paris will go on for 2 weeks. Why ? If it is all done in the “prior to Paris” talkfests why do you need 2 weeks? or is it just a big party to waste even more money ?

    70

  • #
    Posa

    ” the government should get out of the energy market and let the free market solve the mess properly. ”

    Like Enron in the US… We all owe a debt of gratitude for work on climate hoaxes, but market fundamentalists are just as bad as the Greenies when it comes to economics

    30

    • #
      gai

      “market fundamentalists???”

      “Like Enron in the US… ???”

      E.M. Smith is trained as an economist. I strongly suggest you read his short summary about WHY large corporations LOVE SOCIALISM! It really straigntens out the deliberate confusion sown by the big corporations and their MSM buddies.

      Here is an example of what E.M. is talking about.

      If you do not like a conservative source how about an example from Mother Jones? The game plan is the same. Rip off the consumer and the tax payer while screw the competition via political favors and bias regulations.

      Lessons from the global warming industry

      Enron, joined by BP, invented the global warming industry. I know because I was in the room. This was during my storied three-week or so stint as Director of Federal Government Relations for Enron in the spring of 1997, back when Enron was everyone’s darling in Washington. It proved to be an eye-opening experience that didn’t last much beyond my expressing concern about this agenda of using the state to rob Peter, paying Paul, drawing Paul’s enthusiastic support.

      In fact, this case was not entirely uncommon in that the entire enterprise was Paul’s idea to begin with….

      The basic truth is that Enron, joined by other “rent-seeking” industries — making one’s fortune from policy favors from buddies in government, the cultivation of whom was a key business strategy — cobbled their business plan around “global warming.” Enron bought, on the cheap of course, the world’s largest windmill company (now GE Wind) and the world’s second-largest solar panel interest (now BP) to join Enron’s natural gas pipeline network, which was the second largest in the world. The former two can only make money under a system of massive mandates and subsidies (and taxes to pay for them); the latter would prosper spectacularly if the war on coal succeeded.

      Enron then engaged green groups to scare people toward accepting those policies. That is what is known as a Baptist and bootlegger coalition. I sat in on such meetings. Disgraceful….

      50

  • #
    handjive

    I, for one, welcome our new plant overlords …
    ~ ~ ~
    SMH, October 20, 2015:
    It is a peculiar paradox that sees plants “greening” and growing better as a result of climate change, while water supply across Australia’s grazing and annual cropping land is suffering.

    “What we are seeing is very much consistent with [the effect of] increasing carbon dioxide, the main ingredient of photosynthesis.

    So higher concentrations allow plants to grow bigger, thus they consume more water,” said lead author Dr Anna Ukkola​, who performed the research at the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University.
    . . .
    It is only a a “peculiar paradox” if you believe in 97% Doomsday Global Warming.

    40

    • #
      gai

      “So higher concentrations allow plants to grow bigger, thus they consume more water…” What the heck has Anna been smoking? They really have to reach to try and find negatives for CO2 fertilization don’t they?

      http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1998/110198q10.php

      All of the major points of this information sheet contain a number of stated or implied inaccuracies. Hence, we will consider each of its principal “bullets” in detail.

      · Soil moisture will be affected by changing precipitation patterns
      ….most plants exhibit decreased stomatal conductances at elevated CO2 (Kimball and Idso, 1983; Morison, 1987; Field et al., 1995; Rey and Jarvis, 1998), which reduces plant evaporative water losses via transpiration (Overdieck and Forstreuter, 1994; Sgherri et al., 1998; Tognetti et al., 1998). Together with the increases in plant productivity that are driven by elevated CO2, these water-saving effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment greatly enhance plant water-use efficiency (Rogers et al., 1983; Idso et al., 1985; Valle et al., 1985; Fernandez et al., 1998); and the benefits provided by this proven consequence of atmospheric CO2 enrichment are more than sufficient to compensate for the worst-case scenarios of possible (but unlikely) regional rainfall reduction predicted by the climate models (Idso, 1989)….

      20

    • #
      Mike Flynn

      I believe I’m right in saying that burning hydrocarbons with sufficient oxygen produces at minimum, two things – CO2 and H2O. We obviously have a researcher who’s a little on the slow side. She needs to explain how the plants which grew bigger consuming CO2 managed to do so without also consuming H2O from the same source.

