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

South Australia: blackout costs $367m, normal electricity twice the price, reserve shortfalls coming in January

Comforting to know that hundreds of millions were saved because the SA blackout hit at 4pm:

Today in SA: blackout cost $367m but could have been worse

The results of a comprehensive survey of Business SA members of the impact of the September 28 blackout released today also found many did not have business interruption insurance and, of those who did, more than half were not covered for losses resulting from the outage.

The overall financial impact on South Australia was a loss of $367m but, in occurring late in the trading day, the effect of the blackout was lower than it would have been if it had happened first thing in the morning.

“Considering 70 per cent of respondents had power restored within 24 hours we are looking at a cost of close to $120,000 per minute for business in the state,” the report found. –The Australian

Only 12% of businesses surveyed had backup generators.

Who wants electricity at twice the price? Judith Sloan:

The Australian Energy Market Operator says average electricity prices in South Australia next year will be 1.7 times higher than in NSW and 2.4 times higher than in Victoria. So what sane business person would consider investing in South Australia?

Perhaps they can make the submarines with bullocks and drays?

Risky times coming for SA, count the weeks…

This is an ideal moment to post up the latest graph of forecast “shortfalls” in reserve electricity in SA. If this graph means what I think it does, SA grid managers must be hoping for a cool summer. The red lines are labelled “Reserve Shortfall”, and it seems rather significant that no other state (see that source link) has any red lines at all… (Thanks to Warwick Hughes for the tip about this page).

The red line days are around Jan 10th, Jan 16th, Jan 24th. (But what’s a 150MW between friends? As it happens, it’s about the same size as the Olympic Dam mine which uses 170MW). The Heywood interconnect from Victoria can supply 500MW, so the 150MW gap may not be an issue, assuming that Victoria doesn’t need those megawatts itself. I suppose SA might get by?) Once SA had two coal fired plants, Northern Power Station (520MW, which stopped in May 2016) and Playford B (240MW), which ceased in 2012, and was blown up last September).

As Warwick Hughes notes, if you think this summer is going to be fun in SA, wait til you see 2018:

 

SA Electricity, AEMO, GRaph, Medium Term Outlook, Reserve Shortfall.

SA Electricity, AEMO: Medium Term Outlook, Reserve Shortfall for Oct 2016 – Oct 2018.

 

For a state with the most expensive electricity, and that was “islanded” again this week (isolated from the national grid) the Premier of SA made possibly the weakest negotiation ploy ever seen. This week, he bravely threatened to “go it alone” and isolate himself with a burdensome, expensive, carbon-scheme-to-change-the-weather if the Libs didn’t do a national one first. Strangely no other states leapt to join him, and nor did the national government.

Even the greenest theme Premiers were running away:

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday said while he was “very proud” of Labor states setting their own ambitious renewable energy targets, he had “no intention” of pursuing a state-based EIS.

Judith Sloan sums up the Climate Change Authority’s compelling reasons to not do emissions intensity schemes:

The journalists might care to consult the impenetrable, technocratic report by the Climate Change Authority on the topic. Here is the key paragraph: “The ability of emissions-trading schemes [including emissions-intensity schemes] and carbon taxes to drive substantial changes in long-term investment decisions towards lower emissions alternatives has yet to be demonstrated in practice.

“For this to happen, investors must have the confidence to allocate billions of dollars to projects that would be uneconomic if the policy were repealed or watered down in the future. Policy stability and credibility is crucial. To date, ETSs and carbon taxes do not appear to have influenced long-term investment decisions in a large-scale way.”

 

BACKGROUND to the SA Electricity crisis (all the links).

People saw The South Australian black out coming. There were warnings that the dominance of renewables made it vulnerable. Then when it came, it all fell over in a few seconds — read the gruesome details of how fast a grid collapses: Three towers, six windfarms and 12 seconds to disaster. Ultimately the 40% renewable SA grid is crippled by complexity.   The AEMO Report blames renewables: The SA Blackout was due to lack of “synchronous inertia”.  The early estimates suggest the blackout costs South Australia at least $367m, plus their normal electricity is twice the price, and there are reserve shortfalls coming in January 2018 (pray for a cool summer). Welcome to the future of unreliable electricity: Rolling blackouts ordered in SA in 40C heat. And  more bad luck for South Australia, yet another blackout, 300 powerlines down, 125,000 homes cut off.  See all the posts on and  .

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (85 votes cast)
South Australia: blackout costs $367m, normal electricity twice the price, reserve shortfalls coming in January, 9.0 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/z526422

143 comments to South Australia: blackout costs $367m, normal electricity twice the price, reserve shortfalls coming in January

  • #
    observa

    Try December 1st wind output for South Australia by unchecking all but SA and subtotal and selecting MW top right and view the total wind farms drawing power from the grid in the morning peak- http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2016/december/1
    OK so they actually spike up later in the day but then do a similar exercise for December 6th and check out the pathetic percentage of maximum capacity all day.

    There is only one answer to this rubbish of unreliables and that’s for any bidder to the national market to be restricted to only ever bidding up to a maximum output they can guarantee 24/7 all year round. Naturally these wind generators would have to partner with thermal providers to do that and price accordingly on a level playing field basis.

    250

    • #
      bobl

      If you look at the 9th of December you get a pretty typical characteristic for a continental high pressure system (see the associated synoptic chart) – No wind between 6AM and 7PM. Continental highs can persist for weeks. On the 9th it meant that there was only 200 MW of wind for BOTH morning and afternoon peaks for SA this spells disaster if the VIC interconnector goes down.

      It’s a good thing for SA that it was only 22 deg yesterday. If it was a 42 deg Adelaide scorcher they probably would have been in lots of trouble.

      180

  • #
    Ron

    It can’t be all that bad. Once China builds it’s 1171 new power stations we won’t need the power grid for manufacturing. We can all go on camping trips (no power needed) or go on overseas trips to see how people have to work for a living, while we sit back and enjoy the new dark ages.

    410

    • #
      James

      I read that China are investigating an extremely high voltage line to Europe. Essentially if you do not want to burn coal, you can pay the Chinese to do it for you, at a price so you can have stable power. Perhaps then need a sea cable to Australia.

      221

    • #
      Mark M

      Ideologically aggressive “green” Germany has spent €1 Trillion Euros, of other people’s money, on Wind and Solar power (Energiewende), only to undergo her biggest coal-fired power expansion in history.

      https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/green-german-lies/

      150

      • #

        The main reason for Germany building new coal fired power stations is the stupidity of phasing out Nuclear power. Finland on the otherhand is installing new nuclear power stations. Recently, a referendum in Switzerland rejected by a considerable margin a green proposal for rapid phase out of their Nuclear. After more than 50 years of safe operation their oldest and smallest unit will close in 2019 but they have larger units that will still be operating in 2030. The Swiss have about 50% hydro and 30% nuclear with zero wind and solar. That is what you get when you allow people a vote (citizen initiated referenda)

        60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The only way for the greenie insanity of over-reliance on ‘renewable’ energy to end is for tragedy to occur. South Australia’s premier is clearly one of those bolts-in-the-side-of-the-neck type of greenie, who is immune to rational argument and when the inevitable electricity blackouts occur can be relied on to blame everyone and everything, but himself.

    South Australia is a warm part of the world, so electricity blackouts do not cause large numbers of deaths by hypothermia, a future which the UK can confidently look forward to, due to their ever-increasing reliance on wind power. If the UK has a repeat of the severe winter of 1962/63, then tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people will die from hypothermia.

    Sadly, the only way to stop energy insanity is for tragedy to strike.

    352

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      …one of those bolts-in-the-side-of-the-neck type of greenie, who is immune to rational argument…

      Is there really any other kind?

      130

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘If the UK has a repeat of the severe winter of 1962/63 …’

      Peter its my melancholy duty to inform you that this NH winter could be a repeat of 1947/48 and 1962=63. I’ve heard a whisper that South Australia will be taking UK climate change refugees for the duration.

      71

    • #
      ianl8888

      Sadly, the only way to stop energy insanity is for tragedy to strike

      Yes, but even then, it depends on WHO is hurt.

      As prima facie evidence, look at the Vic response to the continuing wave of car jackings and home invasions.

      Until a few weeks ago, the Govt/Police response was low key, deliberately ambiguous, full of PC blather designed to slide off pinpointing the demographic mainly responsible for these brutal crimes. In short, while “little people” were being hurt, there was no urgency or any need to change policing/court tactics. Magistrates continued to bail even repeat offenders.

      Then one of the self-described “elite” suffered an attempted car jacking. Suddenly: “We seem to have a problem” and “Magistrates, please consider community safety before deciding on bail applications”.

      So, energy supply insanity obviously needs much more than crippled small businesses, alumina potlines frozen, frozen embryos thawed out, even large sections of the population being without ATM’s, supermarkets and so on, or most critically emergency depts in hospitals crippled by unpredictable losses of power.

      What tragedy would work ?

      150

    • #
      Manfred

      What tragedy would work ?

      Rank impoverishment – as currently portrayed in Canberra.
      What I thought might be a pleasure turned into irate sadness as I went through the exhibition ‘A History of the World in 100 Objects‘ from the British Museum, on display at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra this morning.
      One contemporaneous exhibit designated as somehow profoundly symbolic of our age, was a small LED light supplied by a battery charged from a small PV panel. There was a photo below it of an negro sitting in the dark, pouring over a book in the small pool of light, barely sufficient to illuminate the text. The legend for the display highlighted these selected markers of our age: a ‘solar panel’ and ‘climate change’.

      Luckily it was at the end of the exhibition, because that did it for me. The betrayal was obvious, stark and offered nothing more than a punto finale to further human development and prosperity. And the contrast could not have been more obvious with a back drop of objects present from 7000 years of human history.

