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

Australians don’t want to pay more for Green-power. What was a pitiful 1% of the grid, shrank by half.

What could possibly go wrong? According to badly done, ambiguous surveys, everyone in Australia “loves” green energy, and believes in climate change. But according to actual payments, hardly anyone wants to cough up any cash for it, (unless the government is waving a big stick). Poor Greenpower appears to have gotten its business advice from the ABC, or the CSIRO.

How much of the Australian grid is voluntarily green? Would that be 28% (our target for 2030)? Nope. It’s not even five percent. Instead a mere one electron in every 200 is voluntarily “green”. It’s a pathetic half a percent.

All Australians are free to pay an extra 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt to get their energy “green” from GreenPower. But even at the height of the 2008 -Gore-Rudd era only 1% of all the electricity was bought up by green consumers willing to voluntarily pay more for “clean” energy. Since then, though the volunteers have left in droves.

But I’m sure the Greens are happy. They always wanted a free market solution.

Speaking of free markets, I say let’s have more. How about we allow people the choice to buy dirty energy too.  I want pure coal fired electrons delivered direct, and I’m willing to pay for it. ;-)   (How does 10 cents per KWhr sound? )

Climate change fatigue, cost hits renewable GreenPower scheme

The Australian

A scheme under which people volunteer to pay more for renewable energy is losing customers and sales as the price of a green conscience rises dramatically.

GreenPower, a scheme run by state governments in which people and businesses pay more for their power to buy non-fossil-fuel electricity, has been hit by up to a 40 per cent increase in cost as retailers pass on the rising price of large-scale renewable energy certificates.

Retailers have increased their prices for GreenPower, ranging from 5.23c to 6.6c per kWh.

The scheme has gone from more than 900,000 customers in 2008 who bought about 1 per cent of total generation to just over 500,000 who bought just 0.6 per cent of all the electricity generated in 2013.  Since, sales have dropped a further 21 per cent.

 Some will say that the massive uptake of solar panels is voluntary green power, but without the government payments forced from taxpayers, how many solar panels would have been “voluntarily” bought?

In this case, a UTS researcher doesn’t even see any difference between paying more, or taking more:

A report by UTS’s Institute of Sustainable Futures for the NSW Department of Resources and Energy — which administers the scheme on behalf of all the states — said the rise in roof- top solar panels had contributed to the demise of GreenPower. “It seems that once customers have ‘done their bit’ by paying for solar PV, they no longer see the need to pay extra for GreenPower.”

People aren’t getting solar to “do their bit”. They choose solar because the government was paying them too. Or more accurately, they choose solar because it’s the only way out of paying exorbitant electricity prices in a market managed by bureucrats.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (107 votes cast)
Australians don't want to pay more for Green-power. What was a pitiful 1% of the grid, shrank by half., 9.2 out of 10 based on 107 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hux6xd3

177 comments to Australians don’t want to pay more for Green-power. What was a pitiful 1% of the grid, shrank by half.

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    Perhaps Australians have realized that fossil fuels are actually greener than renewables?

    761

    • #
      AndyG55

      Top Comment, Colin….. and OH SO TRUE . :-)

      210

      • #

        seriously. People have just “realised” something and acted on that realisation? How did they come to “realise”, in a dream, while drinking, walking the dog, watching the cricket? That comment out nothinged even my best efforts.

        137

        • #
          ianl8888


          That comment out nothinged even my best efforts

          You’re way too modest …

          But practical, economic applied science/engineering resolutions to the power supply issue are really difficult, aren’t they ?

          And the greenies/MSM have avoided hard, direct debate on this issue for decades, for exactly that reason

          Pathos, by definition

          261

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor leaf-brain, your best efforts are basically nothing but empty, like the one you just made.

          His is full of common sense.. maybe you should go looking for some, one of these days.

          122

        • #
          david smith

          What are you on about?
          Or to put it another way: what are you on?

          142

        • #
          Dennis

          Don’t know about people but it would be good if you realised something.

          30

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          GA. You clearly don’t have a sense of the sarcastic, or of humour, for that matter.

          50

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Tract, are you interpreting “realized” as a synonym for manifested and objectified ?

          20

        • #
          Reed Coray

          I’m from the US. Before all this CO2 induced AGW nonsense, when people in the US used the word “green” they often meant it in the sense of money–as in greenbacks, which is slang for US paper money. So in light of the theme of Joanne’s post–i.e., people appear to be unwilling to back their “green” (in the energy sense) beliefs with their “green” (in the money sense) beliefs–when CH writes: “Perhaps Australians have realized that fossil fuels are actually greener than renewables?” he’s subtly implying that relative to Australia’s energy grid, for most Australians money trumps ideals.

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            “for most Australians money trumps ideals.”

            For most Australians money trumps FALSE ideals.

            Once this AGW farce is over, the very idea of restricting CO2 emissions will be viewed as a monumentally stupid idea.

            CO2 is currently a low levels in the atmosphere, significantly more is needed if we are going to feed an ever increasing world population.

            81

            • #
              AndyG55

              Heck, its even quite probable that we will looking for way of increasing our atmospheric CO2, like they do in real greenhouses.

              71

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              I just hope I’m still alive when they put forward the Australian class action against whoever perpetrated this upon the people (by force and backed by authority). I want to put my name on that piece of paper.

              I fear that like the Stolen Generation and so many other examples, we may be waiting a very long time for fair compensation for their enforced stupidity.

              20

        • #
          Dave

          .

          Geeaye

          “out nothinged”

          ????

          What in the world are you talking about?
          Hope you’re not an English Teacher, Scientist etc

          That whole rant is about NOTHING!

          50

    • #
      PeterS

      Perhaps Colin, but not so for our politicians of all sides, especially Turnbull. I doubt he even cares about what the people of Australia think about all this. He’s in it for the tax dollars, not for any misguided or deluded dream about controlling the climate.

      121

    • #
      spangled drongo

      Yes, Colin. If only they would do an honest audit of these green schemes the world might actually find out.

      Where’s Bjorn when we need him?

      Oh, that’s right, we can’t indulge in facts.

      180

      • #
        PeterS

        Any honest audit would not fly today. Perhaps in years or decades to come. If it did happen today too many top people in government, opposition and elsewhere would end up behind bars. So it won’t happen for some time. In fact it would make the recent Royal Commission on Trade Unions look insignificant and petty.

        90

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        G’day Spangled,
        This morning I read something from Bjorn and think his article would please you. Unfortunately I didn’t keep the reference, but may be able to find it again. Will try. (It may have ben pointed to from within this site…) Ah, for a good memory.
        Cheers,
        Dave B

        10

  • #

    It’s not fair. Don’t you want to pay exorbitant prices for electricity to feed the green monster like I have to? Perhaps you have fewer people with mush for brains than we have here. In California its not as bad as Germany, but between expensive gas blends, high energy costs and oppressive taxes, I’m thinking of moving to Nevada!

    391

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I’m thinking of moving to Nevada!

      That is so sad … ;-(

      00

    • #

      co2isnotevil,

      well, if you do move across to Nevada, at least you’ll be closer to the source of most of California’s renewable energy supplies, that huge hydro plant at Hoover Dam, in Nevada.

      At least that’s one renewable power plant which lasts longer than the 15 to the hoped for 25 years of those other renewables.

      Hoover Dam hydro opened in 1939, so that’s, umm, 77 years and still going strong.

      The Francis turbines were all replaced in 1986 through 1993, so they got almost 50 years out of them. The generators are still the same though, seventeen of them for a total Nameplate of 2080MW.

      Average Power delivery is 4.2TWH. Highest yearly total was 10.4TWH, and the lowest was 2.7TWH.

      With 8 Units on the Nevada side and 9 units on the Arizona side, 56% of all generated power is delivered into California, 25% to Nevada and 19% to Arizona.

      Ho hum, and the renewables of choice are the ones which can only dream of lasting as long as this.

      Tony.

      170

      • #

        Yes, I will need this to run the air conditioning. Nevada power is less than 10 cents per KWW, while I’m currently paying more than 30 cents per incremental KWH and average well over 20. Even the so called ‘lifeline’ rate is about 16 cents per KWH. The future looks dark for California because as NV and AZ grow, they will want to keep more of this cheap power to themselves and let CA depend on its bird killing windmills.

        The ecological damage from the required rare earth metals is limited to China, so that seems acceptable and this logic also applies to the many fools deluded into buying a Prius by thinking they are ‘saving the world’. Don’t know whether its the cars or the drivers, but at least if I need to merge into heavy traffic, there’s always a Prius with too much space in front of it.

        The idiots at the Sierra club are actively trying to get existing dams drained as they oppose all hydroelectric projects. They also got the government to overreach and shut down access to one of my favorite places in the Sierra mountains because some stupid frog might get run over as they cross a dirt road (if you could call it a road) that handles at most a dozen vehicles a day at a maximum speed of about 10 MPH.

        As I said before, there are a lot of people here with mush for brains.

        60

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          co2isnotevil
          You might find this article somewhat scary. I certainly do.
          It is not difficult to surmise that the Chinese strategy is to essentially disarm its potential enemies through attrition.

          00

          • #

            Rod,

            Yes, China’s dominance in rare earth metals is troublesome and has been for some time. This arose by pricing them without regard to environmental costs, while the cost to mine in the US includes significant cleanup, reclamation and regulatory costs. China’s prices are catching up, but mostly for profit and not due to environmental or bureaucratic concerns. I believe there’s one new rare earth mine operating in the US, but I don’t think its quite cost competitive.

            The amount the military needs is relatively small compared to what goes into windmills and electric/hybrid cars. Disk drives are also a big user, but as they are replaced by SSD’s, rare earth magnets are no longer required. If the military is ever squeezed, we do have a ready stock of windmills and hybrid cars to part out, so all is not lost.

            00

  • #

    Clearly, all that free energy that was thought to be abundantly available is not so free after all. It must be an evil plot on the part of the fossil fuel cartel to insist on the three laws of thermodynamics be followed. If the fossil fuel cartel only cooperate and permit the wind, sun, and synfuels to be collected and delivered at no cost with 100% efficiency, then the green dream could be realized.