      One possibility, of course, is that plants selectively use anthropogenic CO2 as food, but only use “natural” H2O. Sort of like the difference between pontentised H2O, and awful chemical H2O. What happens to the anthropogenic H2O is a mystery. Maybe it’s all captured and stored by Big Oil, creating droughts, so that Big Oil can corner the water market. Or maybe not.

      It might even be true. I’d just like to see some scientific support, instead of illogical silliness.

      Cheers.

      40

      • #

        The plant’s nature trick is in the stomata; the parts of the plant’s leaves which are its openings used to “breathe” CO2.

        In a CO2-starved environment, plants develop larger and more plentiful stomata, allowing for more air to pass into the plant and for the CO2 to be matabolised via photosynthesis. However; the larger stomata also allow for more evaporation of water from the plant, so the root system has to tap more water to achieve similar growth.

        With higher CO2 levels, stomata reduce in size (and perhaps number), reducing excessive evaporation of water so the plant uses available water more efficiently and grows much more; even with less available water.

        So more CO2 means less water required for the same amount of plant growth. vis. e.g. edges of greening deserts like the Sahel.

        20

  • #
    PeterS

    Just proves what most intelligent people already knew. Governments are lethal when it comes to business decisions.

    30

  • #
    crakar24

    The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    “As wind farms are expected to expand in the future, we need to be aware of their potential negative effects on various species,” said Fabio Balotari-Chiebao, lead author of the Animal Conservation study.

    “The implementation of preventive measures aimed at the protection of species that are vulnerable to turbine-related incidents will allow the use of this energy source without compromising the local biodiversity.”

    WUWT

    20

  • #
    Jac

    Alan Jones on 2GB this morning talking about a talkfest today led by Greg Hunt, Mark Butler and Larissa Waters. It sounds like the brainwashing to get all to agree to sign the agreement in Paris.

    60

  • #
    Jac

    Meeting in Canberra today with all parties about signing our country away at the talks in Paris.

    30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      After Abbott was removed by the Turnbull cronies and Harper was just ousted at the election, it seems Monckton’s predictions came true. All done in time for Paris, just as was planned 12 months ago by the UK’s Chief Climate Negotiator. See comment on the last Weekend Unthreaded for sources.

      30

      • #
        gai

        HURRAH, HURRAH!

        We now are ready to go forward towards a worldwide Communist Totalitarian government! OH GOODY!

        It seems Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev was correct when he said “My vas pokhoronim.” or ‘We will be present when you are buried.’

        “You Americans are so gullible! We don’t have to invade you! We will destroy you from within, without firing a shot! We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” ~ Nikita Khrushchev, 1954

        …………

        “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have communism.”
        ~ Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

        …………

        “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!”
        ~ Nikita Khrushchev, 1956

        The world saw freedom for the masses for a scant 150 years and now our leaders are about to sell us back into serfdom again and the Sheeple will rejoice.

        10

  • #
    pat

    19 Oct: Daily Mail: Our idiotic leaders, obsessed with being green, have sabotaged Britain’s steel industry, writes DOMINIC LAWSON
    It is true that Chinese exports have pushed down the price of steel, blowing a hole in the business plans of all other steel producers. But the issue is not just about prices, it is also about costs. And successive British governments have quite deliberately driven up the single most significant cost for steel producers, with their giant blast furnaces: energy
    This stems in large part from one of the last decisions made by Tony Blair as prime minister, when in 2007 he signed up this country to obtaining 15 per cent of all its energy from ‘renewable sources’ — wind and solar — by 2020.
    According to the then chief scientific adviser to the government, Sir David King, Blair was supposed to limit our pledge to ‘electricity’, not energy as a whole, but there were ‘very tired people in the meeting … people just took their eye of the ball’. What a shameful admission.
    The result is not just that household bills must be at least 15 per cent supplied by expensive and inefficient wind and solar power (what do we do when it isn’t sunny or blowing a gale?), so must high-intensity users of energy such as steel producers…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3278597/Our-idiotic-leaders-obsessed-green-sabotaged-Britain-s-steel-industry-writes-DOMINIC-LAWSON.html

    20

  • #
    Jac

    Correction “supported by” Hunt etc. Talks to be given by experts in the field of Climate Change. I guess Jo will be there?