      80

      • #
        Annie

        You’d feel like putting a sign next to it saying ‘This is pathetic…give me a proper light and power’

        70

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    At least the South Australian Labor Premier did initially support the idea of nuclear power generation for logical replacement for coal generated electricity. Had the South Australians had that in place BEFORE they symbolically blew up their coal generation plant, that would have made real sense. Better though if the Victoria Labor Government had the balls to build a nuclear fusion reactor to eventually take over from Brown coal power generation with the nuclear facility placed right next to the almost mothballed Desal plant. A location that May have been seen as “brilliant forward thinking” by a past Labor Government of Victoria!

    As the Desal plant is right next to the now coal fired Victorian end of the power grid. So the opportunity is there, just needs the bold step to complete the forward thinking exercise, unless of course the ideal location was just an accident of co-incidence when they made the decision to build the over sized Desal plant there.

    Labor seems to be unlucky as if they had built the Desal during the last great drought they would have been hailed as saviours, but they missed the political bus!!

    Labor federally seems to be making the same mistake in just getting on the band wagon bus of Climate Change with the Bill Shorten “new religious fervour to embrace Climate Change” arriving just as it seems Donald Trump is writing the first chapter exposing the paucity of real science backing the Bulldust meme.

    A meme that had no chance anyway of surviving the observable real temperature decline that will wake up THE DUMEST POLITICIANS and voters in coming years. How do they make such stupid decisions, well don’t go far past the Union leader background of troughs to put snouts in. The real world might just catch up with them.

    We live in interesting times.

    231

    • #
      el gordo

      CT this is an excellent summary, but I have grave doubts over the nuclear option because (as you well know) its a political minefield.

      60

    • #
      el gordo

      Except in South Australia.

      In some obscure journal called SACOME an independent random polling (a couple of years ago) of over 1,200 South Australians support uranium mining (55.0%) and the development of a nuclear power sector (48.0%) than oppose (25.5% and 32.6% respectively). The “strong support” for nuclear power (29%) outweighed the “strong opposition” (20%).

      90

  • #
    observa

    Repeat after me- The blackouts had nothing whatsoever to do with the windmills, the blackouts had nothing whatsoever…

    230

    • #
      ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

      Indeed. The windmills are innocent. They did NOTHING.. Nothing at all..

      120

    • #
      Raven

      From observa’s The Advertiser link:

      “Within the last week, AEMO has put forth a requirement that there has to be a minimum of two synchronous generators operating at all times within SA,” Dr Finkel said. “That provides voltage support and system strength.”

      AEMO well understand the need for base load power.

      60

      • #
        Analitik

        There were THREE baseload (3 Torrens B) and 2 peaking synchronous generators online at the time of the September blackout.
        FIVE baseload (1 Torrens A, 3 Torrens B and Pelican Point) and 7 peaking synchronous generators online at the time of the December partial blackout.

        Data can easily be checked here – http://nemweb.com.au/Reports/ARCHIVE/Dispatch_SCADA/

        The requirement is effectively meaningless window dressing.

        20

  • #

    The ABC on the fun wrecking of Port Augusta power station:

    Former power station worker Gary Rowbottom said he had mixed feelings as the demolition work progressed. “Fairly bittersweet really, nostalgic, a bit sad that I haven’t got a job there anymore but also hopeful it will be symbolic of a new era in electricity generation for Port Augusta,” he said.

    How interesting that power workers in SA talk just the way arts graduates write for the ABC. Even when their livelihood goes up in smoke! I wonder if Gary had his hands clasped in front of his diaphragm like a kid reciting on speech night.

    But seriously, only those on the Posh Left have an understanding of the market these days. They know that coal simply can’t compete in the grabs for incentives, exemptions and subsidies. Education isn’t just for learning to talk about symbolism and bittersweet nostalgia…though that’s a wondrous thing too.

    180

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Ah, the poetry of it all. What rhymes with renewable? Oh, yes. Screwable.

      150

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The people of Port Augusta have been brainwashed into thinking that replacing the old 550MW coal fired power station with a 50MW solar heat plant will supply cheap power, jobs and useful amounts of electricity. A sort of cargo cult, caused by people like the WeatherDILL talking in trances about vast sums of money that would appear and make their dreams come true if only they believe. It requires them to destroy their possessions to please weird figures like Mal Talkbull who is said to float around in the clouds showering benefits on those beneath him.

      Meanwhile there is an article in the paper about the parlous state of business in Pt. Augusta and how the local business owners are buying generators to keep their door open.

      120

      • #

        It only remains for Jay to contact Macquarie dictionary and get “diesel generator sales and service” defined as “green job”.

        Oh, and when they blew up Playford B? Green job! All those excited people filming and watching the explosion? Eco-tourism!

        110

      • #
        Angry

        I hope it is a STINKER of a Summer and there is no power for all their air conditioners !

        40

        • #
          llew jones

          “I hope it is a STINKER of a Summer and there is no power for all their air conditioners !”

          Yeah I do too. But here in Niddrie Vic it is more likely that we are going to need some of that disappearing power to keep us warm. A bit like our promised hot,dry spring,that didn’t turn out that way,our predicted “scorching hot summer” is getting off to an unusually cold start. Got my woolies on right now as well as using some of that scarce electricity on our electric blanket last night.

          70

        • #
          Geoffrey Williams

          Me to!
          GeoffW

          20

    • #
      David Maddison

      Blowing up the power station rather than mothballing it was an indescribably stupid thing to do.

      240

  • #
    Reed Coray

    When I experience a power outage, my first reaction is irritation. The outages are invariably localized to a small section of my community; and unless the outages are repeated, I seldom concern myself with their cause. Even when the outages cover large areas, I seldom spend much effort trying to determine the cause. For this reason, public awareness of the possible cause of power outages, especially if they impact the economy and are likely to continue, is every bit as important as the outages themselves. Jo’s blog has made me aware of a possible source of SA’s recent power blackouts. I don’t live in Australia so to me it’s academic; and I admit that I lack sufficient knowledge to know for sure the degree to which SA’s reliance on wind energy played a role in SA’s blackouts. It does, however, seem eminently reasonable that wind power played a significant role. In any event Jo’s blog is one way Australians are being made aware of the possible adverse effects of a reliance on wind power. For this, all Australians should be thankful and wind-power enthusiasts should be worried. Thank you Jo.

    220

  • #
    Hans K

    A few years back a German Dr. thesis on energy concluded that any Power system would become entirely unstable upon exceeding 23% input from Wind.

    210

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Agreed. This is why you need artificial grid stability technologies based on stored energy – pump storage or batteries.

      The Bonneville power Authority works at 40% renewables because it has vast hydro reserves.

      130

      • #
        Pauly

        turnedoutnice
        December 10, 2016 at 6:29 am

        Have you done the sums? Look at total wind and solar PV installed capacity. Keep it simple and divide nameplate capacity by 10 to give some estimate of average energy production rate. Then work out how much energy needs to be stored. Use that to give you your target battery numbers.

        Then look at the battery manufacturing industry. Work out its annual production capacity. Identify all materials required to produce batteries, back to the source of all the raw material needed. Now increase the capacity of the entire process to achieve the required annual production rate you require. Can it be done?

        Don’t bother. Others have done the calculations, and pointed out the stupidity of such an approach. Because at every step along the way to increasing battery storage capacity, that process requires fossil fuels. Which begs the question of why we should bother using up fossil fuel when using it directly to produce electricity on demand is much more efficient.

        100

        • #
          stan stendera

          You hear about lithium supply being the bottleneck in battery production. Actually the bottleneck is cobalt. There is simply insufficient worldwide production or proven reserves of cobalt to even come within sighting distance of the batteries needed to store power from the windmills and solar industrial sites that currently exist much less any new ones. Pumped hydro power storage works, however, the problem here is almost all suitable sites for pumped storage have already been developed. Greens, as usual, have absurd ideas.

          20

  • #

    I was talking to a guy yesterday who’d just come back from the WA mines for a week and he said when he left it was 45C, while here in Vic we were sweltering in 14C temps and bucketing rain. SA is kind of known for hot Summers, so if it comes to pass, SA will seem even hotter as the power goes out. But I’m sure all the well to do Greens and their ilk will be well looked after and kept cool while the remainder of the populace suffers.

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      The closing of Hazelwood has been timed, in my cynical opinion, to allow SA to get through the summer with some backup power. The political consequences of more grid failures can then be further delayed.

      I wonder if Hazelwood will be mothballed or quickly demolished?

      90

      • #

        It’ll probably take some time to fully demolish Hazelwood. But what’s ironic is that a few years ago Hazelwood Pondage (the source for cooling water) was stocked with Barramundi with the idea that it would generate tourism etc and it’s now open for fishing. But when Hazelwood closes, the water will no longer remain at around 26C and the effect on the Barramundi will be unknown. Maybe one generator can be left on to keep the pondage warm.

        70

        • #
          David Maddison

          I plan to visit the pondage and swim and/or camp there before it shuts down.

          They could keep the pondage warm by installing electrical heating elements and dumping all windmill power into it, about the only thing dirty windmill electricity is good for.

          50

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Nice phrase “yet to be demonstrated in practice”.

    Useful in say
    Any connection between CO2 and warming yet to be demonstrated in practice.
    Any effect of CO2 on clime yet to be demonstrated in practice.
    Any influence of CO2 and global temperature level yet to be demonstrated in practice.
    Any benefit from restricting conventional electricity generation yet to be demonstrated in practice.
    Any of the claimed benefits from renewable energy yet to be demonstrated in practice.
    Any chance that Jay Weatherill is quite sane is yet to be demonstrated in practice.

    181

  • #
    James Murphy

    Given that SA will experience lots of blackouts, I say that the submarines could be built from either milk cartons (bound to be vast amounts of spoiled milk as refrigeration fails), or beer cans (better drink it before the power fails and it gets warm), or perhaps both.

    For those not in the sub building caper, the milk carton regatta could be revived.

    Or, they could copy the Darwin beer can regatta

    As they are french submarines, why not make them from papier-mâché, perhaps recycling all the paper hospital records which can’t be stored in the brand new (over budget and over time) hospital, not far from what may well be be the worlds most expensive bit of grass with chairs around it – the $475 million dollar (tax payer funded) redeveloped Adelaide Oval, accessed via the $40 million dollar (almost $157000/metre) footbridge over the Torrens…

    South Australia must really seem like a massive joke, (or just like The Simpsons’ Monorail episode) to those who don’t live there.