    As it is, it costs a huge amount just to collect a small fraction of the available “free” energy. Then it costs even more to deliver it to the point of use. Even worse, every step in the process, the energy out is a small fraction of the energy in. It is all because of the insistence that the pesky three laws of thermodynamics be followed.

    The curious thing about laws and the green dream. The laws dreamed up by them are supposed to be universal and immutable while the laws of reality are arbitrary matters of opinion to be dismissed with a wave of the hand. Perhaps what this story is telling us is that it is the laws of reality that are universal, immutable, and self enforcing and the laws of man are arbitrary, ephemeral, and must be enforced by brute force of Government. Even then, if the laws of man are contrary to ANY law of reality, it cannot be enforced no matter how many guns, tanks, boots on the ground, whips, knives, and clubs are used to enforce them.

    Follow the laws of reality and live, become productive, and thrive. Try to force laws of man counter to the laws of reality, the cost is poverty, suffering, death, and destruction. The green dream becomes a green nightmare. The evidence that this is so is abundantly available and has been for hundreds of thousands of years. Yet, once again, we have a horde who’s wishes and whims are to be made the law of the land. The enforcement of which never ends well.

    521

    • #

      Don’t forget about the fossil fuel driven spinning reserve that’s required for when the wind dies or a cloud passes by. It’s really expensive to keep a fossil fuel plant hot when its not actually delivering power!

      371

    • #
      Rico L

      It is the same as catching your own fish to eat for free. You just need to buy the fishing gear and pay for the permit ;) .

      110

    • #
      ralph ellis

      Hey – this is Green economics.

      Oil is free, its just there in the ground.
      Coal is free, its just there in the ground.
      Water is free, its just falls from the sky.
      Wood is free, its just grows in the forest.

      It must be live in a child’s world, with no ‘orrible realities to contend with.

      R

      40

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Nobody want’s to pay more for green energy….Except for the British of course. The British would love to pay more for green energy. And have power cuts too….Really.

    Trust me, I’m a Beagle.

    Happy New Year Jonova blog.

    https://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/showtime-2016/

    410

  • #
    handjive

    The increase was so steep, northern NSW resident Russell Mills was sure there had been a mistake.

    “I did the maths very quickly and it came up as a 41 per cent increase.

    I thought that’s substantial, am I missing something?” he said.

    “There was nothing in the letter explaining the rationale for it, so I rang them and I spoke to three different people who could tell me no more, just that it was due to changes in renewable energy prices.”

    In Mr Mills’ case, the 41 per cent increase would equate to an extra $77 each year.

    210

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      He uses 1568 kWh a year or 14.1 kWh per day. His total bill isn’t listed but I would guess he was paying an extra 11.8% for “green electricity” and was asked to pay a premium of 18.6%. That was for 10% “green electricity”.

      If he had elected to get 100% “green electricity” his annual bill would more than double (so what’s another $2000 a year).
      Even then he’d only be paying approx. 77¢ per kWh because the rest of us would be subsidising him. “Green electricity” starts around $1.20, so work out how much more you would be paying if Hunt were to get his dream.

      100

      • #
        Dennis

        Don’t forget Shorten and his Labor colleagues, they have an even bigger plan. They don’t know why or what it is, but it has to be bigger.

        60

  • #
    michael hart

    Actually, I’m pleasantly surprised to learn that there is a scheme that allows any choice about buying into (or out of) a green scheme. Coercion is normally the order of the day.

    The results of giving the consumers a real choice in the matter is, of course, a forgone conclusion.

    190

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      The bizarre thing is, all power comes down the same wire. The distribution of the power is at the pick-up point, not the source point. They’re paying for power, but have no control over where that particular piece of power comes from.

      220

      • #
        Dennis

        But the providers are able to offer pay on time discounts of up to 22%. I remember when 2.5% settlement was considered reasonable. How can they do it? Easy, charge renewable energy rates for all electricity and buy most of it from coal fired power stations. Lots of margin to play with.

        60

        • #
          Peter C

          Very good point Dennis.

          I recently changed my power company to get a 25% discount for one year. About 4% for on time bonus.

          Then I changed back again because my first company came back with 35% discount for the first year and the 25% for the second year! And I have already had 3 months out of the second company at 25% off!

          I am not sure how long this can go on.

          20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Another bizarre thing is that every point of generation on the grid has to be syncronised in terms of mains frequency – 50 Hertz in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK – and 60Hz in the US. Electric clocks (and life support systems in hospitals) rely on that frequency for accuracy.

        When you have a dozen or so Hydro, coal, or gas generation plants, they can be syncronised reasonably easily. But when you have hundreds of windmills, and thousands of home solar panels, the system has the potential to get very noisy, if it is not well maintained.

        80

        • #
          Reed Coray

          Rereke, your discussion of “synchronized” explicitly mentioned “frequency.” Do you know if it’s also true that the energy must be synchronized with respect to “phase?” That is, at the point of injection into the grid, must the 50 Hz voltage being added to the grid be in phase (peak at the same time) with the voltage already on the grid?

          30

        • #

          Windmills and PV generate DC and modern electronics do a good job of turning this into AC matching frequency and phase to the grid by generating an output sine wave slightly advanced to the line phase. Of course, this depends on large suppliers being synchronized independently of small sources. If the grid was driven by only small independent sources, line frequency and phase has the potential to become chaotic.

          40

  • #
    Manfred

    Australians don’t want to pay more for Green-power.

    …because they’re not duped by the Green snake charmer dirge ‘save the planet’, even when backed by a full Government orchestra of talented bureaucrats.

    Given the innumerable surveys tracking the uptake of roof-top solar, is anyone aware of any follow-up surveys of solar power users ‘satisfaction’ a year or more after installation? How long does it take ‘believers’ to fall from grace?

    280

  • #
    Peter C

    My parents succumbed recently to a solar panels salesman and had a set of 8 panels installed.on their garage roof. They live in Geelong.
    The siting of the panels is not ideal. On a cloudless day in late December the panels produced 5kWh. More usually the panels produce about 300W ( say 2kWh/day). At the feedin tariff of 6c/kWh they are getting about 30c back per day on the very good days. If they used the power themselves it would be worth about $1.25/day on the best days, probably nearer 50c when averaged over the year. However they actually use most of their power after dark, for cooking lighting, heating and the TV, so there is no benefit to them.

    If they move, their house will probably be demolished, so the service life of the panels may be about 5 years.

    Meantime the solar panel company is happily counting their carbon credits. What happens to the credits when the company goes out of existence, which I am sure is inevitable?

    291

    • #
      Manfred

      Peter C, I am haunted by the thought of those acres of subsidised solar panels on roofs, all relentlessly heading toward the inevitable day when they are hopelessly inefficient, perhaps 15 years after installation. Those that thought they saw ‘free’ electricity may have finally paid off the capital cost of the installation.

      When they put their houses up for sale, I’ll wager that they have not considered the likely possibility of being requested to remove all the inefficient roof top PV junk or at the very least replace it with new panels before by any informed buyer exercising due diligence.

      200

    • #
      Bobl

      It goes to pay a few solar installers then it goes to one of (in order of amount) the government, a bank or Woolworths/ Coles. A fraction of it goes elsewhere but it’s only a fraction, which is essentially why this country is as far up the creek that it is.

      PS remembering also that your major utility bills, energy, water, and sometimes gas, come from a government masquerading behind a business front. ( a GBE)

      92

    • #

      Keep in mind that the government subsidy for installation “requires” the owner to keep the system operational for 15 years; because the subsidy is based on the notional “savings” of CO2 emissions over 15 years.

      120

      • #
        Peter C

        Interesting Bernd,

        The government subsidy assumes a life of 15 years, but who is responsible to keep the system operational? The owner or the recipient of the subsidy (ie installer).

        20

        • #

          This is untested territory, AFAICT.

          Legally, the buyer of the system receives the subsidy and passes that on to the installer.

          IANAL (I am not a lawyer) but I suspect that the responsibility for performance rests with the buyer. The installer’s responsibility is to make sure that they’ve ticked all the boxes (appropriately).

          If, after e.g. 5 years the inverter is toast and out of warranty, then the owner of the system would have to pay in full for a new one. If they don’t, then those who’ve “bought” the generating capacity through the phoney money system of subsidies and carbon credits, may have recourse for compensation. The subsidies paid are for the notional emissions avoided in the “useful” life of the installation.

          Nobody appears to audit these things in Australia. Least of all any government that has set up the system of phoney money. It seems that it’s all taken on trust that all the equipment is operating within nominal specifications for 15 years.

          There may be riots if e.g. Western Power or one of the other buyers of the certificates created by installation of the systems, proceeds with a systematic audit; if they can identify which premises are concerned. Odds are; it’ll be impossible.

          P.S. With 40+°C in the shade around Perth today, inverters may well have shut down to protect themselves; especially where there’s not a good, fresh airflow available. Many, being designed for Alaskan Northern European conditions, have nominal operating temperatures of up to 40°C. But their operating environment determines when exactly their cooling fans can no longer prevent the internals from getting any hotter.

          00

    • #
      Dennis

      The directors hope that the shareholders don’t ask that question.

      30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Does anyone actually check to see panels or other devices that collect carbon credits are still in use? I once got a bunch of devices free from a door to door guy which remotely turn tv/dvd/etc off all at once to supposedly save power. The were free because they collected carbon credits for the company. They were useless for me however and I gave them to a charity shop. There is no certainty they are still in use but the company will still be collecting carbon credits.

      50

  • #
    Scott L

    Hi Jo,

    I cant remember where exactly on Facebook ( I know its not known for accuracy) but there was a post saying electricity from roof top solar panels in Perth had become the highest source of electricity. I will try to find it to get a link.

    its times like these you want to share a post on Facebook with Tony from Oz for his comments.

    Happy New Year Jo David and all.