    10

  • #
    pat

    19 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Ben Garside: World, state leaders unite in calling for a price on carbon
    The call to price carbon comes from the Carbon Pricing Panel – a group convened by World Bank chief Jim Yong Kim and the IMF head Christine Lagarde – to spur faster, more ambitious action ahead of the Paris climate talks. The panel also includes German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, French President Francois Hollande, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, Philippines President Benigno Aquino III, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, Governor Jerry Brown of California, Mayor Eduardo Paes of Rio de Janeiro and OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria…
    (The World Bank’s climate envoy Rachel Kyte told journalists on a conference call on Monday) the bank sees it as an inevitable step for countries to tackle climate change inexpensively, and has recently published guidance to help them implement policies…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/several-world-leaders-unite-in-calling-for-a-price-on-carbon/

    19 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Ben Garside: 31 jurisdictions urge Paris deal to include international carbon trade
    A group of 31 national and sub-national governments spanning four continents on Monday urged UN negotiators to include provisions for international carbon trade as part of the Paris global climate pact. The International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP), a multilateral forum working on carbon markets, made a submission to the UNFCCC calling for the Paris agreement that “supports parties in transferring mitigation outcomes on a voluntary basis, provides a robust accounting framework for international transfers, encourages the development of sound MRV standards, and builds on the existing knowledge and institutions developed by countries and the UNFCCC.”…
    Mention of carbon markets was largely left out of the latest version of the agreement, though references to building an international carbon market regime made it into a draft decision for negotiators to craft detailed rules on later…
    The US government, which is not an ICAP member although several of its states are, is proposing the creation of international carbon trading markets for willing nations and regions in case the UN’s Paris deal doesn’t include such measures or progress is deemed too slow, Bloomberg reported, citing an anonymous person with knowledge of the matter…
    US officials declined to comment to Bloomberg. A source familiar with the situation told Carbon Pulse that the Bloomberg article did not reflect the country’s position.
    The World Bank has for several years worked with academics on its so-called Networked Carbon Markets project to examine ways in which different carbon pricing regimes could trade units with each other including getting ratings agencies to value pricing regimes…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/31-jurisdictions-urge-paris-deal-to-include-international-carbon-trade/

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      The World Bank has for several years worked with academics on its so-called Networked Carbon Markets project…

      to examine ways in which is can harvest the maximum possible amount of money into its coffers and that of the UN.

      40

  • #
    ImranCan

    Classic example of the old ‘lets break windows’ story ….. renewable energy is nothing more than that. We can keep everyone employed if we just keep smashing windows or telling everyone to dig holes in the road and fill them in ….. but there is a reason we don’t do that !!

    30

    • #
      gai

      Someone else who recognizes CAGW and renewable energy as The Broken Window Fallacy Reapplied

      …. Bastiat puts it this way: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed.”

      It sounds like an unexceptional claim. But herein rests the core case against everything the government does. Perhaps, then, we can see why the allegory is not better known. If we took it seriously, we would dismantle the whole apparatus of… economic intervention.

      If you are with me to this point, perhaps you have a hard time believing that anyone really believes that wealth destruction is actually a good thing. Let me try to show that the fallacy is as pervasive as ever.

      After every natural disaster, we at the Mises Institute start what we call the “Broken Window Watch.”

      After hurricane Katrina, the Labor Secretary said, “[W]hat will happen — and I have seen this in previous catastrophes and hurricanes — there is a bright spot in that new jobs do get created.”

      And The Economist said, “While big hurricanes like Katrina destroy wealth, they often have a net positive effect on GDP growth, as the temporary downturn immediately after the storm is more than made up for by the burst of economic activity that takes place when the rebuilding begins.”

      And the New York Times said, “Economists point out that although Katrina has destroyed a lot of accumulated wealth, it ultimately will probably have a positive effect on growth data over the next few months as resources are channeled into rebuilding.”

      After last year’s California fires, we heard this from Alan Gin, a University of San Diego economist: “In the odd nature of economic accounting, this will probably be a stimulus. There will be a huge amount of rebuilding in the next couple of years, financed by insurance payments.”

      And CBS Marketwatch said, “Economists have noted the perverse reality that in the wake of disasters, reconstruction spending helps the economy, even as people are still struggling to recover from their personal losses.”