    90

    • #

      Hold on to those
      Collins-class subs,
      they’re all we’ve got
      or likely to get
      with a sub industry
      that’s dependent
      on intermittent …
      inefficient energy
      in a failed state.

      30

  • #
    Lance

    My understanding of the SA blackout is that it was precipitated by one-in-fifty year storm that brought down several 275 kV transmission lines, the loss of which caused a cascading voltage collapse that tripped the Haywood Interconnector in a matter of seconds. That being said, wind generation cannot engage or tie to the grid unless there exists a 50 Hz synch pulse because the grid tie inverters lock out the wind generator, therefore the wind units were of zero use in restarting the black grid. It is amazing that the grid was restarted in such a relatively short period. The reliability of the grid is a function of reliable generation, reliable transmission, thoughtful oversight, well designed protective relaying and a certain amount of luck. If, as pointed out in Jo’s article above, there comes a shortfall in generation, the grid operator will have to be well ready to disconnect large users who have interruptable supply contracts as a backstop means to avoid a cascading voltage collapse and subsequent general blackout. Wind ( non dispatchable generation) at some level of penetration ( say over 25% ) will exacerbate the instability. Additional thermal generation will not help without additional transmission lines. Additional wind generation will not stabilize the system at all. Pumped hydro will not work if it isn’t built by the time needed and thoroughly integrated into the existing grid. As greater inductive loads are added (air conditioning compressor motors) the risk of voltage collapse increases, for which the need to inject reactive power near the large loads becomes necessary. It is a complex issue that must be addressed as an entire interdependent system. Methinks the electrical power engineers know their system and load flows. Perhaps it would be best to listen to them a bit more and a bit less to politicians and wind tower salesmen.

    103

    • #
      David Maddison

      I have an idea. Why not get rid of the windmills and build some coal, gas or nuclear power stations!

      170

    • #
      pattoh

      Even without power for lighting, lamp posts may yet be seen as multi-function cultural appurtenances .

      91

    • #
      ianl8888

      … the SA blackout is that it was precipitated by one-in-fifty year storm that brought down several 275 kV transmission lines …

      NO!!

      The blackout occurred, the windmill farms tripped off, BEFORE the transmission lines came down. The AEMO interim report was very precise on that.

      The excuse that followed that morsel of reality was that the windmill software settings in some installations were too sensitive to … something or other (perhaps wind shear speed, one may think) and this was to be adjusted. Some windmill operators refused to do this adjustment on the grounds that it exposed their windmills to potential damage. And that’s where the story ceased to be made public.

      … sigh …

      162

      • #
        Andrew

        LOOOOOOOL 1 in 50.

        The highest recorded wind speed on the mainland was 115km/h. That’s windy, but hardly noteworthy. There have been many instances of vastly higher speeds in the People’s Republic of SA in the last 50 years, with the true 50 year event being an impressive 167km/h recorded in Woomera.

        Now some might say there was a localised tornado or something. What, there weren’t tornados in 1979??

        52

    • #
      Pauly

      Lance,
      When you say, a one-in-fifty year storm, what do you mean?

      There was a significant depression off the SA coast. Tight isobars generally mean high winds. But all recorded wind speeds, everywhere along the coast, did not exceed gusts of 120km/hr, so hardly significant. Not more than a Category 1 storm.

      There was an associated cold front with rain, but no reports of major flooding, and only minor localised flooding.

      There was talk of lightning strikes, but no reporting of excessive number, or any significant property damage as a result. There was no report of wide-spread or large hail stones.

      All I have heard is talk – all trying to attribute the blackout to natural causes – mainly by the AGW brigade (does anyone else see the irony of that?). However, I have seen no data, either from radar traces prior to the blackout, from the BoM or from any other organisation, giving any credibility to that description of the weather during the day of the blackout.

      Which leads me to the mystery of the bent transmission lines. They are designed to withstand significantly stronger winds, usually up to Category 3. Which is why, in the long history of storms hitting the Australian coastline, there have rarely been any collapsed transmission towers. Local outages due to trees coming down on local power lines, but nothing like the bent towers in SA. That includes the storms that hit Victoria the following week, and all the cyclones that have hit Australia over the last 50 years or so. The strongest and most recent one was Cyclone Yasi in Queensland, with recorded wind speeds of up to 250km/hr. Only minor damage was done to the Queensland grid.

      I suspect that there may be other issues involved, and it will be interesting to see what a forensic analysis of the damaged towers reveals.

      Because what was obvious by its absence was the complete lack of any other wind damage in SA – fallen trees, roof damage, buildings blown away – the stuff we see in the aftermath of every cyclone. There was none that I saw. In summary, not much evidence of a storm of any significance.

      93

      • #
        bobl

        The towers are likely a local issue, a tornado perhaps, but the towers work as a system, the line itself ties many structures together forming an immobile mass – like guy ropes. If one tower goes, then the forces are applied in the wrong direction for the construction and the failed towers pull down surrounding ones.

        There were probably maintenance issues in one or two towers and these failure brought down the others.

        31

      • #
        Lance

        What I mean is that SA got unlucky. Nature decided to do something the designers of those towers didn’t anticipate. Have you ever heard of a localized microburst? See: http://www.weather.gov/ama/microbursts

        I watched a microburst twist a tree out of the ground before my very eyes as I stood 12 meters away. An ordinary storm in all ways except for that invisible vortex. They actually do happen.

        Regardless of that, or your observations of history, what evidence do you have that suggests the towers were maliciously collapsed by any other source than nature? Prithee do tell.

        20

        • #
          Pauly

          Lance,
          I have known of microbursts for many years – my career has been in aviation. The danger of a microburst is the initial downdraft, and where the airflow hits the ground, the subsequent wind shear. Both wind effects are especially dangerous to aircraft.

          However, the article highlights that the maximum recorded wind speed for a microburst is about 150mph. That is in extreme conditions.

          I also note the description “worse damage than some tornadoes produce” in the article. I have seen exactly that kind of damage, and still have the photographs. The point I made above is that, apart from the fallen towers, I have not seen any reports of any significant damage in the same areas as the collapsed towers.

          Microbursts are not only extremely localised, they are of very short duration as well. So I’m puzzled about them being the cause of transmission line failure. The reports from the regulator indicated that the towers collapsed on three widely dispersed lines, and they occurred several hours apart. So it beggars my understanding of meteorology to suggest that microbursts only occurred over transmission lines, and damaged no other vegetation or infrastructure.

          The other point

          20

        • #
          Pauly

          Lance,
          The other point you raised I cannot address. As I mentioned, it would be necessary to wait for the forensic analysis of the fallen structures.

          The list of potential issues is very long:
          Incorrect design or a specific design flaw; incorrect construction; corrosion; lack of maintenance; age and metal fatigue; metal softening due to bushfires; vandalism; excessive horizontal stress in transmission lines; failure of footings; … the list goes on.

          Most of those potential causes have no malicious aspects to them. And I certainly never inferred that there were. Any discussion without evidence is pure speculation. Which is really the point I was making about those individuals who jumped to “natural causes” being responsible for their collapse.

          20

  • #
    David Maddison

    I was in Kathmandu, Nepal, a year ago, a Third World country. Shops and businesses, at least the ones that could afford it, had battery banks running to keep lights on during regular power supply interruptions.

    I stayed in one of the more upmarket hotels and even though they managed to keep lights on I noticed they deactivated the power to the power outlets at certain times which meant no TV or recharging of devices.

    I had to carry my own electricity with me by way of lithium ion battery banks and disposable alkaline batteries. I recharged the battery banks during timesvwhen power was available.

    How sad this scenario is in coming to what was once one of the richest and also most energy rich countries on earth, Australia.

    140

  • #
    observa

    Err guys….the significance of this little gem should not be lost on any of us. In particular-

    “The COAG meeting discussed an interim report from Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel on energy security, which was commissioned after the September 29 blackout.
    Dr Finkel told The Advertiser that measures had been put in place to safeguard SA’s power supply, including new procedures adopted by the Australian Energy Market Operator. “Within the last week, AEMO has put forth a requirement that there has to be a minimum of two synchronous generators operating at all times within SA,” Dr Finkel said. “That provides voltage support and system strength.”
    The synchronous generators are gas-fired turbines, which are more reliable than solar or wind power and stabilise the network.”

    Presumably that means Torrens Island and Pelican Point must always be running and to demand that means to guarantee a return for their operators at whatever price they require to earn a quid. This is an extraordinary admission that wind and solar can’t cut it and will have to be restricted in what can be delivered to the market in order for gas thermal to maintain a certain immutable share.

    200

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day,
      In case you’re interested, I found this link which offers two versions of the interim report. I’ve downloaded the PDF version into iBooks and it comes in at 80 pages.

      http://www.environment.gov.au/energy/publications/energy-market-preliminary-report

      So far I’ve only done a selective skim read, and find it disturbing.The referenced submissions appear dominated by warmist groups, and are disguised in some footnotes by being referenced by number only.
      And Senator Roberts’ challenge to Finkel’s base proposition that CO2 causes warming is completely ignored.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      30

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    SA will innovate and produce sail-equipped, wind-powered surface-marines…….noo, this is not quite correct….a non subbing submarine is………thinks, thinks…..

    71

  • #
    Mark M

    Hazelwood, Australia’s “dirtiest’ coal fired power station, and the “Hottest Year. Evah!

    ABC: The power station’s warm cooling ponds have become home to the state’s newest and most exciting fishery.

    About 7,000 barramundi were released in April and people had to enter a ballot for the chance to catch one of the prized fish.

    Early on the fish were not biting because of cold and windy conditions.

    Barramundi face short future in the cooling ponds

    Keen fishermen have only a short time to catch the barramundi.

    When the plant closes in March, the water temperature will drop and any of the remaining warm water fish will struggle to survive.