    70

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I had the radio on in my workshop the other day and some Gomer was being interviewed on their ABC. He maintained that rooftop solar in WA now exceeds 500 MW. Of course there was no interjection from the interviewer as to whether that is installed capacity or actual delivery. That would be too factual for Australia’s Broadcast Con.

      170

    • #
      Alice Thermopolis

      Scott

      Here it is FYI: http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/rooftop-solar-wa-em5277/

      Rooftop Solar Now Western Australia’s “Biggest Power Station”
      January 5, 2016Energy Matters
      home solar power Perth

      It’s been reported Western Australia’s largest power station is represented by the many thousands of households and businesses with solar panels installed.

      In a great example of power to, by and for the people; research from Curtin University indicates 500 MW of installed solar capacity in Western Australia’s South West Interconnected System (SWIS), which incorporates Perth.

      Figures published by Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator current at December 1 show more than 192,000 solar power systems installed throughout the state.

      Two postcode regions in Western Australia featured in Australia’s top ten solar postcodes in December. The 6210 postcode (Mandurah area) boasted 9,070 solar arrays with a collective capacity of 21,159.529 kW. The 6065 postcode (Wangara area) had 6,299 systems for a total capacity of 17,819.314 kW.

      Approximately 1,750 residential solar energy systems were installed each month on the SWIS last year. Curtin University sustainability professor Peter Newman says solar installations could grow from 20 per cent of homes across the south west grid currently to half of households by 2020.

      It seems WA’s utilities didn’t see the solar electricity revolution coming until it was too late.

      “They didn’t predict it, they have all these contracts for coal and gas that go 20 or 30 years and they have even got an old power station out of mothballs, fixed it up, but never turned it on,” said Professor Newman.

      50

    • #

      Sometimes, I like to watch the responses at comments like this and see how many others are becoming a little more informed about rooftop solar power.

      This (ABC) article again was, umm, loose with the truth, again only quoting Nameplate.

      This Nameplate may be (around) 500MW in absolute total, but the power it actually provides is minimal at best.

      While the average Capacity Factor (CF) for (some, depending on where they are located) large scale commercial PV plants might actually be around 16%, the average for rooftop systems is barely (year round, the Industry Standard) 13%.

      So where you see here that the Rooftop Nameplate may be 500MW, then the year round average comes in at around 65MW, and as the homes themselves consume around two thirds of that power, then what is fed back to the grid is closer to only 20MW, and hey, that effectively makes it the equal of perhaps the SMALLEST generator in the State.

      That absolute maximum of 500MW is NEVER, (and how can I accentuate that even more, NEVER) achieved.

      The absolute maximum solar PV can achieve is around 90% of its maximum, so even then it’s only 450 MW.

      However, that absolute maximum is perhaps for barely 15 minutes at the best, on the best of the mid Summer days with no overcast. Even at its absolute best, no overcast at all during the day, the CF is only 53%, and that’s just FOR THE PERIOD of daylight alone, perhaps 14 hours at most, so now we are down to 265MW, with perhaps now 100MW being fed back to the grid, if that much even then.

      Some green urgers say that I just make this stuff up, but hey, look at this link from the large array at UQ in Brisbane.

      Power Generated UQ Solar

      Now at the right of the graph are details of best generation.

      Note Nameplate total and then Peak Power Day, around 90%, and then Best Energy Day, around 53%.

      At the right you can select any day, and it’s an insight to look at many of those days to get an idea of what is being generated, and how (on good days) the graph rises and falls in a manner similar to a sine wave pattern.

      Note on some days the sharp and immediate drop off with the advent of cloud, a vertical negative spike in fact. You’ll see some good days, and some really bad days. Note the time scale along the bottom referring to both Summer and Winter and how the vertical scale also changes to reflect different values.

      This is indicative of ….. ALL solar panel arrays, no matter where they are.

      Keep in mind this array is probably better than most as it is partly articulated to follow the Sun across the sky, hence it has a slightly larger CF than for ordinary non movable rooftop systems.

      I don’t need to make this stuff up. These people very cleverly advertise what they do, and do it with pride, relying on the fact that very few people can understand how poor these things really are at supplying levels of power required.

      Now keep in mind back up this comment when I mentioned that the WA total on a best day manages an absolute best case summer day no cloud total of an average of 265MW for 14 hours. Well that coal fired plant of an equivalent 500MW supplied its FULL 500MW for as long as the coal was being fed in. Not 500MW at a CF of 53% for 14 hours but 500MW at 100% for most probably many many days of 24 hours each day.

      There is no comparison, unless you tell it to the ABC with your fingers crossed behind your back that is.

      Tony.

      181

      • #
        Uncle Fred

        At the moment Tasmania is completely reliant on unreliable renewables.
        With TVPS in storage and the Bass Link buggered, there is only hydro and wind.
        Great Lake is down to 14%, and Lake Gordon 6%. Hydro used all the water during the great carbon tax swindle.
        The wind is pretty quiet. The run of river stations are dead in the water.
        IMHO, unless they rotate TVPS rather soon, there is little alternative to brownouts and blackouts.
        But then the “official” line is a very formal bureaucratic “No worries. She’ll be right, mate”.

        130

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Uncle Fred:

          whereas at the latter half of this year we in S.A. will be relying on wind and…wind. We are told that we have a fully renewable supply from the Premier’s mouth, but it turns out all we are getting puffs of hot air. And he is one of the more intelligent members of the State Cabinet. (Google image of Bernard Finnegan [before his conviction]).

          At least you can hope for some rain soon.

          30

        • #
          Robert O

          Same sort of scenario in 1963?, no water in the Great Lake and the Gordon scheme in planning stages only and BassLink didn’t exist. They brought in a diesel electric ship and tied it up to the Al. smelter, plus a few other measures, no street lights, no Neons, daylight saving…

          Before they started trading peak Hydro power, the concept was to run the river power stations in the winter and build-up the dam levels for use over Summer.

          It’s only early January and everybody should know there will not be much rain before May or June at the earliest. Perhaps they could put in a coal station near Fingal, it has been talked about on occasions.

          40

          • #
            Uncle Fred

            My understanding is that when the cursed Brown shut down the Franklin Dam, he was advocating just that. Electricity should be supplied with Fingal coal rather than Gordon River Hydro.
            That was before Maurice Strong started the rumour that CO2 was evil.
            As for diesel electric ships and the like; beneath the mantle of calm at Hydro all sorts of similar nonsense is being considered.
            The real problems are IMHO are:
            a) Government involved in running the electricity business, or any business
            b) The economic distortion created by a certain red headed clown a few years ago that preached that “the Science is settled”.

            10

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day Scott,
      I read the ABC article at:

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-04/rooftop-solar-panels-bigger-than-biggest-turbine-wa/7066240

      I was, and am, sure it was obfuscation of a grand order, but needed Tony’s post (above) to be certain. I gather from Rod’s comment (also above) that the reporting was accurate, but unquestioning.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      50

  • #
    Robert O

    The points that the green energy industry and politicians never seem to mention are that:
    a. Their projected production figures are vastly over-exaggerated, e.g. the AGL solar farms at Broken Hill and Nyngan, a 26% capacity factor: Minister Hunt’s win/win scenario, whereas 16-17% is more realistic,
    b. What is the cost of keeping stand-by facilities on line, oil/gas/coal/diesel/wood, for the other 75-85% of the time when the sun doesn’t shine and there is no wind,
    c. If the coal stations are being phased-out, where is the required energy going to come from for pie-in-the sky policies such as Labor’s 50% renewable by 2030 ?

    220

    • #
      Bobl

      Capacity factor is generation, but we must learn to talk about reliable delivery, reliable delivery is only 2.5% of nameplate for solar. Not one kg is ever saved unless substitute energy is delivered at a reliability level close to grid. That’s around 99.96% availability. A 200watt solar panel delivers 5 watts on that basis

      90

      • #
        Robert O

        I think Tony mentioned that not a lot of surplus solar PV goes anywhere; the pollies are talking about all this nameplate capacity contributing to the total supply whereas in fact you say it’s only 2.5% which is nothing.

        20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          The surplus power generated by rooftop PV panels is used within the local area (downstream of the last breakdown transformer). If you have PV solar check the output on a sunny day and watch the voltage climb to 255V as it tries to force the electricity into the system. (Beyond that the controller shuts down).
          So the less the panels in your area the better chance you have of getting rid of your surplus output, and if everyone had grid connected solar panels there would be no no export of any surplus and no feed-in tariff as a way of reducing the cost to the owner.

          40

    • #
      toorightmate

      WHO SAID “CAPACITY FACTOR?”

      Go and wash your mouth out with soap.

      70

  • #
    grahamd

    Yes it is pathetic, when the cost of so called green energy is increasing household bills, and creating financial hardship for many Australian families and for what? And I thought, we suddenly seen the light, a glimmer of hope that was snuffed out and replaced by an innovative force, and so the force field reversed yet once again. (I am sure David could provide a mathematical model for this?) Tragically, we do have many delusional supporter for subsidized power, one being our own environment minister Greg Hunt, who, in his December e-news makes a statement like this ..
    (sic) Australia is playing its part in tackling climate change without hiking up electricity prices for Australian families (EQ)

    180

  • #
    thingadonta

    So green energy in this case is like a charity, requiring feel-good donations. Throwing money at a charity doesn’t automatically make it market competitive, and no government is currently willing to go much further and ban or tax-out of existence existing energy which is the only way such ‘charity energy’ will be competitive.

    130

    • #
      Originalsteve

      Charities are run on voluntary donations.

      Truth be told, if we could prove that the eco-lunacy is in fact a religion, we could argue for separation of church and state and sue accordingly.