      Note that personal loss here is deemed rather irrelevant compared with the beneficial macroeconomic results

      10

  • #
    pat

    lots of details in this one:

    19 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Mike Szabo: Two-thirds of NER300 projects behind schedule, some ask for early cash, EU documents show
    Two-thirds of the carbon-cutting projects awarded more than €2 billion in EU funding under the bloc’s NER300 programme have requested extensions to their operational deadlines, a document seen by Carbon Pulse showed, with the average delay to those installations starting estimated at 27 months.
    According to the European Commission’s response to an ‘access to documents’ request filed by Greg Arrowsmith, a consultant who covers the EU scheme, just three of the 39 renewable energy and carbon capture and storage projects that remain in the process, which split the cash raised through the sale of 300 million EUAs between 2011 and 2014, were operational as of this spring…
    The NER300’s operational deadline for all projects had previously been Dec. 31, 2018, but seven countries lobbied to have it pushed back by two years…
    Britain’s White Rose CCS project was awarded €300 million in the second tranche, making it the only such project to win NER300 funding, but its main backer utility Drax last month pulled out of the initiative citing “critical reversals” in the UK Conservative government’s green policies and concerns over future support…
    Projects that request upfront funding are liable to pay it back if the installation underperforms…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/two-thirds-of-ner300-projects-behind-schedule-some-ask-for-early-cash-eu-documents-show/

    19 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Cambodia cancels REDD projects amid ‘lack of interest’
    Cambodia has cancelled seven projects that had been given the go-ahead to study the feasibility of earning carbon credits under the UN’s REDD programme over a lack of interest in taking up carbon trading, the Cambodia Daily reported.
    The cancellations, announced Friday, put an end to seven of the eight projects Cambodia approved for feasibility studies between 2011 and 2013.
    “We decided to cancel seven projects because they applied with the Ministry of Environment asking to invest in the projects, but we have seen they have no real desire to do it,” said Srun Darith, deputy cabinet chief at the Environment Ministry…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/cambodia-cancels-redd-projects-amid-lack-of-interest/

    10

  • #

    There was another report on the ABC again this lunch time about solar power, and the move to batteries which people expect to become as cheap as AA cells in the very near future.

    The whole argument collapses because of the way people think.

    They think that the only electrical power under consideration is what they personally consume in their homes, where, at enormous expense, (a cost that will never sink to the level people think) some rich consumers might be able to go ‘off grid’.

    Because the thinking is like that, then they use this same argument to bring electrical power to the many hundreds of millions, possibly billions in the Developing World who have no power or access to very little on a non regular basis.

    They think they can get by bringing power to these people via solar panels and those cheap batteries (in fact the impression is almost free they will become that common) which will last forever.

    The whole argument falls down because what is needed is for (not their homes here and there) the whole Country to become electrified, so that the COUNTRY can pull itself out of poverty.

    To do that with any sort of large scale solar or wind power, they need to construct the grid for it anyway.

    So, knowing that even a rudimentary grid just HAS to be constructed, why would you do it, and NOT have a constant and reliable 24/7/365 power source to do that.

    It’s all fine and good to, well, I suppose, give away some solar panels and batteries for the odd home here and there, but if there is no attempt made to bring the Country out of the dark ages, then that’s where the COUNTRY will stay, with just some personal homes with panels and batteries.

    A city cannot be run on wind or solar power. It needs a constant and reliable power source.

    First they have to build the grid.

    There is not ONE city on Planet Earth which operates on renewable power of choice, wind or solar.

    The people who have to do the work know that.

    That’s why, when all this carbon money begins to flow to the UN for redistribution, you just watch as coal fired power plants just grow and grow and grow.

    The only place now where they actually are growing is in the non Developed World, where they are quite literally springing up everywhere.

    What’s the point of spending $2.2 Billion for a large scale wind plant, when to get the power around, they need a grid anyway, when for the same amount of money you can get a plant which supplies between eight to twelve times the power on a regular and constant basis, and will last twice as long.

    ($2.2 Billion will get a 600MW wind Plant, or a 2400MW coal fired plant. Four times the Nameplate, three times the Capacity Factor and twice as long, so realistically 24 times the power over its lifespan.)