    Testing has revealed the fish, which have grown in the shadow of one of the country’s dirtiest power stations, are safe to eat.
    . . .
    There is more “global warming” conundrums in this story than barramundi.

    122

  • #
    tom0mason

    If people start moving out of SA then surely these people are climate refugees, as their loss of minimum public amenities has caused real hardship, endangerment of life, and a significant loss of money.

    This minor (on the world stage) catastrophe only occurred because the Industrialized Governments of the Northern Hemisphere have made most the CO2 (well Australia has made diddly-swat) that SA has to mitigate against. Now people are leaving SA, they must be ‘climate refugees’.
    Surely the people of SA can claim money from the UN fund as naturalized people of this location are moving out (as climate refugees) to seek refuge and safety in other parts of the country.

    Therefore I feel that the legal-eagles of SA should be working hard to make a case to claim reparations from the UN, and that the UN should sue the EU on South Australia’s behalf.

    So claim SA claim!

    160

    • #
      ROM

      But, but, but TomOMason, you do realise that if those potential “climate refugees” decide to leave South Australia they won’t really have any options other than to migrate to some very dangerous, very high carbon environments in other states and that could be disastrous for their future well being and the future of the planet.

      I hope those SA Climate Refugees make up their minds quite soon as they could soon be overwhelmed with a flood of Victorian climate refugees heading for another state where the dangerous high carbon environment is seen as highly preferable to descending into pre- industrial non electric revolutionary life style of bad water, no sewerage, bad food, no medical systems, no transport except walking and horses, women yoked to the plough with the cow to cultivate the ground for food and etc.

      40

      • #
        tom0mason

        The UN should pay for them to get to the environmentally better areas such as the any of the South Pacific Islands currently used for processing refugees.

        00

    • #
      bobl

      Wev’e had European climate refugees for 100 years with the constant stream of poms landing on our shores looking to escape the cold, miserable English weather. I remember one of the climate refugees telling me he once went for a haircut in his native England and missed summer…

      Nothing new about people coming to our shores looking for better weather.

      50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Not quite o/t to this topic

    http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/104827-agw-third-view-climate-change-is-good-for-farmers/

    Check the comments, paticularly Tcmtech’s

    40

  • #
    Boyfromtottenham

    Thanks for the engineers POV Lance. Given that we have more than a century of power engineering evidence and expertise to draw on, I am mystified that state governments continue to ignore this in favour of green ‘experts’ with none. I feel as if the MSM has been taken over by the ghost of Lewis Carrol! When are we going to exit the rabbit hole?

    70

    • #
      Another Ian

      And other sort of “experts” e.g

      http://www.couriermail.com.au/extras/qweekend/fff/features/pdfs/338.pdf

      And now Queensland has swallowed the renewables coolaid as well

      40

    • #
      Lance

      Agreed. Methinks SA will exit the rabbit hole as jobs and factories leave the area because of unreliable power. Flesh and blood people vote with their feet. Odd that Politicians seem to believe that Citizens are a stationary target.

      90

    • #
      David Maddison

      The thing about being a “Green Expert” as opposed to a scientist or engineer is that you need no qualifications whatsoever, and you don’t need a track record of ever having done anything useful in your life.

      You just need to self-proclaim yourself as such and the media and politicians will come to you and huge consulting fees will follow.

      71

      • #
        TdeF

        In a way, this is the problem, the demand for drama in the news, to sell the news and pay journalists. It was taken to an extreme in the James Bond parody of Murdoch in Tommorrow Never Dies where media tycoon Carver starts a war between the UK and China so he can sell news.

        So I noticed in the Vietnam war protests and protests in general, the press gravitate to the person on the ladder in the crazy clothes and mad hair or the one making the most noise and they were portrayed as the voice of the people. Rrevolutionaries, activists and people with nothing better to do. Thousands of people at University doing Arts degrees with only a few hours a week at lectures. The Press love the Greens because they see themselves as not only social commentators but social activists.

        This in turn attracts politicians like blowflies. They love getting the media because appearing in the paper or television or radio is so much easier and less humbling than working the shopping centers with ‘ordinary’ people. Turnbull didn’t even bother campaigning. He did get on a Melbourne tram once. Tourists do more. Then he went to lunch.

        Interestingly Green politicians dress like Mormons in a severe conservative manner, almost 1950s to appeal to the busy conservative types like doctors who are too busy to be activists but like the idea of social change. Then it is what they say, like applauding the disruption of parliament last week over the camps which do not exist. Nauru is not a camp but a country but Di Natalie congratulated them on stopping the Australian parliament.

        As Trump said, the modern press are the real problem. He went much further than moderation would allow. I doubt the people of Adelaide really understand the mess they are in as the wages keep coming from Canberra as they have always done.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          [Duplicate] ED

          I had to try.

          [Please. I don't have an explanation for what tripped your FIRST comment.] ED

          40

        • #
          Lance

          Drama might well sell newspapers, but the thin veneer of society is breeched in 3 days.

          Modern society devolves in 3 days right well back a century or more. People will kill each other for a liter of water or a ham sandwich. Worse in large cities, better in the rural areas where people are more resilient.

          Avoiding such unpleasantries largely means keeping the grid up and the populace amused.
          Fail at either and there’s hell to pay.

          Limited Governmental control, personal responsibility, and a self sufficient populace are preferable to drama. However, that only applies to a moral and educated/aware society. Absent the basis of stability, all bets are off.

          50

    • #
      Lance

      What SA seems to not understand is that their dependence upon the Haywood Connector does not address the issue of voltage collapse. As inductive loads increase and voltage begins to drop, amperage demand increases because motors don’t know any better. The only way to stop the death spiral is to inject reactive power near the large inductive loads. Reactive power cannot travel far (not more than 50 to 100 miles ) and therefore must be injected locally. That means the distant generators cannot help SA during a voltage collapse. Unless the wind generators can produce reactive power locally, they are of zero benefit. Only a synchronous alternator with the ability to dynamically modulate the rotor and stator winding excitation can inject reactive power. The alternative is to have large users provide their own diesel gensets to avoid being shed from the grid in entirety. It would be interesting to have the power engineers and grid system operators in SA provide their views on what is necessary to stabilize the system. It likely won’t include additional non-dispatchable generation nor increasing reliance upon the Haywood interconnector. The Grid is a Load Following Machine. Synchronous thermal generation is a load following provider of reactive power and apparent power. What customers see is effective power. Wind generators “follow the machine that is following the load” and are most definitely not “in charge” of anything at all.

      100

      • #
        Ian Hill

        Sorry to be pedantic but it’s spelled “Heywood”. In the 1960s the city of Mount Gambier about 100km to the west and in SA once had a large green sign saying “Haywood” much to the amusement of us all. The council finally got around to fixing it.

        00

      • #
        Analitik

        The larger sites running significant numbers of induction motors are likely to have synchronous condensors or capacitor banks on site or nearby because it is hugely inefficient to produce and transmit large amounts of reactive power from power stations. It uses up generation and transmission capacity for no benefit.

        There are wind turbines that can produce reactive power to help stabilise grids but none have been installed in Australia due to the added cost. Some overseas grids have a requirement for wind farms to be able to provide both inertial and reactive grid support but there is no such requirement here.

        00

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    South Australia is leading the rest of the world in alternative energy generation , creating new jobs while reducing its need for coal powered generation !
    Here’s the fine print ,
    The selling and maintaining of portable generators is the growing industry .

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    Why can’t the proponents of unreliable energy be asked to prove AGW.

    If they can’t prove it (which they can’t because it doesn’t exist) then we can return to cheap and reliable fossil fuel generation.

    If Green types want to continue to use windmills then let them alone purchase it at full cost with no backup from fossil fuel permitted to such users. They can either get batteries or their lights go out when the wind doesn’t blow.

    81

    • #
      el gordo

      A couple of state-owned conglomerates in China are developing medium-sized reactors (1000 megawatts), the ACP1000 and the ACPR1000, which are based on a much older French design.

      Nuclear power is South Australia’s future, that’s what the Premier means when he said ‘we will go it alone.’ A nuclear waste dump is part of the mix.

      20

      • #
        David Maddison

        Possibly it would be better to go with small modular reactors defined as prefabricated reactors under 300MWe that are trucked onto site. There is no reasonable chance of building anything big in SA due to unions and unreliable electricity. In addition long term construction works for a big reactor could be held up by dole bludging Green protestors. It would be far easier to turn up to site with a reactor in tow. Relatively ittle site preparation would be required if they installed one at the location of shut down or demolished fossil generators as there would be a ready made grid connection, a secure site, water, roads etc. and apart from planning approval for a reactor, the site would already have planning permission for a power station.

        I wrote a article on these in the June 2016 Silicon Chip magazine.

        101

    • #
      Manfred

      The politically required insertion of ‘precautionary principle’ into post-modern ‘science’, so evidence-based policy inevitably becomes policy-based ‘evidence’.

      10

    • #
      Lance

      Renewable providers ought also be required to absorb the costs of backup generation, their KW allocation of transmission, distribution, maintenance, and OHP for designated utilities, and the publicly provable cost of subsidy per kwh of actual production. Add to that the “hidden costs” of production of rare earths materials, and environmental costs subsequent to the manufacture of their devices. One might find renewables are in fact less renewable than ordinarily believed if the truth be told.

      30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo This is o/t but fyi

    ” 1saveenergy
    December 9, 2016 at 9:54 am

    I’ve just started an information only website

    http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/

    as an adjunct to sites like WUWT.

    Hope you find it useful in getting the message out.

    Will add more as time goes on, happy to have constructive criticism / more info when I get contact connected.”

    A comment at

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/09/open-thread-friday/comment-page-1/#comment-2365641

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    It is possible to use an electricity provider that buys all its electricity from “renewables”. One such company is Red Energy.

    I wish people like us (except Red Thumb) could choose to buy electricity only from reliable power generation (coal, gas, hydro or nuclear, if we ever get it).

    60

  • #

    Lance, what a wonderful comment. Can you please put it into really simple words that the non specialist can follow?
    Or suggest a reading list.