      80

  • #
    Robber

    We are all paying for Green Power. Latest numbers I saw said that 8% of our electricity bills are due to environmental policies http://www.aemc.gov.au/Major-Pages/Price-trends
    And even that “reliable” source the ABC Fact Checker, in reporting that Alan Jones made a big mistake in saying that coal fired power costs $79/KWh and wind $1502/Kwh, actually then reported that coal fired power costs $79-91/MWh, wind $150-214/MWh, and 5MW solar systems $400-473/MWh.
    When the Victorian Desal plant was announced, the then Premier assured everyone that it would be using wind power – but the plant has been mothballed since day 1 because the rains came to break the drought. Our water bills are about $500/year higher just to pay for the sunk costs, so who knows how much we would be paying if ir was operational.

    160

  • #
    Neville

    Bjorn Lomborg estimates just 0.4% of global energy comes from solar and wind and the optimistic projections by 2040 forecast just 2.2%. In other words it’s all BS and nonsense. Here’s his quote from his recent PR study on the COP 21 fraud.

    ” Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C. ”

    Here’s the study——————http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    150

    • #
      Allen Ford

      No wonder, then, that academe pressured the government to can Bjorn’s you beaut study centre!

      On another note, if “just 0.4% of global energy [currently]comes from solar and wind … [and] even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040″, then just where does Labor’s ludicrous 50% renewable by 2030 come from?

      100

      • #
        Bobl

        It’s political double speak, what short on everything meant is that he will install a nameplate capacity equivalent to 50% of existing demand by 2030. He can then point at a nameplate success and ignore the fact that it only supplies 5% of demand.

        It’s a multi-trillion dollar political vote scoring exercise, much like the Rudd Napkin scratched NBN. The only difference is that the NBN is actually useful for its stated purpose even if it’s not economic, while green power is completely useless for the stated propose of taming the weather and in the case of wind actually leads to more emissions due to deforestation.

        That’s not to say solar and wind backed by an electric start generator are not useful at the household level, they are, and soon it will be possible to off grid yourself and actually save money thanks to green power costs and government greed ( increasing government dividends from energy GBEs). But you will still sacrifice reliability.

        80

        • #
          ianl8888


          But you will still sacrifice reliability

          Particularly on windless nights

          This Noble Cause Corruption insanity is simply beyond rational comprehension. It is now easy to understand how the madness of the Inquisition became so widespread and persisted for so long

          90

          • #
            bobl

            Um, how exactly are windless nights going to make your off grid supply more unreliable if as I wrote you have an auto start generator backing up your renewables? I say it’s unreliable because there are hard limits to the current you can draw, and because a domestic generator isn’t as reliable as a properly maintained coal or gas fired turbine. It’s still gonna be streets better than pure renewables, certainly good enough for a well managed domestic installation.

            20

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    Honey, I shrank the grid…

    130

  • #

    The recent spate of wastage of money in Australia by governments has been so great that the pool of cash available to draw in more Green Power Users is severely limited. People are short of the necessary cash to support Green flights of fancy.
    For all Green Power generation schemes the projected production figures based on nameplate capacity and not on actual running capacity which is more like 16-17% of nameplate capacity.
    Unless the sun shines at night and wind constantly blows, stand-by facilities are required to be on line to pick up the slack. These will be reliable gas/coal/diesel for the other 75% of the time.
    If the normal coal/gas/oil stations are ever phased-out, there will be widespread blackouts followed by angry riots of power users. By 2030 the new temperature descent into a Little Ice Age will be upon us and dreams of anything but cheap heating will be annihilated. Greens meet Reality.

    160

    • #
      Turbine

      Nicholas, “Unless the sun shines at night”, reminds me of an incidence a few years ago where some enterprising residents of Lakemba (say no more) had rigged some floodlights on their roof to provide a light source for the PV arrays at night.
      The fact that they had no idea of the comparative costs/benefits of this arrangement make me shudder to think of any of these idiots becoming members of parliament in the future.

      50

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Turbine, Lakemba must be the USA’s equivalent of Rio Linda, California. If the “floodlight” scheme worked, the citizens of Lakemba should be awarded the Nobel Prize, for Physics not for Peace, because they would have made the first Perpetual Motion Machine in the history of mankind. Maybe Mikey Mann can claim a second Nobel Prize?

        20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo Around this subject

    Check the comment by

    “Jan 5, 2016 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered Commenter Doug Procttor”

    at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/1/5/the-inner-duce.html#comments

    30

  • #
    Originalsteve

    I noticed in an advert brochure for WOMADeladie festival as supplied in The A***rali*n newspaper, they have some climate change group hug session – Dr Kurl in his fancy red spotted shirt was there, and reading the list it was like a Q&A panel invitation list and anyone else they could have rounded up from the nearest “greenies-r-us” branch office….sad but true….

    90

  • #
    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Tom,
      I guess red thumb didn’t like the pictures being circulated.
      Cheers,
      D

      20

  • #
    Robert O

    I put a 3 KW PV system on the roof simply to reduce my power bill which isn’t that big, nothing to do with saving the planet. And I try to use the system as much as possible in the daytime with delays on the dishwasher and washing machine. Living alone I use very little power and hardly ever use the A/C. Fans are good and use little power.

    For 2015 my power figures were:
    Grid electricity used 1341 KWh
    Solar production 4311 KWh
    Solar to grid 3445 KWh
    Solar used 866 KWh.

    For practical purposes the system is only producing significant power between 10.30 am and 4.30 pm., and the best day’s production is around 18 KWh. At the moment with clear skies it’s doing about 16 KWh with tnhe sun nearly vertical at midday (17 degrees N) but apparently production is greater when temperatures are lower.

    110

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘… apparently production is greater when temperatures are lower.’

      This is not good news in a warming world.

      The snake oil solar providers ring me at least once a week and I tell them global warming is hocus pocus and I want nothing to do with any of this nonsense.

      Delingpole says its time to take off the gloves and I concur, especially if the enemy has a foot in my front door.

      101

    • #
      Peter C

      Good work Robert. You are walking the walk.

      It is a pity that you cannot use more of your own home grown power. You are still sending 3445kWh to the grid every year that you should be using at home. What about using your air conditioner a bit more. The fans aren’t using enough.

      Is there some appliance that you could use that only comes on when the polar cells are producing power?

      41

      • #
        Peter C

        Robert,

        Could you answer this. Do you get charged for the electricity that you use from the grid, 1341kWh, or do you pay only for the net use (ie negative in your case)?

        10

        • #
          Robert O

          I pay 22.238 cents per KWh of grid power, and get a rebate of 6.348 cents per KWh for the Solar PV surplus. I also pay a service fee which usually exceeds the cost of the power I consume; my most recent bill was for $118, a $66 rebate for Solar PV, $71 for power used and a service fee of $112.

          20

  • #
    pat

    Redflow’s Smith on their zinc bromide(aka bromine) battery. it’s an energy battery, not a power battery says Smith, provides energy through the night…costs $8,000 per battery with 10-year warranty, which is what he’s suggesting for the poor in Africa! BBC’s Butler assists with suggestion price could halve in a few years:

    AUDIO: 11mins-14mins: 5 Jan: BBC Business Daily with Ed Butler: Oil Wars: A Thing of the Past?
    Also, we hear from Australian entrepreneur Stuart Smith, CEO of Redflow, who reckons he has developed the perfect battery for Africa. He says it will leapfrog the grid and help people in poor, hot countries to extend their solar power supply through the night.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03d52m8

    ***things that make you smile!

    May 2014: ProactiveInvestors: RedFlow supplies zinc bromine batteries for telecommunications applications
    RedFlow has signed a supply agreement with Philippines based SMS Global Technologies that could lead to further orders for its zinc bromine (ZBM) flow batteries.
    ***The company produces a unique zinc‐bromide flow battery developed from technology initially pioneered by Exxon…
    http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/54717/redflow-supplies-zinc-bromine-batteries-for-telecommunications-applications-54717.html

    50

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      Everything in the Green world is ‘could’, ‘might’, ‘possibly’, ‘has the potential to’

      The world’s poor can’t eat maybes and mights.

      As the old saying has it: “If ifs and ans* were pots and pans, there’d be no need for tinkers.”

      * Old English word for ‘if’

      90

  • #

    Now for the latest in indoctrination techniques for green power, CAGW et al

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/01/we-need-a-famin-13.html

    and link

    40

  • #
    jpm

    The government should paint the coal green and make it acceptable to the environmentalists or should that be mentally deficient.
    Some years ago at one of Canberra’s stadiums when a big international game was coming up and the grass was in very poor shape, very brown, they painted it green for the occasion. I don’t see why the same shouldn’t work with coal and it would be win win. We would have cheap reliable electricity and you could claim that it was green.
    John

    90

    • #
      Peter C

      Why didn’t they empty lake Burley-Griffen and water the grass instead?

      10

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Oh Peter, you’ll never make an environmentalist.

        Why use clean uncontaminated water which will make the grass GROW, when you can paint it green with a petroleum based product and kill it off altogether?