    And they still have to build a grid, either way.

    Tony.

    40

  • #
    pat

    19 Oct: ReutersCarbonPulse: Solvay converts nearly 400,000 CERs into Korean offsets
    South Korea’s Solvay Fluor has cancelled 367,000 CERs from the UN’s CDM registry to have them converted into offsets eligible for the Korean ETS where they trade for as much as ***18 times more. The cancelled CERs were from Solvay’s SF6 recovery and reclamation project in Ulsan, a UNFCCC website showed…
    http://carbon-pulse.com/solvay-converts-nearly-400000-cers-into-korean-offsets/

    20 pages no more…

    19 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Ed King: UN climate text swells as G77 flexes muscles in Bonn
    Developing countries add more than 50 elements to UN’s draft Paris deal, complaining of bias towards richer nations
    Time-pressed talks on a global climate deal faced delays on Monday after the co-chairs guiding the process accepted their proposed draft agreement lacked support from most countries…
    Instead of planned negotiations, the text swelled rapidly on a binge of over 50 so-called “surgical insertions” from countries, most ranging between 1-2 pages.
    Most submissions came from the Africa Group and G77+ China, reflecting their frustration at what they argued was a text tilted in favour of richer nations.
    South African ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko, representing the 134-strong G77+ China group, said developing country views had been excised from the shorter text…
    Diseko’s stance found allies across the vast negotiating chamber, and a plenary meeting scheduled to last 30 minutes rapidly spiralled beyond two hours.
    “Credit us with a little wisdom,” said Malaysia’s Gurdal Singh. The document was an “injustice” added Amjad Abdulla, chief negotiator for the alliance of small island states (AOSIS)…
    Steve Cornelius, a former UK negotiator now working for WWF-UK, said the language used was some of the strongest since the final hours of the ill-fated Copenhagen summit of 2009…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/19/un-climate-text-swells-as-g77-flexes-muscles-in-bonn/

    20

  • #
    pat

    the madness of the NGOs!

    19 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: US, EU ‘avoiding fair share’ of climate effort
    Developed world should deepen emissions cuts five times or more by 2030, say civil society groups, plus support poor countries
    The US and EU should make ***five times the greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2030 promised in their national submissions to a UN deal.
    Japan is doing a tenth of its fair share, while Russia is making zero contribution to the global effort to limit temperature rise to 2C.
    That is the conclusion of a report backed by 18 civil society groups including Oxfam, WWF and Action Aid…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/19/us-eu-avoiding-fair-share-of-climate-effort/

    19 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Saleemul Huq: Loans or grants for climate finance?
    Confusion reigns over the right format for cash to tackle climate impacts. Resolve this quickly or the UN-backed Green Climate Fund will falter
    The good news is that a ***political commitment of $100 billion per year starting from 2020 has already been pledged by rich countries…
    While these are indeed commendable decisions when it comes to providing funding for adaptation to the LDCs and SIDS the GCF secretariat is said to be offering low interest loans rather than grants…
    Bankers are in the business of giving loans that need to be repaid (even if the interest is low) while the LDCs and SIDS have an expectation that climate change finance from rich countries (who are mainly responsible for historic emissions) is to enable them to adapt to the adverse impacts of human induced climate change (for which they have very to cause) must be provided in the form of grants…READ ALL
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/19/loans-or-grants-for-climate-finance/

    20

  • #
    pat

    20 Oct: Bolt Blog: ABC gets its friends to check its bias
    Tony Thomas documents how the ABC has stacked the latest two inquiries into its outrageous bias (LINK)…
    What are the chances of Stanley giving the ABC a stern report sheet?… Two of her inquiry panel members – we kid you not – are ex-Media Watch compere and climate alarmist Jonathan Holmes and ex-ABC Triple J comedian Adam Spencer…
    Meanwhile, the ABC’s green bias continues. Former Labor minister Gary Johns (LINK):
    As for balance, the ABC wheeled out its preferred “financial analyst” to inform viewers that coal was a bad investment. Tim Buckley once worked for Citi­group. He converted some years ago to the green cause, which is his business, literally…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_gets_its_friends_to_check_its_bias/

    I’VE POSTED ALL THE FOLLOWING IN THE COMMENTS, BUT IT MIGHT NOT GET THROUGH THE MODS!