    20

    • #
      observa

      Without putting words in Lance’s mouth I’d put it like this. We were consistently led to believe all electrons are equal but in truth anyone with any technical savvy knows that some are more equal than others. We have really inherited a phony national electricity market but to make all electrons supplied equal in the marketplace, any generator should only be allowed to tender power to that market up to the maximum amount they can guarantee 24/7 all year round. What that would mean in practice is unreliables like wind generators would have to partner with reliable thermal providers and pay them accordingly, but that would immediately expose the game they’ve been playing with our power bills and long term sustainability.

      40

      • #
        Lance

        In the large, yes, Observa, you are correct. It is complicated. 3 things will collapse your grid. Physical collapse, frequency collapse and Voltage collapse. The recent SA collapse was physical. Frequency is rarely an issue. The projected issues in Jan are Voltage related. An AC system is, well, a “system”. It cannot be devolved into disassociated parts. Customers produce Load. Generation, Transmission, Distribution and Maintenance, provide for that Load. That said, there are physical constraints upon that mission. Generation seeks to supply Vars (Reactive Watts) into the impedence that it “sees” as connected load. The impedence ( an AC analogue of resistance: comprised of inductive reactance, capacitive reactance, and dc resistance) or “Load” is constantly changing. Generation seeks to supply the Load. But it does so via the Transmission lines which have their own unique impedence. The further away a Load is from Generation, the less able Generation is able to support Voltage and, more to the point, the greater the inductive load, the less Generation is able to maintain voltage. There are limitations of distance, transmission impedence, and such. It is NOT a simple issue. The “target Load” is moving, constantly, throughout the day. A Grid Operator might shift the geographically “Designated Synchronous Swing Unit” on an hourly basis in an attempt to match Generation Reactive Power Capacity to the “anticipated load”. Inductive loads reduce system voltages and increase system current demands. On a localized basis, capacitors and synchronous condensers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_condenser ) can compensate for limited excursions. Large scale deviations require active intervention to prevent voltage collapse. Voltage collapse can occur in time scales of seconds to minutes. If the dispatchable capacity to meet the voltage requirements are not available, the only choice a grid operator has is to shed load. That means disconnecting factories and large users. Frequency collapse is rarely the issue. Cascading voltage collapse is often the issue. Intermittent / non-dispatchable generation complicates management of this aspect. Tremendously. More so as the penetration of non-dispatchable generation increases. Generation capable of providing or absorbing reactive power within a physical distance of 250-500 Km is critical. If a generation source cannot effectively inject reactive power during a voltage collapse event, then it cannot contribute to grid stability. That is why “renewables” are ineffective at stabilizing grid systems. Renewables “follow the follower that is following the load”. In a given grid or subgrid, the load flow analysis that projects reactive power requirements cannot stably be resolves if the is more than ONE designated swing unit that absorbs or provides reactive power. The differential equations involved become un-solvable. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. It matters what can be done in a matter of minutes. Otherwise, you face a blackout. In a black system restart, none of the renewables matter one whit because they cannot connect to the grid until the synchronous frequency/voltage exists from the primary generation. Safety interlocks prevent any renewables from engaging UNLESS there already exists a primary synchronizing pulse from the mains. Restarting a grid requires sufficient synchronous generation into a manageable impedance BEFORE any renewables can be added to the system. I hope this makes some kind of sense. It is extremely complex.

        50

        • #
          ianl8888

          The recent SA collapse was physical

          ONLY after the actual blackout !

          Please see #12.3 above. This is a very critical point.

          20

          • #
            Lance

            Irrelevant. The loss of the transmission lines would have collapsed the grid whether or not the renewables disconnected a few milliseconds before or after any given time. There was simply no way to supply the load. Your argument is more philosophical/political than practical. In any case, the renewables would have disengaged in a millisecond after the transmission lines went down and the synchronous grid tie synch signal was lost. The practical matter is that SA cannot survive without Victoria’s generation and the Haywood connector because SA cannot provide enough voltage support on its own in the event of a grid tie disconnect. SA becomes an isolated island and the renewables are unavailable. Have it your way. Or not. Without adequate dispatchable generation, available transmission and active voltage sustenance, SA will go black.

            20

            • #
              Analitik

              The loss of the windfarms due to their cutoff tolerances being breached caused a generation shortfall which caused the frequency to drop below the allowable limit for the Heywood Interconnector to sustain (since it leads to current increase).

              So the blackout cause was frequency collapse. The pylon collapses caused momentary short circuits but it was not a physical grid collapse.

              Details are available in the AEMO preliminary report of the event or you can go through the previous threads on the subject here where many of us have discussed this to death.

              10

        • #
          Mark D.

          Excellent primer Lance!

          It is complex but yet simple: If you permit excessive variables, especially rapid variables, the grid will fail to carry the load.

          The grid really represents the culmination of civilized behavior. Without a stable grid you will have unstable civilization.

          Simple……unless there is a motive to provoke instability.

          20

        • #
          Wally

          Lance: Yes. When I studied electrical and electronic engineering 30 years ago, grid system stability was a 3rd year subject with a prerequisite of a lot of maths and differential equations.

          Saying “its complex” is a bit of an understatement. We had simulators (even back then) which allowed a dynamic simulation to be created for a grid with transmission lines, distributed loads, generation, and the ability to inject load changes and faults.

          I don’t think any of us students managed to make stable power grids in simulation, at least not sustained. The real grid operators have lots of complex software to help, and a great deal of skill.

          Unless you have done a degree in electrical engineering, none of this is apparent.

          40

          • #
            Lance

            Wally: I’m a Mechanical Engineer and my brother is an Electrical Power Systems engineer. We’ve debated these very issues for 35 years. My take on it is that most people do not appreciate the intricacies of AC Power systems nor the elements that support the stability thereof. Suffice to say that it is “more than complex”. No imaginary pun intended. Systems cannot be devolved into a single part and remain meaningful. That is exactly what Politicians and Wind Tower Salesmen would like to do. A 6000 kg rotating turbine/alternator mass at 1800 r/m that is synchronized with some thousand other similar units across a nation is a formidable stabilizing influence. Wind turbines are simply a fart in a windstorm in comparison to that scale of things. Cheers. Owe you a pint. :)

            30

          • #
            Analitik

            Wally, I wonder if I went to Uni with you – the time frame would fit.

            From memory, those simulations were purposely short on stability relative to the faults to drive home the difficulty of the task. In real life grids, there was much more synchronous inertia available since some adjustments required telephone calls (made over the power grid) – these days, I imagine a lot of the control is performed via remote computer commands so reactions can be a lot faster. But then I also think this greater capacity has allowed for greater penetration of renewables than would have been possible in the past and that some grids (eg South Australia and Germany) are now running on the edge despite the greater capabilities of the grid operators.

            10

    • #
      observa

      Here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about with SA wind farm output for December 1st- http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2016/december/1
      Just uncheck all boxes at the bottom except SA and subtotal and then switch to MW(top right corner) and what do you see? Total SA wind farms are actually drawing power from the grid during peak morning load time. Do the same on Dec 6th this time with percentage of output installed and you’ll find total SA wind farm output around 5% all day. Get the picture? What would these wind generators be able to guarantee 24/7 to the national grid and what monetary transfers to thermal partners would they need in order to offer that? Duh!

      40

      • #
        Lance

        As you say. Additionally, what stability do the renewables provide to a synchronous grid when they cannot be dispatched, cannot assist with frequency or voltage support and cannot follow actual load until after the synchronous grid responds? In a sense, renewables are untimely and insufficient with regard to actual loads. Response times matter. Grid operators have enough troubles with existing issues without adding unknown abilities to the picture.

        10

    • #
      Lance

      @Mark D.: Well, for the non specialist, I would advise that “others” explain in detail how they provide actual usable power with and without subsidy per kwh inclusive of backup power, mining/production environmental costs etc so they are directly comparable to utility generation costs. That doesn’t directly answer your question, yes, I know. That said, the issues to be resolved are quite complex. There is no simple resource that covers the relevant issues. It is a multi faceted issue in many respects. Firstly, there are the practical issues of a reliable grid. Secondly, there are the issues of how to achieve that. Thirdly, there are issues of how to generate the power that supplies that grid. Unless you wish to spend a good year or two understanding those issues, my advice would be to wrap your hands around the throats of anyone claiming to help you and demand that they answer all of those issues, in advance, before letting go. Let’s be practical. If any method of power generation were possible that was cheaper than utilities provide, they would already have done so. Conspiracy theories aside, nothing is free and nothing is simple. Anyone who claims differently is a liar. I’m not defending anyone. If you want to truly understand this stuff, it will take 5 years in an Engineering school and 10 to 20 years in actual practice. Anything less than that is an act of faith. I know you want a simple answer. There isn’t one. Everything is a tradeoff. That is how reality works.

      10

      • #
        stan stendera

        Lance thank you for the tutorial. Your remarks have certainly been illuminating, even as we see wind power (?) does not laminate. Thank you again, +1776.

        00

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Both the SA and Vic imbecile governments need the Bum’s Rush Out and in aggressive and urgent style before they bankrupt those states by sending them back to medieval times with pre-enlightenment ratbagism (green policies).

    And here they are, both Despot Daniel of Vic and slimey WeatherDill of SA attempting to blame the Federal Government for their states self inflicted woes!

    As much as I dislike El Supremo Malcolm, he nor the federal government are directly
    responsible for the renewable idiocies perpetuated and propagated by the states with the decommissioning of the Hazelwood coal fired power station in Vic and the actual deliberate destruction and lunatic celebration of similar in SA.

    And then there is Chief Propagandist Foinkel,(CAGW political appointee) making the kookoo claim that a Great Big New Carbon Tax will make power prices cheaper…..another CAGW True B’lver ratbag in urgent need of the Bum’s Rush Out!

    Is that why despot Daniel has announced a 10% power price increase for domestic users and higher for commercial users in Vic, and in SA the Weatherdill weasel has created the highest power prices in Aus with regular blackouts of which one was statewide with his idiotic WindMills littering the SA coastline.
    ‘Look how renewable we are?’says this SA fruitloop WeatherDill….yea with a constantly overloaded extension lead next door to VIC, and with the local population rushing out to buy PETROL generators……Brilliant!…..The ‘Foinkel Factor’…..stupidity on a grand scale.