        00

  • #
    pat

    Redflow’s Executive Chairman, Simon Hackett, (founder of Internode & Turnbull-appointed Director of NBN) is a long-time darling of “their ABC”, promoting one “green” thing or another.
    if the following is an abridged version, I’d hate to think how long it was originally:

    2009: Internode blog: Global Green Challenge notes, Simon Hackett interview, ABC 891
    This is an abridged version of the interview that was broadcast on ABC 891 after 2.30pm on Monday, October 19, 2009.
    Simon Hackett: So what we’re saying is, imagine a world where people have put the recharging infrastructure out there. And companies like ***Better Place, an Israeli company, are actually going start doing that in .. Australia in the next couple of years. Given that recharging infrastructure is available, can the cars cut it?…
    ABC’s Sonya Feldhoff: Imagine we’re 10 years down the track, 20 years down the track, would this be like a petrol station? We would have recharging facilities at various substations.
    Simon Hackett: Yeah, just like a petrol station…This interesting Israeli company is doing this. And they’ll put charging stations in your house and in your office, but more importantly if you’re really caught short, they’ll be building a network of battery-swapping points. So the cars that’re going to use this will literally have the batteries under the belly of the car and we drive to the equivalent of
    a McDonalds drive through and 35 seconds later it has swapped the batteries over…
    http://blog.internode.on.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Global-Green-Challenge-Simon-Hackett-interview-ABC-891-19102009.pdf

    ***as for reality:

    Wikipedia: Better Place
    Better Place filed for bankruptcy in Israel in May 2013. The company’s financial difficulties were caused by mismanagement, wasteful efforts to establish toeholds and run pilots in too many countries, the high investment required to develop the charging and swapping infrastructure, and a market penetration far lower than originally predicted by Shai Agassi. Less than 1,000 Fluence Z.E. cars were deployed in Israel and around 400 units in Denmark, after spending about US$850 million in private capital…After two failed post-bankruptcy acquisition attempts, the bankruptcy receivers sold off the remaining assets in November 2013 to Grngy for only $450,000…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place

    5 Jan: Practical Motoring Australia: Paul Murrell: New car sales hit 1.1 million for the fourth year in a row
    Official data shows total sales for 2016 at 1.156 million, the fourth year in a row the local market has posted 1.1 million sales. The result is yet another record, beating the previous best of 1,136,227 set in 2013…
    Our buying habits are changing, with small cars being the biggest sellers, and even outselling the fast-growing SUV segment, but that could change fairly quickly. Another major shift is the move to utilities, now the third-biggest selling category. Families are increasingly using these workhorses as family vehicles, with Toyota HiLux, Ford Ranger and the Mitsubishi Triton all in the Top 10 for December…

    US Car industry eyes bumper year for 2016 after record sales
    Sales of cars and light trucks in the US have set a record for 2015 at 17.5 million vehicles, leading to the question of whether car­makers this year might eclipse the 18 million vehicle mark.
    The Australian – 5 Jan

    50

  • #

    Hey, wait a minute.

    How long have those green urgers been telling us that Renewable Power is now cheaper than fossil fuels generated power.

    And yet, if you want to have exclusively green sourced power supplied to your home ….. you can actually ….. PAY MORE FOR IT.

    Haven’t these people learned the meaning of the word ….. IRONY.

    Hmm, I hope someone tells the electrons!

    Tony.

    222

  • #

    So then, what do we have in common here?

    Laptop computers catching fire – Source of fire Lithium Ion batteries – Hoped for result – Sue the laptop manufacturer for zillions of dollars.

    Hoverboards catching fire – Source of fire Lithium Ion batteries – Hoped for result – Ban the things and sue the manufacturers for zillions of dollars.

    Say, I’m not sure myself here, but isn’t there something similar as to the cause here?

    So then, what’s the big thing coming now?

    Why, rooftop solar power with storage no less. And, umm, what is this new fangled method of storage then?

    Why, Lithium Ion batteries of course.

    I mean, what possibly could go wrong?

    Tony.

    210

  • #
    jeff in Canada

    A cautionary tale for Canadian residents living in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta.
    Proves once again that electricity/heat generated by hydro, coal or natural gas remains the best bet.

    60

  • #

    [...] JoNova – “The Australian” newspaper reports that a rise in costs, climate [...]

    30

  • #
    RoHa

    “What was a pitiful 1% of the grid, shrank by half.”

    Sigh

    Another comma after a subject clause. Where do people learn this?

    That should be “What was a pitiful 1% of the grid shrank by half.”

    72

  • #

    [...] JoNova – “The Australian” newspaper reports that a rise in costs, climate “fatigue”, and a rise [...]

    40

  • #
    pat

    4 Jan: Gallup: Lydia Saard: Government Named Top U.S. Problem for Second Straight Year
    Graph: Most Important Problem Facing the US in 2015
    Environment/Pollution: Yearly average: 2%
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/187979/government-named-top-problem-second-straight-year.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

    30

  • #
    toorightmate

    Does anyone know how many aircraft passengers pay the extra for “saving the environment” when they purchase airline tickets?

    60

    • #
      ROM

      With Quantas and Virgin less than 5% and falling [ 2013 ]

      Travel Weekly

      The number of passengers who choose to offset their carbon emissions fluctuates from month to month, however the airline saw one of its highest percentages in 2009. This was coincidentally the same year as the climate change conference in Copenhagen. “Since then, the annual trend has been closer to the lower end of the range [5%],” the spokesperson said.

      &

      Taiwan;
      [ PDF paper ] Willingness to Pay of Air Passengers for Carbon-Offset
      [ Google for this ]

      The interesting item out of this paper is that the more frequent the flying , the more willing to pay a carbon off-set surcharge.
      And it makes sense.
      The very occasional airline passenger often hasn’t the finances or the resources to pay extra nor do they feel they should as they so rarely use the airlines.

      The more frequent the flying the more money the passenger is likely to have or the more likely somebody else is paying the bill so they have no qualms in spending some Other Peoples Money [ OPM ] to make themselves feel good about “saving the planet”.

      70

    • #
      David Maddison

      I believe the Federal Government pays it when transporting public serpents around to climate conferences etc., not sure about State Govs..

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    It’s all a bit perverse. Greens force the cost of power up by a carbon tax and subsidizing solar, so people buy solar to escape the rapidly rising cost of power. This is idiotic and not sustainable. The essential baseload will collapse, as has already happened in South Australia with state wide blackouts.

    The same logic with the infamous pink batts, where people put in what they could not justify without a subsidy. None of this was based on the idea that people actually wanted Green anything. It was all about something for nothing or escaping the situation created by politicians to get votes from the fringe Greens. The end result for the country is the crippling of all manufacturing by rapidly rising energy costs in a country which has plenty of coal. That is a Green objective, the destruction of a first world economy.

    The Greens are doing to Australia what Robert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe, destroy the economy and sustainability of a self sufficient country. What is impossible to understand is that the Liberals want Green votes under Malcolm when they had an overwhelming majority under Abbott. Maybe they are looking to a future where the Labor collapses, as it has done in Europe, to be replaced by extremist left and Green groups? In the meantime, our big spending new PM and Wayne Morrison are leading us even faster over the cliff than the previous Labor/Green government. We have no leadership at all. Agile? Innovate? They means do nothing and waffle while we run over the cliff. Then an ETS.
    We need Tony Abbott back in the chair. 3 votes are all it would take.

    161

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s all a bit perverse. Greens force the cost of power up by a carbon tax and subsidizing solar, so people buy solar to escape the rapidly rising cost of power. This is idi*tic and not sustainable. The essential baseload will collapse, as has already happened in South Australia with state wide blackouts.

      The same logic with the infamous pink batts, where people put in what they could not justify without a subsidy. None of this was based on the idea that people actually wanted Green anything. It was all about something for nothing or escaping the situation created by politicians to get votes from the fringe Greens. The end result for the country is the crippling of all manufacturing by rapidly rising energy costs in a country which has plenty of coal. That is a Green objective, the destruction of a first world economy.

      The Greens are doing to Australia what Robert Mugabe has done to Zimbabwe, destroy the economy and sustainability of a self sufficient country. What is impossible to understand is that the Liberals want Green votes under Malcolm when they had an overwhelming majority under Abbott. Maybe they are looking to a future where the Labor collapses, as it has done in Europe, to be replaced by extremist left and Green groups? In the meantime, our big spending new PM and Wayne Morrison are leading us even faster over the cliff than the previous Labor/Green government. We have no leadership at all. Agile? Innovate? They means do nothing and waffle while we run over the cliff. Then an ETS.
      We need Tony Abbott back in the chair. 3 votes are all it would take.

      111

    • #
      Dennis

      I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism – Tony Abbott

      90

  • #
    ROM

    I can well remember only a few years back where we had a few very earnest well dressed young men knocking on the front door and asking us to pay a few dollars extra a year extra to get access to the use of GREEN RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY, [ all in capitals ] to supposedly “save the planet” or something like that.

    My questions to those young men to justify my paying the extra for Green Renewable energy was along the lines of, “will you be installing another power line so that I can be sure of getting that “green” energy” ?
    And if you aren’t going to install such a line to my place , how can I differentiate green electricity from ordinary electricity and be sure I am getting that “green” energy that you want me to pay more for and not some cheaper coal fired power station electricity instead?

    “Dirty nasty coal” hadn’t yet been invented those few years ago so everybody seemed quite happy to see the good clean coal used back then to run the coal fired electric power generators which supplied an ever reliable and dead steady supply of electricity at a reasonable cost for their homes and businesses and factories.

    The young men usually left about that time and went onto the neighbors down the street. 
    I suspect that that in a rural based city like Horsham in the farming regions of west Vic , they didn’t get too many suckers to take the bait as the influx of earnest young men only lasted a few weeks and we haven’t seen their likes since.

    They would get even shorter shift and a hell of a lot more very nasty invective if they tried it out here today as we see our power prices and gas prices continuing to rise while most people know that the wholesale price of coal, gas and electricity are if anything, are actually declining while we the consumers continue to be forced to pay more and more every year for the very basics of our energy based and energy driven civilisation.
    —————

    On another slightly different subject and I’ve had two goes at this and lost both posts completely, the culprit I now think being a link to the Washington Post which wiped my screen totally both times I tried to link to it from Jo’s blog.
    And its not the first time I’ve had that problem with WaPo but hopefully the last as the WaPo can go and WaPo for all of the good it is.

    Back a week or more ago Jo had a post ;

    Green Electricity in Denmark, Germany, costs three times as much as US

    A question Jo asked in her post;

    “Wind and solar power supplies 28% of electricity in Germany (is it really that high?) “

    The answer;
    Nope!
    Not by hell of a long shot despite all the fulminations, hand waving, misrepresentations and straight out lies [ add excitable "windy farts" to that list ] of the wind pushing and solar pushing scammers.

    From a German statistics organisation; Statistisches Bundesampt

    Production
    Gross electricity production in Germany from 2012 to 2014

    [ I have only used the breakdown of the percentages of the various renewable energy sources data for 2014 here as I have to manually copy it to the comments.
    Germany's Renewable Energy sources [ 2015 ] are now supposedly 27.4% [ nameplate or generated ??? ] of the national supply, an increase from the 25.9 % in 2014 as per this tables data.]
    .