    ABC loves old bankers, not only Tim Buckley, who appears so regularly, he might as well be on the payroll:

    March: ABC: New coal mines have Buckley’s chance as China cuts consumption: analyst
    Energy analyst Tim Buckley from anti-coal think tank The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) said the cuts to Shenhua’s sales reflect China’s attempt to reduce its energy intensity and coal dependence in order to reduce pollution…

    August: ABC: Tim Buckley…says Adani, Peabody, BHP and Rio are all looking to offload Australian coal assets…
    “The big energy companies are also investing tens of billions of dollars into renewable energy like wind and solar.”

    May: ABC Lateline: India unlikely to be able to afford Australian coal
    TIM BUCKLEY: The critical issue is the price of renewables is coming down so fast that it is now at parity with imported coal when you’re looking at the delivered wholesale cost of electricity in India.

    (abc should note: Adani told Reuters last week “the majority of Carmichael production had been pre-sold, guaranteeing revenue”)

    what CAGW/renewables-pushing ABC never tells their audience:

    Dec 2014: IEA: Global coal demand to reach 9 billion tonnes per year by 2019
    The report notes that despite China’s efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period. Moreover, China will be joined by India, ASEAN countries and other countries in Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption…

    15 Oct: Washington Post: U.S. exports its greenhouse-gas emissions — as coal. Profitable coal.
    Yet each year, nearly half a billion tons of this U.S.-owned fuel are hauled from the region’s vast strip mines and millions of tons are shipped overseas for other countries to burn. Government and industry reports predict a surge in exports of Powder River coal over the next decade…
    “The Obama administration can’t have it both ways, limiting carbon pollution while encouraging exports of coal from U.S. public lands to overseas markets,” said Amanda Jahshan (NRDC)…
    Yet, the government continues issuing new leases for Powder River coal, in ever greater quantities. The Interior Department is finalizing leases for 2.5 billion tons of Powder River coal, and agency documents released earlier this year propose making an additional 10 billion tons available for mining — and, potentially exporting — over the next 25 to 30 years…

    14 Oct: Financial Times: Germany has to show that its energy is clean
    Germany’s reliance on lignite and coal as it phases out nuclear power stations undermines one of the project’s main aims — to reduce greenhouse emissions. Instead, despite the surge in renewable energy, these emissions are rising…
    The perversity of the Energiewende is that Germany is on a path to achieving the hard task while flunking what should be the simple one — reducing its coal production. Its increase in carbon emissions despite throwing itself into fighting global warming will be an embarrassment for Angela Merkel, chancellor, at the climate change summit in Paris in December…

    13 Oct: Financial Times: Australia’s coal exports set to rise as south-east Asia demand surges

    ABC prefers the following:

    18 Oct: ABC: Jane Norman: Carmichael mine: No federal subsidies for Adani but ‘strong moral case’ for coal, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg says
    Queensland-based Greens senator Larissa Waters said the suggestion of a strong moral case for the Adani coal mine to relieve energy poverty in India was a sick joke.
    “Claiming there’s a moral case for coal exports confirms yet again how out of touch the Coalition is with the rest of the world,” she said…

    20

    • #
      AndyG55

      I wonder if the ignorant Larissa Waters knows that Indonesia now produces more coal than Australia.

      If we don’t produce it, Indonesia will, because they are not tied down with “gangrene” stupidity.

      That means that the only thing we will be hurting by not mining that coal is the royalty income that pays for the Australian latte-sipper’s lifestyle through government employment and other payments.

      10

  • #
    pat

    Murdoch’s Business Spectator:

    20 Oct: Business Spectator: Tristan Edis: Farewell fossil fools – Harper and Abbott both dispatched
    As Climate Spectator noted in Harper and Abbott: Two fossils fooling no one, what was plainly obvious was that both Harper and Abbott had confused the interests of the coal mining industry (in Abbott’s case) and tar sands (Harper) with the interests of their respective country as a whole…
    As described in the Guardian’s article: Canada election: how Stephen Harper’s fossil fuel gamble may have backfired Harper and Tony Abbott have followed eerily similar strategies…
    A few months after Abbott and Harper’s June 2014 pro-fossil fuel pow wow, US President Obama and China’s Xi Jinping got together to show who really pulled the strings of world affairs with their joint statement on climate change targets. China has helpfully followed through, bringing its rapid growth in coal consumption to screeching halt…
    And it left both Abbott and Harper looking like yesterday’s men, trying to defend old and dirty industries against technological progress.
    By way of contrast the leader of the Liberals and soon to be Canada’s new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau has said that he’ll create a national carbon pricing system if he becomes prime minister.
    And while Malcolm Turnbull now talks down the idea of emissions trading as better in theory than practice, it seems unlikely that he would have abandoned his deeply held concerns about climate change.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/10/20/policy-politics/farewell-fossil-fools-%E2%80%93-harper-and-abbott-both-dispatched

    hey Tristan, post Christopher Monckton’s prophesy.

    10

  • #
    crosspatch

    It should be a simple thing to accomplish this using free market forces. Here is how I would go about it:

    Imagine a home that is completely off-grid. It might have solar, a wind turbine, a gas or diesel generator, some amount of battery storage and a controller of some sort that manages charging. When wind and sun are abundant, less running of the generator is needed. Now imagine you connect the grid to this house and the controller is made a little smarter. Also, assume the power utility transmits the current price of power down the mains (they already have that capability here as communications with “smart meters” is done over the grid) and varies the price minute by minute depending on supply and demand. Imagine the controller draws a small amount of power from the grid to storage all the time but can vary based on price. The home because a steady state baseline load rather than a varying demand load. The storage acts to smooth out surges in demand. I can even program the controller not to draw during the day when rates are high and nobody is at home and draw a little more when power is more abundant at night to make up the difference.

    Now let’s imagine that it is a very hot day and the grid is struggling to meet demand. The price of power goes up and so my controller begins to reduce the amount it is drawing from the grid. In this way demand becomes modulated by the price. Now lets say that there is a “buy” price and a “sell” price sent down the wire. Now the utility is become desperate for generation, I have completely stopped my draw from the mains but I notice the price is rising. My controller might now begin to feed in power from my storage if I have enough. Or, if the price rises high enough, it might make sense for my gas generator to kick in and sell power to the grid. This is not unlike what the utility does when switching on gas turbine “peaking” plants but this is decentralized. Now my generator comes on and I am feeding power to the grid at a profit. Suddenly the utility has found a new source of supply. As the prices rise higher, more demand is cut back from others with similar systems and more decentralized generation is kicking in, in addition to my wind and solar power.

    Once the price drops back below where it pays to run the generator, it shuts off and as the price drops farther and my storage depletes, switch off sending power to the grid and resume my base load draw. The net effect to the utility is that it sees demand ease and supply increase with a rise in price and the opposite as the price falls. I can program my controller to try to keep my monthly bill within a programmed range and the more storage I provide, the easier this becomes. If I have enough storage, I can draw power only at the very cheapest part of the day. The spread of buy and sell price produces some hysteresis so that we don’t have controllers oscillating back and forth rapidly from supplying to drawing power and back again.

    All it takes is using technology we already have in a different way. It requires no special regulatory rules or taxes and it benefits everyone.

    10

    • #

      So, you think you’ve found a way to work your own home’s consumption.

      Now for the 25 TWH for Sydney for a year. (or your home multiplied by 4.5 million)

      Any ideas there?

      Tony.

      10

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      Sounds like much complication !

      Who wants all this crap ???

      People just want to plug in and turn on without all the circus wheels spinning around and bells and alarms ringing !!!
      Not to satisfy eco – medievalists and a planet from warming that hasn’t warmed for nearly 2 decades , and even if it did ,it would be net beneficial !

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF5F6eYho8U

      20

      • #
        crosspatch

        The notion is to have market driven pricing for power. Nobody would be required to have such a system, it would simply be available if one wanted to “load shift” their home to draw power at the cheapest time of day. You could leave things just as they are and draw power on demand, you would just pay more for it when demand is high and less for it when demand is low. This way one could run the air conditioning all day on power purchased at nighttime prices. One wouldn’t need any wind or solar of their own to take advantage of it, just the storage and the controller. Charge up at night when power is cheap and abundant, draw out of storage during the day when power is more expensive. It allows people to save money without any change in lifestyle and make for a more stable grid.

        Ok, imagine a power plant has experienced a failure and must be taken offline unexpectedly during a very hot period when electrical demand is high. The utility can raise the price. At that moment, customers with this sort of system would begin reducing the amount of their draw from the grid freeing up power for others who don’t have such a system and helping stabilize the grid. One mode of operation would be to simply draw a steady amount of power all day long from the grid using the storage to manage demand loads effectively turning the demand load of the home into a steady “base load”. But in the case where the power price unexpectedly rises above a threshold, the system, and potentially thousands of others like it, could back off their charging rate from the grid.

        All of this would require no change in lifestyle. No veganism required. This is simply using technology to better manage draw on the grid and the system would work as a normal demand load home if the controller is switched off. One would be free to ADD their own solar or wind generation to it if they wanted to, but the storage and management of grid draw are the important part.

        00

  • #
    Steve McDonald

    Well,

    If you would have become a legal prosecutor there would be a handful of criminals about.
    I am thankful that you and David have decided not to go for the money with your superior intelligence.

    I am a carer for my wife and financially week to week.

    We want to offer $10 a fortnight to help the evidence of data over propaganda.

    40

  • #

    [...] that wind and solar was the future. This is what is happening inn Spain (not much of a future) What Green Future? Spain adds solar tax, punishes the wind industry, loses “65,000 renewable j… You insisted you green energy and green fuel levies would bring jobs and prosperity. Well Redcar [...]

    00

  • #
    pat

    what a….:

    16 Oct: The Georgia Straight: Charlie Smith: Tim Flannery speaks out on Canada’s election, the insanity of fracking, and reducing gigatonnes of carbon dioxide
    Tim Flannery, author of Atmosphere of Hope and The Weather Makers, made the comment in a wide-ranging interview with the Georgia Straight at Simon Fraser University’s Harbour Centre campus in Vancouver…
    Flannery, an Australian research scientist, was recently honoured with SFU’s annual Jack Blaney Award for Dialogue…
    In the interview, Flannery described Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper as an “identical twin” of recently ousted Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, whom Flannery accused of fomenting fear.
    So what advice does Flannery have for Canadians as they think about casting their ballots on Monday (October 19)?
    “Do it with hope and confidence for the future, not with fear,” he replied.
    He also criticized the notion that burning carbon-spewing natural gas is a “bridge to the future”. That’s because the declining cost of solar power and other renewable forms of energy has changed the financial dynamics.
    “It’s no longer cost-effective anywhere to invest in gas for electricity generation,” Flannery stated. “The renewables are so much cheaper.”…
    You can read the full transcript of the Straight’s interview with Flannery below…
    Georgia Straight: I’m curious to know what impact the departure of Tony Abbott as prime minister has had on Australia’s position with regard to climate change because he was pretty much in the camp of the unwilling.
    Tim Flannery: He was very much in the camp of the unwilling. He and [Stephen] Harper were sort of identical twins as far as that went, you know. But his departure has changed Australia.
    There’s been this collective outlet of breath and this relief. People have relaxed. We’re not talking about enemies and all that sort of stuff anymore. The threat of death cults and all this sort of stuff.
    People are getting on with a much more optimistic future. We had $12.5 billion of government investment stalled in clean tech and innovations because two of the big agencies in Australia were slated to be closed down.
    Thank heavens they’re not going to be closed down anymore under the new leadership. So there’s a huge opportunity there for us.
    We’re just seeing such a more positive approach and so much more action on so many levels. People are willing to engage and invest in a better Australia whereas before, we were driven so much by fear.
    The political agenda was all about fostering fear. And that had a kind of stultifying effect on Australia as a whole…READ ALL
    http://www.straight.com/news/557991/tim-flannery-speaks-out-canadas-election-insanity-fracking-and-reducing-gigatonnes

    20

  • #
    pat

    btw Flannery also says:

    Flannery: India is different. India is starting from a much lower base than China. There were fears for many years that they were going on a China-like trajectory of building more and more coal [-fired power plants].
    That is looking much less likely. [Prime Minister Narendra] Modi has signalled a new direction for India. There’s been a beefed-up solar program there. The costs of renewables are now declining very quickly so that even a place like India can have ambitions to have renewables at scale…

    Flannery should have been given the Blarney Award, not the Blaney Award.

    10