    [ German ] Renewable energy sources; [ % ]————– 25.9

    Wind power ————– —— 9.1

    Water power ————– —- 3.1

    Biomass —————- ——– 6.9

    Photovoltaic energy———- 5.7

    Household wastes————- 1

    Other energy sources——- 4.3

    From this 2014 table it can be seen that the highly vaunted German wind generated electricity ONLY accounts for 9.1 % of Germany’s power production.

    The equally highly vaunted solar / photovoltaic generated power ONLY accounts for 5.7% of German power production.

    The Biomass production of German electricity which we never hear about, accounts for 6.9% of germ an power production or about 20% more power generated than the German solar power production.

    Combined those two most hyped German Renewable energy systems, Wind and Solar in 2014 ONLY accounted for 14.8 % of German electricity production.

    In fact the combined German Wind and Solar power production still only accounted for less than 60% of Germany’s Renewable Energy production in 2014.
    ———————–
    There are lies, damn lies and statistics and the Renewable energy scamming industry and its allies in the media use the lot.

    90

    • #
      TdeF

      Good link. I wonder whether the coal/nuclear base load has changed at all? Wind is notoriously unpredictable across Europe and solar is poor and not available at night or midwinter and without storage, useless. The inconvenient truth is that they are both very inconvenient. So when they are available, what is the chance is that the coal fired/nuclear base load is simply dumped to create these political figures. If so, there was no real CO2 reduction anyway, so what is this all about? Is it like the US where they are turning food into biofuel just to please the Left and the scared?

      I note a lot of German brown coal/lignite like Victoria and coal is now expanding after Fukishima, so there may be no saving of CO2 at all as the generators have to be kept running. In Europe I suspect people have lost faith in the ability of unpredictables to replace reliable coal, not even counting the huge cost and no one is happy with the soaring price of power just to reduce CO2 output, which they are not doing. As even warmist economist Bjorn Lomborg says, there are many more important problems.

      30

  • #
    GAZ

    Another opportunity to save the planet (and fatten the snake oil merchants) is to buy carbon offsets. Anyone knows what sort of uptake Qantas, and others, get on their offers to buy offsets?

    40

  • #
    Analitik

    What I don’t understand is why all those Greens voters aren’t signed up for GreenPower, supporting their scheme?
    (since surely they make up more than 0.6% of the households else our government wouldn’t be so messed up)

    50

  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    The retail solar power sector are switching to rural areas and putting in panels at reduced prices with the promise that when the subsidies on grid input from them go to zero, they will able to buy a Tesla battery and cut themselves from the grid.
    I can see a new ‘Pink Batts’ scandal coming up.

    Speaking to one who has done this already and believed, the problems are evident.
    1] Living in a rural bushfire area spraying water on banks of solar collectors in full sun could lead to shorts and a fire risk. Roof fires mean no water collection to tanks and no home.There needs to be safetys mandated for these installations.
    2] Hanging Teslas on rural buildings just adds to the fire risk. It would be better to construct a fire resistant shed and cable the power into the dwelling.This needs legislation.
    Too many hover boards and banks of lithium batteries have burned in aircraft to roll these large lithium batteries out on our homes.
    3] The pitch is that the batteries will be affordable, so the consumer trusts and buys the solar panels.
    There is no clear indication these batteries will be safe, yet alone affordable compared to grid power.A standard contract for solar supply should be drawn up so that any such claim has to be documented and if not forthcoming, actionable under consumer protection legislation.

    80

    • #
      ianl8888


      There is no clear indication these batteries will be safe, yet alone affordable compared to grid power

      Nor are they adequate for normal household consumption (which is itself not a big part of aggregate demand)

      I’ve asked a number of people who boast that their houses are “solar-powered” (free energy, smirk, smirk) what actual appliances they can run off batteries and for how long. Almost all of these people just refuse to detail an answer – one honest person did, and his tale of inverters, difficult-to-engineer connections and pitiful appliance use was enough to convince any sane person to run away … of course, the MSM won’t publish comments like his

      100

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        A lot of early adopters in New Zealand are finding that the cost of maintenance (especially as the units age) far outweighs any financial benefits there may have been at the beginning.

        Thus a new industry is born – Solar Panel Removal Services.

        50

  • #
    Analitik

    And a truly entertaining couple of links on the scheme from their website
    What Is GreenPower?
    How Much Does GreenPower Cost?

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Entertaining?
      Downright false. Using their figures of 5-8¢ extra per kWh doesn’t give $0.5-1.0 a week as claimed. Even for my use it works out at $2-5 a week. And I use less than half the average usage (according to the supplier).
      The average user would be up for $300+ p.a.
      To quote the late Spike Milligan “sod that for a laugh”.

      20

  • #
    handjive

    The data is in.

    Renewable energy stops Global Warming:

    BoM climate report finds 2015 was Australia’s fifth (5) hottest year on record (ABC)
    . . .
    Obviously we have built enough windmills & solar panels, as it was predicted temperature would follow carbon (sic) linearly.

    Which it is clearly not doing at 5th warmest evah.

    101

  • #
    Wally

    “they choose solar because it’s the only way out of paying exorbitant electricity prices in a market managed by bureaucrats”

    Yep, thats why I did it. I assumed by RET and no feed in, and with the price of power being what it is in South Australia, found my return on investment before tax was around 16%. That to me looks like a plain old business decision, any feed in just adds icing.

    I’m well aware that the use of solar stuffs up generation, makes power grids unstable, etc etc. It was installed simply out of blinding white hot anger at the pollies and green nutters who have forced horribly expensive power onto us. The carbon tax was the last straw.

    Out of some sympathy for the poor old joe publics who subsidise solar through the FIT, I did at least wait until the FIT rate dropped so that I’m not robbing joe public blind in the exercise.

    130

    • #
      el gordo

      That’s all very well, but carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming and on a matter of principle you should have stuck with the grid.

      Its too late now Wally, forever more you will be reminded of the folly of AGW and your involvement in this monstrous delusion.

      84

      • #
        Analitik

        I seriously doubt Wally meant that he went off-grid. He almost certainly just had a solar panel array and inverters installed to reduce his grid consumption due to the price hikes on the SA grid due to the insane renewables commitment.

        I will soon be doing the same and for exactly the same reasons – they could give me zero FIT for all I care.

        90

    • #
      jpm

      Wally
      You are still being subsidized by the poor who can’t afford to install PV or others who don’t wish to, the discount you received when you bought it was paid for by RECs, a subsidy that all users of electricity from the grid in Australia pay. I think that it is immoral that the government would implement such a scheme and of anyone making use of it. Like you, most who installed PV solar did it for economic reasons. Just listen to them crowing about their savings. I have yet to hear one claim that they are saving the world by doing it.
      John

      91

    • #
      Wally

      I’m not off grid. I live in SA, work from home, and need to run the a/c for around 6 hours EVERY day through summer (around 3-4 months). The solar cuts my power bill to run reverse cycle solar. The cut is dramatic (power bill drops to around 30% of the no-solar case). Every other benefit is a bonus for me.

      I’m well aware of the CO2 madness, delusions, etc. It’s only done for money.

      70

      • #
        toorightmate

        Wally, I accept your gracious thanks to me for providing you with the subsidies – most gracious of you old chap.

        62

  • #

    Jo – I want pure coal fired electrons delivered direct, and I’m willing to pay for it. ;-) (How does 10 cents per KWhr sound? )

    That is some pure Galileo speak right there Jo :)

    That’s like red rag to a bull … ch-ch-ch-cheap energy! Did she just say what I thought she said?

    A heresy against ‘sustainability’. The High Priests will not allow such remarks to go unrecorded in the logs of the Inquisition.

    You WILL be held accountable – and publicly shamed – for your sins against the church of green. There is no escape from the Inquisition! Science has spoken!


    [Edited to remove some bolding which might be misinterpreted. - J]

    20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Hang on all you sceptical naysayers, UK wind power shatters energy records as it delivers 11% of the UK’s electricity in 2015.

    A few billion dollars more could get 15%, this is fantastic news just awesome!……. /sarc.

    70

  • #
    pat

    more madness:

    5 Jan: ClimateChangeNews: Paul Brown: How Russia and neighbours could go 100% renewable by 2030
    But researchers at Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland calculate that the cost of electricity produced entirely from renewables would be half the price of modern nuclear technology and fossil-fuel burning if carbon capture and storage (CCS) had to be used.
    This would make all the countries more competitive by cutting their costs, but would require the building of a super-grid to allow countries to share the benefits of a range of renewable energy sources.
    The geographical area of the research − which did not include transport or heating − covers much of the northern hemisphere…
    The modelled energy system is based on wind, hydropower, solar, biomass and some geothermal energy…
    The total installed capacity of renewable energy in the system in 2030 would be about 550 gigawatts. Slightly more than half of this would be wind energy, and one-fifth would be solar. The rest would be composed of hydro and biomass, supported with power-to-gas, pumped hydro storage, and batteries.
    Currently, the total capacity is 388 gigawatts, of which wind and solar account for only 1.5 gigawatts…
    “We think that this is the first-ever 100% renewable energy system modelling for Russia and Central Asia,” says ***Professor Christian Breyer, co-author of the study…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/05/how-russia-and-neighbours-could-go-100-renewable-by-2030/

    ***Christian Breyer, Professor for Solar Economy at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland:

    18 Dec: SolarLove.org: Energy Watch Group Wants Higher-Caliber & ‘Realistic’ Energy Projections From IEA
    by Cynthia
    An international network of scientists and parliamentarians, Energy Watch Group, is interested in better work from the IEA. The Energy Watch Group (EWG) wants higher-caliber reporting and realistic scenarios from the IEA. Christian Breyer, Professor for Solar Economy at the Lappeenranta University of Technology in Finland and lead author of the recent EWG study, said, “We need urgent help of journalists and civil society to find out the real reasons for these continuous incorrect IEA projections for solar PV and wind energy.”
    The EWG reports that the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2015 “once again” dramatically underestimated the potential of solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy…
    In an eariler story this month on CleanTechnica.com, Giles Parkinson did highlight corrections from the IEA regarding more ridiculous claims from Bjorn Lomborg. But there’s still much need for improvement.
    http://solarlove.org/energy-watch-group-wants-higher-caliber-realistic-energy-projections-iea/

    20

    • #
      Analitik

      That Solar Love article references an article on Clean Technica which references an article on RenewEconomy.
      Now there’s a chain of credibility /sarc

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    About two years ago a builder told me about a two level by four units block of flats in an inner Sydney city suburb that he converted into two two level townhouses for clients. And that the clients wanted solar electricity and hot water systems to make their townhouses as green as possible.

    The electrical contractor who had already installed the electrical wiring and appliances to the building was asked to quote. His advice was don’t waste your money. He was of course prepared to supply and install solar electricity supply and make a profit but in all honesty he could not recommend it.

    Even with government/taxpayer funded rebates the solar system has not much more than around twenty years effective operating life before replacement panels are required and that effectively wipes out the saving a solar system provides via subsidies. He also pointed out that the panels needed to be cleaned regularly, a hidden cost not anticipated by many or most owners of solar systems. Potential storm damage was not discussed.

    70

  • #
    pat

    more on Energy Watch Group.
    impossible to find anything about their members etc on their website, so not sure if the following is still accurate, but it’s interesting nonetheless. TonyfromOz might like to weigh in on this one:

    2007: Resilience.org: Peak coal by 2025 say researchers
    by Dr. Werner Zittel, Jorg Schindler, originally published by Energy Watch Group
    The Energy Watch Group consists of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global energy supply. The group has been initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell.
    Members are:
    • Dr. Harry Lehmann, World Council for Renewable Energy
    •Stefan Peter, Institute for Sustainable Solutions and Innovations
    •Jorg Schindler, Managing Director of Ludwig Bolkow Systemtechnik GmbH
    •Dr. Werner Zittel, Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik GmbH
    Advisory group:
    •Institute for Solar Energy Technics, Kassel, Germany (Prof. Schmidt)
    •Ecofys, Amsterdam, The Netherlands World Watch Institute, Washington, USA (Chr. Flavin)
    •Eurosolar, Bonn
    •World Council for Renewable Energy, Bonn, Germany (Dr. Hermann Scheer)
    • Swiss Energy Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland (Berhard Piller)
    •Centre for Energy Alternative, Seoul, Korea (Prof. Pil-Ryul Lee)
    •Joint Research Center, Petten, The Netherlands (Dr. E. Peteves)
    •University of Salzburg, Department of Political Science, Austria (Prof. V. Lauber)
    When discussing the future availability of fossil energy resources, the conventional wisdom has it that globally there is an abundance of coal which allows for an increasing coal consumption far into the future. This is either regarded as being a good thing enabling the eventual substitution of declining crude oil and natural gas supplies. Or it is seen as a horror scenario leading to catastrophic consequences for the world’s climate. But the discussion rarely focuses on the premise: how much coal is there really?
    This paper attempts to give a comprehensive view of global coal resources and past and current coal production based on a critical analysis of available statistics…
    Global coal production to peak around 2025 at 30 percent above present production in the best case…
    Editorial Notes: For the complete 47-page report, see “Coal: Resources and Future Production” (PDF) (LINK)
    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2007-04-05/peak-coal-2025-say-researchers

    Hans-Josef Fell, President, Energy Watch Group:

    Wikipedia: Hans-Josef Fell
    Hans-Josef Fell (born 7 January 1952 in Hammelburg) was a member of the German Parliamentary Group Alliance 90/ the Greens from 1998 to 2013…
    Hans-Josef Fell joined the Green Party in 1992 following years of interest in renewable energy and environmental protection. Fell worked on the city council in his hometown of Hammelburg from 1990 until 1998 and from 1996 until 2003 he worked in the county council in the Bad Kissingen district. He has been a member of the German Parliament since 1998…
    ***Hans-Josef Fell wrote the draft of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), which was adopted in 2000 in the face of strong political opposition. The law, enacted 25 February 2000, guarantees cost-covering feed-in Tariffs for electricity from biomass, wind power, and solar power, and aimed to increase the percentage of renewable energy used in Germany to 12.5% by the year 2010 and 20% by 2020…He was also involved in drafting the law amending the EEG in 2004…
    ***In March 2014, Fell became president of the Energy Watch Group. Additional key members are Dr. Werner Zittel, a senior scientist at the Ludwig Bolkow Systemtechnik GmbH, and Dr. Christian Breyer, an expert of Solar Economy at Lappenranta University of Technology in Finland…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Josef_Fell

    20

    • #
      ianl8888

      I give up – moderation is amok again
      [It was being automatically moderated because you were using pejorative language - submitting it multiple times tends to make matters worse. I have released an edited version] Fly

      30

      • #
        toorightmate

        You should try and crack The Drum – climate, Barrie Cassidy, Turnbull, Clintons, Obama, mozzies, Chris Gayle are all out of bounds for me.
        Saying anything positive about Trump or Abbot are also out of bounds.

        Talk about a biased boundary umpire.

        71

      • #
        ianl8888

        I suggest it would be helpful if a list of verbotens was actually published, instead of the trial and error method in current use

        For Example, the word stu__id is regarded as pejorative (although I submit it is descriptive of the paper, not the authors) but BS isn’t

        Oh well ….

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Don’t worry Ian – just look upon it as all part of the fun.

          All blog management software has its quirks, and all blogs that have been around for a while have weird lists of banned words. At least the moderators here, tend to respond quite quickly. You just happened to have made your comment at “moderator-feeding-time”. How could you have known?

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          A hint, Ian..

          There are ways past the automod……. it is stupid ;-)

          00

    • #
      ianl8888


      … it’s interesting nonetheless

      No it’s not, Pat. It’s confused, contradictory, inaccurate, constantly changing definitions to suit itself and the “factual” PDF it is supposedly based on returns a Page 404 error – ie. they’ve removed it because it’s so inaccurate and wobbly

      For about the umpteenth time:

      Resource is a geological best-estimate measurement of deposits contained in-situ, based on hard exploration criteria. This [snip] paper claims that Resource estimates may include as yet undiscovered deposits … oh dear, geologists have absolutely no respect for these people, they just don’t deserve it !!

      Reserve is an engineering estimate, based on the geological Resource estimate, wherein mining and financial costs and best-estimate future market price conditions have been factored

      Both of these terms are defined within statutes which vary a little from country to country but remain as “apples with apples” within very reasonable limits. Reporting these numbers for open market Stock Exchange valuations is subject to penal repercussions if done carelessly or with intent to defraud

      Of course there are deposits that as yet remain undefined, because they are unexplored in any detail, within the tighter (higher) Resource/Reserve categories – no one of any repute claims these deposits as Reserves, or indeed anything other than of the lowest category of Resource

      The scare tactic of “peak coal” also depends on an estimate of the rates of future global consumption. The quoted article is more vapid on this than even Hanson-Young … something I had thought impossible, but apparently not

      In short, the article is a total disgrace. That people here still cannot see that after the many discussions on this issue is very depressing, although not surprising

      [Edited by moderator] Fly

      40

  • #
    pat

    allegedly GREEN, provided the renewable subsidies continue!

    5 Jan: UK Independent: Steve Connor: Green energy: How one power plant chips away at the UK’s carbon footprint
    By burning wood pellets instead of coal Drax power station, one of Britain’s biggest polluters, has turned green
    The first thing to hit you is the difference between how the coal and the wood pellets are stored on site, and the incendiary reason why. While the vast store of coal is spread out, open to all weathers, the bone-dry pellets have to be protected from the elements in four huge storage domes 50m (164ft) high – about 30 per cent taller than the Royal Albert Hall.
    Whereas coal is fed into a power station when wet (it quickly dries out when milled into dust for the furnace), the wood pellets become unusable if damp. So they have to be kept dry inside their storage domes, which themselves have to filled with nitrogen gas to limit the risk of spontaneous combustion…
    They rely on the heat of the power station’s six units, now partly powered by biomass in the form of compressed wood pellets imported from commercial forests overseas, mostly in the eastern United States and Canada.
    Two of the six Drax units are fully converted to biomass. A third will be burning 100 per cent wood pellets later this year at a total cost of some £700m – and the woman in charge of Drax doesn’t want it to stop here…
    But not everyone is convinced that biomass is that renewable…
    ***But the big question for 2016 is whether the Government will continue to invest in Britain’s biggest decarbonisation project in its next round of renewable-energy subsidies. Drax needs these renewable subsidies to continue converting its three remaining coal-fired units…
    The signs so far are not looking good…READ ALL
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-energy-how-one-power-plant-chips-away-at-the-uks-carbon-footprint-a6796716.html

    40

  • #
    pat

    who will be held accountable?

    4 Jan: Financial Times: Kiran Stacey: UK expected to face more power emergencies
    Emergency measures are likely to be needed several more times this winter to keep Britain’s lights on, National Grid has warned.
    Cordi O’Hara, the director of market operations at the organisation that runs the UK’s electricity network, said electricity supply is at its tightest for a decade.
    The margin of supply above demand at peak times would continue at historically low levels for three years, said Ms O’Hara.
    “At times when supply has been as tight as it is this year, we have had to issue Nisms [special requests for suppliers to provide back-up power] seven times. It would be a fair estimate to imagine the same will be needed this winter,” she said…
    One way is to offer to pay companies to turn power down or off, or to switch to back-up systems when demand is high.
    Ms O’Hara said she wanted more businesses to sign up for this. “What most companies did on that day was simply switch down their air conditioning,” she said. “We should look at what capability British industry has to be flexible about its consumption.”
    Officials say persuading companies to switch off can be a more cost-effective way of matching supply and demand than building large power stations…
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a4185b76-a968-11e5-955c-1e1d6de94879.html#axzz3wQxfQ931

    20

  • #
    pat

    this load of utter BS has attracted a single comment…someone posting a petition for Gov Brown, demanding a California Residential Feed in Tariff for solar (excerpt: Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a measure that requires the state to obtain half of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, however, rooftop solar panels were excluded from the bill, which means utility companies will have to pay more to find renewable energy elsewhere, because the surplus energy they buy back from individual homeowners will not count toward the state’s goals.”).

    seems Politico kept this article well hidden if that’s the only feedback it got from their readers!

    31 Dec: Politico: Sara Stefanini: Greening the military
    It’s not about saving the planet — it’s about safer, cheaper fighting outfits
    Getting fuel into a war zone can be deadly. One solider is killed on average for every 24 convoys sent across the mountains and deserts of Pakistan to supply foreign troops in Afghanistan.
    That’s why some of the world’s biggest militaries want to replace some of that diesel and gasoline with power generated by solar panels, wind turbines and rechargeable batteries. It’s not about saving the planet, it’s about making it safer and cheaper for troops to complete their central mission: defeating the enemy.
    And there’s another bonus. By turning to green energy, armies earn a public relations bonus…
    Technology to turn seawater into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel for ships, for instance, would be cleaner and more sustainable, but it’s not yet affordable, said Omar Lamrani, a military analyst at Stratfor, a think tank.
    “The problem right now is that there are limits on the cost angle,” he said. “There are ways they can shift away from fossil fuels and there are ways they can shift to alternative energy, but it’s still quite expensive.”…
    http://www.politico.eu/article/military-nato-renewable-army-navy-solar-wind-efficiency/

    20

  • #
    pat

    too funny:

    Carbon Brief directed readers to BBC Roger Harrabin’s FB page using the line “Are the BBC climate change deniers?”. pic of Harrabin with Arnold Schwarzenegger at top of page.
    good to see Maurizio Morabito posting there.

    Facebook: Roger Harrabin (BBC)
    https://www.facebook.com/roger.harrabin/?fref=nf

    look out for:

    Roger Harrabin
    Yesterday at 3:12am ·
    My former colleague Richard Black, now at ECIU, says he thinks (BBC) editors are avoiding mentioning climate change because they’re not confident about the science – and are wary of the regular flak they receive from members of the audience who reject climate science.
    He tweeted:
    Need all @BBCNews staff to be confident abt science – lack of knowledge breeds safety-first approach (“don’t mention climate”)

    comment: Paul Reilly ………”Are the BBC #climatechange deniers?” Roger, are you taking the absolute p*ss?
    Yesterday at 2:20pm

    Roger Harrabin
    Yesterday at 2:35am ·
    ARE THE BBC CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS?
    That’s a question provoked by the Beeb’s coverage of flooding.
    “Why, oh why”, many listeners asked, “do reporters and presenters covering the floods not hammer home at every opportunity that we can expect worse rain because we are heating the climate?”
    I appeared on Radio 4’s Feedback during the Paris climate summit to discuss the complaints.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06r8gmz
    I said general BBC guidance was to cover climate change proportionately – but the judgment about proportionality would be made by editors on a day-to-day basis.
    Must we mention climate change on every news story about flooding, starting with Today Prog, through Wato, PM and right on to the TV Ten? Of course not…ETC READ ON

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Richard Black, now at ECIU, says he thinks (BBC) editors are avoiding mentioning climate change because they’re not confident about the science – and are wary of the regular flak they receive from members of the audience who reject climate science.’

      This is a positive sign and I expect the ABC to follow in lockstep.

      30

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, for another dose of sanity amongst the “catastrophics”.

    20

  • #
    pat

    could renewables giant Iberdrola go the same way as Abengoa?
    The Corner is Spain’s only financial website written in English for international readers.

    5 Jan: The Corner: Carlos Diaz Guell: The toxic effect of Abengoa: markets worry about Spain’s companies
    What does make them nervous (about Abengoa) is the Seville-based engineering and renewable energy firm’s non-payment in Ireland and Mexico. This has cast a shadow over the nearly 200 financial
    institutions which have a combined exposure to Abengoa of over 20 billion euros. The uncertainty increased following the breakdown in the agreement for Gonvarri to take a stake in the company.
    According to the CNMV, the consolidated Abengoa group has liabilities of 25 billion euros. About 9 billion euros of this corresponds to bank debt and bond issues, and the expiry dates the are particularly demanding this year, according to Bloomberg data: 500 million euros in bonds and over 420 million in bank debt expire.
    In the end, both the political uncertainty and that generated by Abengoa’s debt situation have been reasons enough to spark an over 8% loss in the Spanish stock market in 2015, compared with an over 13% increase in the Italian bourse…
    In conclusion, debt is one of the main constant concerns for Spanish companies…
    ***The same could be said about another of the big companies – Iberdrola – which has seen its debt increase due to a negative exchange rate impact of 1.616 billion euros. In the period June 2014-June 2015, the electricity firm’s net debt rose by 519 million euros to 26.201 billion…
    http://thecorner.eu/spain-economy/toxicidad-de-abengoa-los-mercados-inquietos-por-la-deuda-de-las-empresas-espanolas/50582/

    Wikipedia: Iberdrola
    Since embarking on its growth and international expansion plan in 2001, Iberdrola has become Spain’s largest energy group by market capitalisation, the global leader in wind energy…
    Renewable energy business
    At the end of 2013, Iberdrola had operating installed capacity above 14,247 MW –53% outside Spain– producing a total of 33,899 GWh of electricity in the year…READ FOR MORE RENEWABLE INVOLVEMENT
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberdrola#Renewable_energy_business

    20

  • #
    pat

    1 Jan: Gas2.org: PICS: Steve Hanley: Tesla Model S Bursts Into Flames While Charging
    On New Year’s Day, a Tesla owner in Norway plugged in his Tesla Model S at a SuperCharger station near Kristiansand in the Aust-Agden region and went off to do some shopping while his battery recharged. A few minutes later, his car burst into flames and was destroyed…
    Police say they will conduct an investigation of the vehicle and the charging station to find out what caused the car to burst into flames. For now, the SuperCharger station is closed. “Not possible to fast-charge Tesla on Brokelandsheia until further notice,” Agder police tweeted Friday afternoon…
    According toLeif Hansen, who lives in Norway, the following statement was made to the local news media by Anders Torbjørnsen, a member of the fire brigade operations center at the college. “It is not possible to extinguish EV fires with water , so the fire department closed the area around the powerful SuperCharger and used a special foam to control the flames. The world renowned electric car has batteries made of lithium, a metal that is highly flammable , and that makes firefighting difficult…
    http://gas2.org/2016/01/01/tesla-model-s-bursts-into-flames-while-charging/

    no need to read Daniel’s nonsense, but the comments I saw were fun:

    5 Jan: WaPo: Daniel Farber: Inaction on global warming is as reckless as drunken driving
    Each week, In Theory takes on a big idea in the news and explores it from a range of perspectives. This week we’re talking about the ethics of global warming. Need a primer? Catch up here.
    Daniel Farber teaches environmental law and tort law at the University of California at Berkeley.
    Coal mining remains a dangerous occupation, and mining can cause severe environmental harm.
    But more important, emissions from coal cause more than climate change: They are the source of severe health problems…
    COMMENT #1: by Biggie-Smalls: LOL crazy climate alarmist and their idiotic analogies, they are so silly.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/01/05/inaction-on-global-warming-is-as-reckless-as-drunken-driving/

    20

  • #
    pat

    4 Jan: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: Journalistic Fraud: North Pole Region Saw Similar Warm Spikes Before… OVER 70 TIMES In Last 58 Years!
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/04/journalistic-fraud-north-pole-region-saw-similar-warm-spikes-before-over-70-times-in-last-58-years/#sthash.3K6TwEcL.dpbs

    30

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    everyone in Australia “loves” green energy, and believes in climate change. But according to actual payments, hardly anyone wants to cough up any cash for it

    One has to smile at this … :D

    40

  • #
    Unmentionable

    “Or more accurately, they choose solar because it’s the only way out of paying exorbitant electricity prices in a market managed by bureucrats.”

    What a cruel truthful and impaling sentence. It should be quoted on the inside cover of the inevitable Royal Commission inquiry report into the billions wasted on these disgusting vote-buying colossal white elephants, that never should have seen the light of day in a market economy, except for the agendas of kooks trying and succeeding to do us mischief.

    This whole 30 past years of planetary ‘Greenhouse’ pseudo-science has totally cured me of any prior positive sentiment towards the United Nations, media and NGOs. I now know they’re a sanctimonious bunch of dangerous kooks, and so are >90% of Australian politicians.

    For that I will be regrettably thankful.

    50

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Energy storage methods

    A very simplistic overview of energy storage.
    It is interesting that the author does not mention that large capacitors are used more for power factor correction than to store energy.

    http://www.mpoweruk.com/alternatives.htm

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    Warwick Hughes joins the fray on WA solar.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4177

    00

  • #
  • #

    Germany found itself importing elecrical power from Sweden on the night of the 1st to 2nd of January this year when wind power dropped to as good(?) as zero.

    Other than that, renewables have been going swimmingly; Solar+Wind delivering a total of 20GW of the nation’s 60GW baseload. Nameplate capacity for Solar+Wind in Germany is over 84GW.

    “Renewables” in total provide 1% of the mnaufacturing industry’s energy needs in Germany; including hydro. and biomass; the latter of which is giving envrionmentally-unfriendly “noises” as biogas generating plants collapse, leak, catch fire or leak heavy nutrients into local waters; robbing it of oxygen. Such plants have long been on the nose due to their “rural” strong odours all year round; even annoying farmers who keep livestock.

    00

  • #
    richard

    interesting account of renewables in Germany, oh they have a bucket load of problems around the corner.

    http://wpui.wisc.edu/wp-uploads/2014/07/German-Experience-with-Promotion-of-Renewable-Energy.pdf

    00