    So instead of harmless co2(carbon dioxide) being emitted from clean burning coal, we have co1/co(carbon monoxide) being emitted of which is poisonous and lethal in relaively small amounts.
    Another giant step in the wrong direction by incompetent and lunatic b’lvers pretending to be leaders.

    How long will such lunacy be allowed to continue for?

    We need ‘a Donald’ to run the federal and each of the state government houses of corruption and gross incompetence.

    There are many swamps that need draining of which Vic and SA state pretend governments are the worst!

    51

  • #
    pat

    AFR still shilling for an emissions-intensity trading scheme.
    the only sane voice, ***Mike Kane from Boral, is given the second to last para, while the final para is an over-the-top CAGW outburst from Bill Shorten.
    what a twisted little story this is:

    9 Dec: AFR: Alan Finkel urges energy rethink as industry threatens to leave
    by Philip Coorey & Michael Smith
    Chief executives warn that political failure to resolve Australia’s looming crisis of rising energy costs and increasing blackout risks could force industry offshore as chief scientist Alan Finkel urged the Turnbull government to rethink its opposition to a market mechanism for reducing carbon emissions…
    But an increasingly isolated Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has dug in his heels over a proposed emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector, deriding it as an emissions trading scheme in disguise that would inevitably increase power prices.
    He also disputed expert advice to the government by Dr Finkel and other key energy advisers that an emissions intensity scheme would have the least impact on the economy and power prices, and would guarantee security of supply as the nation transitions towards gas and renewable energy and meets its 2030 emissions reductions targets…
    ???He (Finkel) said every stakeholder he has consulted as part of his energy review, be they in business, energy or consumer groups, appreciated the need to meet the 2030 targets “and they are looking for a stable, predictable, nationally coordinated approach”…
    The big bank bosses also said a reliable power solution was vital for business and said they supported investment in renewables, which they were helping to finance…
    ***Mike Kane from Boral said: “For a nation that is a world leader in coal production it is unfortunate that we don’t first focus our attention on clean coal burning innovation rather than assuming that domestic power generation is somehow going to be met with renewables.”…
    http://www.afr.com/news/politics/alan-finkel-urges-energy-rethink-as-industry-threatens-to-leave-20161208-gt7cc1

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Summer snow in Victoria.

    And just think, 2016 is on track to be the hottest year eeevvvuuuhhh!

    Quick, destroy more power stations!

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/33462513/cold-blast-brings-snow-to-vic-in-december/#page1

    41

  • #
    pat

    i posted a link to the following, with a short excerpt, at comment #16 on jo’s “Green leader South Australia gets energy security the diesel way” thread.
    when i realised the article was written a day prior to infamous ABC-AM/Kim Landers/Frydenberg interview of Monday 5th Dec, i tried in recent days to open the story, but was continually informed “You have reached an article available exclusively to subscribers”.
    finally, i just tried the cached version and was successful.
    because this twisted story took up most of the week, i’m excerpting several relevant portions in case the cached version disappears:

    4 Dec: AFR: Mark Ludlow: Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg says international emission trading permits are on the cards
    The Turnbull government will consider the use of international permits to attempt to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions as part of its landmark review into climate change policies, but ***an emissions trading scheme is not on the agenda.
    With increasing pressure on the federal government to tighten its Direct Action framework to force big polluters to change their behaviour, Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on Sunday released the terms of reference for the climate review, which will be completed by late next year…
    It will also look the safeguard mechanism that sets pollution baselines for emissions intensive industries but is yet to have any strong penalties.
    The review will explore a potential long-term emissions reduction goal post-2030, to replace the federal government’s current policy of cutting 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.
    But there is no mention of setting a new Renewable Energy Target to follow the current legislated target of 23.5 per cent by 2020, which many senior Coalition MPs believe is no longer necessary…
    Mr Frydenberg said the aspirational state-based targets in Queensland (50 per cent by 2030), Victoria (40 per cent by 2025) and South Australia (50 per cent by 2025), would “skew markets” and push up prices.

    ***Other areas to be looked at in the 2017 climate review are opportunities for reducing emissions on a sector-by-sector basis, but it is understood this ***does not include a move to an emissions trading scheme, even in the electricity sector***…

    “We will never forget the Australian families who are struggling to meet their power bills and the many blue-collar workers who feel their jobs in emissions intensive industries are under threat,” Mr Frydenberg told The Australian Financial Review.
    “We owe it to them to find the lowest cost way to meet our emissions reduction targets while at the same time ensure the lights also stay on.”
    It is understood the federal government is keen to target emissions from the transport sector which have increased 15 per cent over the past 15 years from 81 million tonnes to 94 million tonnes.
    Emissions from the electricity sector over the same period have fallen from 197 million tonnes to 189 million tonnes, according to figures from the national greenhouse gas inventory.
    But critics of Direct Action say it has not done enough to cut emissions which are set to rise by 2020. There are also expected to be criticisms of why the climate review was not done by an independent expert rather than Mr Frydenberg’s own department.
    Other areas to be looked at in the 2017 climate review are the impact of policies on jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia.
    It will also look at Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s move to combine the energy and environment portfolios and whether this is the best way to tackle climate policy.
    http://www.afr.com/news/politics/energy-minister-josh-frydenberg-says-international-emission-trading-permits-are-on-the-cards-20161204-gt3l0g

    funny how all the MSM jumped on the FakeNewsABC false claim that Frydenberg said an emissions intensity scheme was being looked at in the review, rather than going with the AFR report the previous day, clearly stating it would not be, not even for “the electricity sector”.

    10

  • #
    pat

    AFR, having kind-of-hidden Mark Ludlow’s 4 Dec article, teams Ludlow with Tingle, to produce this distorted piece of logic. it contradicts everything Ludlow wrote on 4 Dec, especially the fact an EIS wasn’t in the terms of reference.
    READ ALL:

    10 Dec: AFR: COAG and Malcolm Turnbull: lacking energy, long on hot air
    by Mark Ludlow & Laura Tingle
    The review had long been seen as an opportunity to reset policy, whether by “tweaking” the emissions reduction fund, or finding new policy options, ***such as an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector.
    But the review was effectively over before it began after Environment and Energy Minister ***Josh Frydenberg suggested the government was going to ***embrace an intensity scheme, and let it be linked to “carbon pricing”, rather than let the review run its course and the arguments be made, and voters educated, on what such a scheme might mean.
    With the debate quickly careering out of control, the government panicked and decided to kill off the option within 48 hours of the terms of reference for the review being announced.
    In doing so, it killed off the best, most effective option it had open to it to reduce carbon emissions while at the same time managing to look, once again, like it was completely at the mercy of its conservative rump…
    He (Finkel at COAG) discussed the three possible policy options that might be on the table, including an emissions intensity scheme, and made it clear that the intensity scheme was the most efficient. The message was clear…

    PHOTO CAPTION: The review was effectively over before it began after Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg suggested the government was going to ***embrace an intensity scheme, and let it be linked to “carbon pricing”…

    (CHUTZPAH!) Weatherill, Turnbull shot back, was in “no position to lecture us”.
    ***”He presides over the least stable, the least secure electricity system which is also the most expensive in Australia.”…
    But this hardly mattered. The reality was, while Frydenberg was in the relative safety of Antarctica, the Prime Minister had to front up to a meeting of premiers which was supposed to advance the energy and climate change debate…
    The end game of an EIS is to encourage “fuel switching” by generators who are likely to close down older coal-fired power stations – such as those in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley – and move to alternative sources such as combined-cycle gas turbines and renewables which have lower emissions…
    http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/coag-and-malcolm-turnbull-lacking-energy-long-on-hot-air-20161208-gt73xv

    00

    • #
      pat

      also from the AFR Mark Ludlow/Laura Tingle article:
      “The AEMC and AEMO report assessed three mechanisms for reducing emissions up to 2030 – an Emissions Intensity Scheme (which they called an Emissions Intensity Target), the extension of the large-scale Renewable Energy Target or the regulated closure of fossil-fuel power stations.”

      NOTE: Energy Consumers Australia – Stakeholders
      Government Bodies: includes AEMC & AEMO
      http://www.energyconsumersaustralia.com.au/stakeholders

      funny ABC doesn’t mention the stakeholders when talking to Gallagher…nah, she is representing ***electricity consumers!

      AUDIO: 3mins16secs: 10 Dec: ABC AM: Federal Govt urged to consider the evidence on carbon trading
      A group representing ***electricity consumers*** is urging the Federal Government to leave all options on the table, when it comes to planning Australia’s energy future.
      Reporter: Peta Donald
      Featured:
      Mike Baird, NSW Premier
      Annastacia Palaszczuk, Queensland Premier
      Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister
      Daniel Andrews, Victorian Premier
      Jay Weatherill, South Australian Premier
      Colin Barnett, WA Premier
      ***Lynn Gallagher, Energy Consumers Australia
      http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4590351.htm

      00

    • #
      pat

      Coorey’s 7 Dec AFR piece has various boxes with quotes, almost all providing a source, but not for Frydenberg’s quote on Monday.
      Coorey’s article also fails to mention Ludlow’s article of 4 Dec (the only AFR piece i’ve ever found blocked after initially having no problem opening it), stating terms of reference were released on that date, which was a Sunday; Coorey now says it was released Monday.
      Coorey also ignores Ludlow’s article stating the terms of reference show no emissions trading scheme, not even for the electricity sector:

      7 Dec: AFR: Philip Coorey: Climate backflip ignores expert advice
      But 36 hours after Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg suggested such a scheme at least be looked at as part of the government’s 2017 review of climate policy, a fierce backlash from government backbenchers led by Senator Cory Bernardi, and by minister Christopher Pyne, against anything resembling a price on carbon forced him to backflip and rule it out…
      An emissions intensity scheme is not a carbon price or carbon tax in that it does not raise revenue by charging for emissions. Instead it would penalise generators who pollute above a baseline limit…
      It is understood the federal government already has a copy of the report from Australia’s National Energy Market Commission which says such a scheme would reduce prices, ***but cabinet resolved against the scheme several weeks ago…
      Danny Price of Frontier economics and who has long advocated a baseline scheme, said the scheme would actually reduce power prices while maintaining energy security…
      (LUDLOW SAID SUNDAY) On Monday, Mr Frydenberg released terms of reference for a review of climate policy for the decade beyond 2020…
      It opened the door to the purchase of cheap international permits to help meet Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target but made ***no provision for an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax…
      But Mr Frydenberg did leave open the prospect of an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity industry which produces one-third of the nation’s carbon emissions.
      “We know that there’s been a large number of bodies that have recommended an emissions intensity scheme, which is effectively a baseline and credit scheme. We’ll look at that,” he said in an interview (COOREY – WHY NOT SAY AN INTERVIEW WITH KIM LANDERS ON ABC AM, IN WHICH LANDERS IS THE ONE PUSHING THE STORY, NOT FRYDENBERG)
      On Wednesday morning, Mr Turnbull said the terms of reference never opened the door to “a scheme of that kind”…
      http://www.afr.com/news/climate-backflip-ignores-expert-advice-20161207-gt5o7g

      00

  • #
    Analitik

    Mikky has a whole raft of analysis on South Australia – https://climanrecon.wordpress.com/
    He also has written quite a few article on the UK and the effect of wind on their grid

    10

  • #
    pat

    theirABC’s Doogue & one of her usual globalist guests.
    intro – it could be described as another week of politics versus science in Australia…Finkel blah blah.
    Doogue thinks US doesn’t have this fight/debate about CAGW policies/electricity prices, etc. they just go ahead and invest “fortunes” into the “transition”. the whole Trump phenomenon passed her by, as she only ever talks to people of a certain political persuasion.

    u have to hear it all to not believe it:

    AUDIO: 15mins20secs: 10 Dec: ABC Saturday Extra: Urgent changes needed to electricity market
    The Finkel review into Australia’s national electricity market has exposed its weaknesses but also points to a way forward to achieve reliable, affordable low emission power.
    Global energy analyst Michael Liebreich warns that unless political consensus is achieved on energy policy – business investment and consumers in Australia will suff
    Guest: Michael Liebreich is Chairman of the Advisory Board at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a company he founded in 2004 that was acquired by Bloomberg in 2009
    Presenter: Geraldine Doogue
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/electrcity-market-review/8107762

    Wikipedia: Michael Liebreich is Chairman of the Advisory Board at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a company he founded in 2004 that was acquired by Bloomberg L.P. in 2009…
    Before starting New Energy Finance, Liebreich worked as a consultant at McKinsey & Company from 1990 to 1995…
    He also worked as a venture capitalist with Groupe Arnault, and was commercial director of Associated Press Television (now APTN), and founding director of Sports News Television (SNTV)…
    In 2011, Liebreich was the executive producer of a video short illustrating the world’s ultimate shift away from fossil fuels, titled “First They Ignore You…”…
    Liebreich is a member of numerous energy-focused industry groups, including the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the New Energy Architecture and the UN Secretary General’s High Level Group on Sustainable Energy for All…
    ***Liebreich is a former member of the advisory board of the Clinton Global Initiative’s Energy and Climate Change working group, the selection panel for the Zayed Future Energy Prize, Accenture’s Global Energy Board and the UN Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change…

    00

    • #
      pat

      btw ABC’s Doogue & Bloomberg’s Liebreich throw around the “Trilemma” word:

      October 2016: World Energy Council: 2016 Energy Trilemma Index: Benchmarking the sustainability of national energy systems
      Energy sustainability, which lies at the heart of the World Energy Council’s mission, requires robust and reliable ways for policymakers to effectively assess the sustainability of their country’s energy sector, benchmark progress, and compare their country’s energy sustainability performance with that of others.
      The Energy Trilemma Index, produced in partnership with global management consultancy Oliver Wyman, along with the Global Risk Centre of its parent Marsh & McLennan Companies, provides policymakers with a tool for doing so. It comparatively ranks 125 countries’ energy performance in order of how well they address the Council’s widely-used definition of energy sustainability, which is based on three core dimensions: energy security, energy equity, and environmental sustainability. Each country is given an index ranking as well as a letter grade denoting its performance in the individual dimensions…
      Download publication files:
      Executive Summary_Energy Trilemma Index 2016 (938.07 kB)
      Full report_Energy Trilemma Index 2016 (3.62 MB)
      2016-trilemma_executive_summary_infographic (211.11 kB).
      https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/2016/2016-energy-trilemma-index-benchmarking-the-sustainability-of-national-energy-systems/

      Wikipedia: The World Energy Council is a global and inclusive forum for thought-leadership and tangible engagement with headquarters in London. Its mission is ‘To promote the sustainable supply and use of energy for the greatest benefit of all people’.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Energy_Council

      00

  • #
    pat

    9 Dec: Hollywood Reporter: Rebecca Ford: ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Sequel to Debut at Sundance Opening Night
    Paramount will release the follow-up to Al Gore’s Academy Award-winning documentary about the world’s climate crisis in 2017…
    From Participant Media, and directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, the sequel follows Gore as he continues his decades-long fight to build a more sustainable future for the planet…
    Paramount Pictures will release the film in 2017. It’s produced by Richard Berge and Diane Weyermann, and executive produced by Jeff Skoll, Davis Guggenheim, Lawrence Bender, Laurie David, Scott Z. Burns and Lesley Chilcott…
    The sequel will be part of the The New Climate section at Sundance, the festival’s first-ever program built around a specific theme — in this case, climate change and environmental preservation, a defining issue for Sundance Institute president and founder Robert Redford.
    “We are honored to be working again with Al, Jeff Skoll and everyone at Participant on a film whose message is as urgent as ever. Al’s tireless efforts to bring about change continues to inspire all of us as we fight for the health of our world for future generations,” said a statement from Paramount chairman and CEO Brad Grey.
    Gore also will appear on Sundance’s Power of Story panel, a collaboration between Sundance Institute and The Redford Center, that also will feature former President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, producer Heather Rae (Frozen River, RISE), social entrepreneur and philanthropist Jeff Skoll, and environmentalist and scientist Dr. David Suzuki.
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/an-inconvenient-truth-sequel-debut-at-sundance-opening-night-954933

    doubt if there’s ever a good time to announce the above…but this is definitely a bad time:

    VIDEO: 2mins17secs: 9 Dec: Accuweather: Bitterly cold air to come in waves across US into next week
    by Alex Sosnowsky
    Around the middle of December, an even colder blast of air will follow this week’s frigid conditions over the central and eastern U.S.
    This next major push of arctic air will follow a series of snowstorms over part of the Northern states.
    “The air mass on the way for the middle of December is likely to be substantially colder, when compared to that of this past week and this weekend,” according to AccuWeather Lead Long-Range Meteorologist Paul Pastelok.
    Temperatures from the northern and central Plains to much of the Midwest are likely to be 5 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit lower, on average, when compared to levels this week…
    Factoring in wind, temperature and other conditions, AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperatures will plunge to dangerous levels over the North Central states.
    A substantial temperature dip is likely across the interior South and Appalachians during the latter part of next week…ETC
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/bitterly-cold-air-to-come-in-waves-across-us-into-next-week/70000208

    10

  • #

    Olympic Dam’s loss alone exceeded $367 M.
    This outage was a financial disaster well in excess of this number.

    20

  • #
    Gordon

    Not sure what to make of this, but ….

    http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2016/12/solar-
    panel-life-cycle-analysis/

    10

  • #
    Lance

    If renewable energy is the answer then one is rightly owed the question. I, myself, would posit that the first question is: “What advantage does this renewable alternative provide?” Thus far, the answer is political and ideological, but never practical. Survival requires practicality. Ego requires ideology. Power Lust requires Politics. History proves this correct. I’m open to other interpretations. I’m opposed to impractical excuses. QED.

    60

  • #
    pat

    9 Dec: NationalPostCanada: John Ivison: Reality intrudes on pan-Canadian carbon tax plan
    Uncle Joe Biden put a metaphorical arm around Canada’s premiers Friday, encouraging them to ignore what Donald Trump has said about climate change and to carry on regardless with plans to usher in a national carbon tax.
    “Reality has a way of intruding,” he said. “Whatever uncertainty exists around the near term policy choices of the next president, I am absolutely confident the United States will continue making progress in its path to a low carbon future.”
    This unshakeable confidence is based on Biden’s judgment that green trends have taken hold and are no longer dependent on government decisions. “They’re market driven, they’re common sense,” he said…
    But reality is intruding for the premiers – and it comes in the form of a president who has pledged to cut all spending on climate change, nixing any prospect of a national carbon price.
    At the same time, he has promised to reduce the business income tax rate from 35 per cent to 15 per cent.
    This was the backdrop against which the premiers met in Ottawa Friday…
    Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall has long been adamant against a federally imposed carbon tax since the prospect was raised, arguing it would disproportionately penalize the energy sector. He said he will refuse to sign on to a national levy – and if one is imposed by Ottawa, he will take the feds to court.
    He was joined Friday by B.C. premier Christy Clark, who has exposed a west-versus-east fault-line in the discussion.
    The Trudeau government’s grand design was to set a floor price of $10 a tonne emitted in 2018, rising $10 every year until it hits $50 a tonne in 2022. Provinces would be allowed to design their own systems to get to that level.
    But Clark now argues that B.C.’s direct carbon taxation is more onerous on its residents than the cap and trade systems favoured by Ontario and Quebec will be on theirs…
    But the suspicion is that the ardour for signing up for a national carbon tax has cooled in certain provinces because of Trump’s election.
    The Liberal plan was to secure majority support in every region of the country with a twin-track strategy that saw the approval of pipelines move in tandem with the introduction of a national carbon price…
    But while premiers may desire the approval of historians, they need the approval of the voters who can kick them from office at the next election.
    They simply cannot afford to ignore the new reality that has intruded on the plan to create a pan-Canadian climate deal – namely that the incoming U.S. administration is intent on becoming a magnet for jobs and investment by cutting business taxes.
    http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-reality-intrudes-on-pan-canadian-carbon-tax-plan

    less reality, more spin, from AP/Reuters:

    10 Dec: Deutsche Welle: AP/Reuters: Canadian government introduces first national carbon price
    The Canadian government has approved a nation-wide carbon price with most of their provinces. Only Saskatchewan and Manitoba did not agree, citing concerns the price hike would make Canadian firms less competitive…
    This comes as Trudeau is worried about the US potentially making plans against reducing carbon emissions under President-elect Donald Trump…
    “I understand that many of you are concerned about what the new administration will do. Whatever uncertainty exists around the near-term policy choices of the next president, I am absolutely confident the United States will continue making progress in its path to a low-carbon future,” said Biden at the meeting in Ottawa.
    Biden continued by saying there is not much Trump could do to “turn back the tide” on environmental policies in the US…
    Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said the carbon price increase would make Canadian firms less competitive. “We compete with the Americans in our province for drilling rigs. Our farmers compete with their farmers. Competitiveness for Canadians matter especially at a time when our energy sector is reeling from low commodity prices,” said Wall.
    Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister did not sign as he wants more money for health care, but may sign on in the future.
    http://www.dw.com/en/canadian-government-introduces-first-national-carbon-price/a-36717073

    00

  • #
    pat

    9 Dec: Newsmax: Trump Team’s Memo Hints at Broad Shake-Up of Energy Policy
    Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump are developing plans to reshape Energy Department programs, help keep aging nuclear plants online and identify staff who played a role in promoting President Barack Obama’s climate agenda.
    The transition team has asked the agency to list employees and contractors who attended United Nations climate meetings, along with those who helped develop the Obama administration’s social cost of carbon metrics, used to estimate and justify the climate benefits of new rules.
    The advisers are also seeking information on agency loan programs, research activities and the basis for its statistics, according to a five-page internal document circulated by the Energy Department on Wednesday. The document lays out 65 questions from the Trump transition team, sources within the agency said…
    The document obtained by Bloomberg offers clues on where his administration may be headed on energy policy, based on the nature of questions involving the agency’s research agenda, nuclear program and national labs.
    Under Obama, the department played a major role advancing clean-energy technology through loan guarantees and incubators, while writing efficiency rules for appliances. The department leans heavily on tens of thousands of contractors, who supplement the work of its roughly 13,000 direct employees.
    Two Energy Department employees who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed the questionnaire and said agency staff were unsettled by the Trump team’s information request…
    The questions about the social cost of carbon dovetail with similar, so-far-unsuccessful requests from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have also sought information about the analysis underpinning that policy and the people who helped develop it…READ ALL
    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trump-Energy-Policy/2016/12/09/id/763175/

    9 Dec: WaPo: Weather Service employees to the Hill: Save us from Trump’s ‘hiring freeze’
    By Angela Fritz
    When Donald Trump was elected on Nov. 8, the National Weather Service Employees Organization grew anxious. One of the president-elect’s proposals is “a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce,” except in the case of the military, public safety or public health.
    So, are meteorologists in the business of “public safety”? The National Weather Service’s mission is to “protect lives and property” through forecasts and warnings, and a straightforward reading would suggest the answer is yes. But the NWSEO isn’t making any assumptions.
    This week, the 4,000-member labor organization began distributing a memo on the Hill describing the public-safety nature of the National Weather Service, hoping to sway members of Congress to help shield its workers from a potential hiring lockdown…
    A hiring freeze in itself may not pose a problem for the Weather Service, but the agency, which is tasked with issuing hazardous-weather warnings and forecasts for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, already has hundreds of empty desks that haven’t been filled for years, said Lisa Luciani, executive director of the NWSEO.
    “There are currently 650 vacant positions across the NWS, many of them are ‘Emergency Essential,’ ” Luciani said in an email, “meaning those employees are critical to the life-saving mission of the NWS, so they must report to work (in hurricanes, floods, blizzards, furloughs, etc.).”…
    ***The employee organization said it has pushed the leaders of the National Weather Service to fill the gaps, to no avail, all while the number of nonmanagerial employees declined from 3,877 in September 2010 to 3,430 in January 2016, according to records kept by the NWSEO…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/12/09/weather-service-employees-to-the-hill-save-us-from-trumps-hiring-freeze/?utm_term=.4ffeba4b0d2d

    ***so why were they silent under Obama?

    00

  • #
    pat

    AP fails to mention this executive order can be cancelled with a stroke of a Trump pen:

    9 Dec: AP: Dan Joling: Obama creates ‘resilience area’ to protect Bering ecosystem
    Obama signed an ***executive order Friday to create a Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area that will focus “locally tailored” protections on marine resources.
    The order requires more focused federal consultation with Alaska tribes and 39 communities that line the west coast of Alaska, along with state officials…
    Alaska Gov. Bill Walker and Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott in a joint statement said while they support Bering Strait tribal leaders who worked to provide economic opportunities while protecting resources, they have other concerns.
    “The State of Alaska is concerned about any further erosion of our ability to support much needed resource development at a time when the state is grappling with declining oil prices and production,” they said.
    U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she wonders what the term “climate resilience area” is supposed to mean and how it will be used.
    “To me, this sure sounds like a euphemism for a marine monument, because it locks up over 112,000 square miles of Alaska waters and seems destined to impact a wide range of communities, tribes, and industries in our state,” she said in a statement. “While I strongly support meaningful consultation with tribes, this opens the door to a whole host of unknowns, and could easily be misapplied to block even the most responsible Arctic subsistence, activities, and development.”
    Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan and U.S. Rep. Don Young on Thursday sent a letter to Obama warning of their strong objections to withdrawing any more acreage in the Arctic Ocean north of the Bering Strait, which is projected to hold 23.6 billion barrels of oil.
    “President Obama has canceled lease sales, made permits all but impossible to acquire, and excluded Arctic basins from the next offshore leasing plan,” Murkowski said. “That’s more than enough damage for one administration.”…
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BERING_SEA_PROTECTIONS_OBAMA?SITE=MYPSP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-12-09-21-18-51

    best report so far – more of a photo op for Biden/Obama admin by the sounds of it:

    9 Dec: Toronto Sun: CanadianPress: PM hails national climate change deal, but without Saskatchewan, Manitoba
    Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s full-throated opposition to the plan, which includes imposing a price on carbon, was fully expected going into today’s day-long first ministers meeting.
    But surprise resistance from British Columbia’s Christy Clark and Manitoba’s Brian Pallister threatened throughout the day to upset Trudeau’s hopes for a triumphant finale to a year of federal-provincial climate negotiations…
    “If there is a prima facie case for jobs to potentially be threatened in trade-exposed industries — and that’s what we have, in carbon-intense industries — then I am going to defend the interests of the province,” Wall said…
    As the talks appeared to be winding down Friday, a deal looked unlikely.
    Clark emerged from the meeting to publicly kneecap the prime minister’s signature climate plan, but within minutes of her remarks, word began to emerge of a compromise.
    Trudeau had initially and unilaterally imposed an escalating floor price on carbon dioxide emissions, starting at $10 in 2018 and topping out at $50 in 2022, when the policy would be reassessed.
    Under the compromise deal, the carbon price would pause at B.C.’s existing $30 level in 2020, when an independent expert panel will look at how the plan is evolving.
    It was a sudden and surprising about-face from Clark, who less than an hour earlier had was telling reporters that the talks were grinding along slowly, that the matter was hard slogging and that an agreement appeared a long way off…
    Biden, just weeks away from the end of the Obama administration and the ascendency of Donald Trump’s Republicans, gave a rallying speech ***of sorts before departing the meeting.
    “We’re always stronger when we’re working together,” said Biden.
    But the promised show of pan-Canadian unity on climate policy was showing strains as the meeting began.
    Wall said Ottawa has ***failed to provide an economic analysis of the biggest tax change in a generation, which he asserts will hammer Saskatchewan jobs and industry.
    He brandished a heavily redacted Finance Department memo — obtained by a media outlet through an access-to-information request — that says a carbon tax would “cascade throughout the economy and prices would increase most for goods that make intensive use of carbon-based energy.”
    And he made common cause with Clark, saying the federal plan will result in a competitive “imbalance” given emitters in central Canada, where cap-and-trade will mitigate emissions, face a lower carbon price than in western Canada.
    Quebec’s carbon market is currently trading permits for about $8 per tonne, with a forecast the price will rise to $16 per tonne once Ontario’s market is fully up and running with Quebec and California in the Western Climate Initiative…
    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/09/pm-hails-national-climate-change-deal-but-without-saskatchewan-manitoba

    00

  • #
    pat

    9 Dec: CNS News: Barbara Hollingsworth: 18 States Sue Feds Over Expanding ‘Critical Habitat’ to Areas With No Protected Species
    Eighteen states have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over Final Rules that expand the definition of “critical habitat” to include areas that are currently unoccupied by any threatened or endangered species. The Final Rules, Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat, which were published in the Federal Register on February 11 and went into effect March 14, expand the definition of “critical habitat” to include areas in which “species presence or habitats are ephemeral in nature, [or] species presence is difficult to establish through surveys (e.g. when a plant’s ‘presence’ is sometimes limited to a seed bank)”…
    The Final Rules on critical habitat were made in response to President Obama’s Executive Order 13563, in which he directed federal agencies to update their existing regulations.
    “Washington bureaucrats have gone beyond common sense by seeking to expand their control to private property adjoining the habitat of an endangered species solely on the basis that these areas might one day be home to a threatened species,” Strange said in a Nov. 29 statement announcing the lawsuit.
    “The Obama administration is hiding behind bogus rules to perpetrate land grabs, kill energy projects and block economic development,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a party to the lawsuit, said.
    “This is nothing more than yet another end run around Congress by a president who is desperate to establish his environmental legacy by any means necessary before his time in office ends.”
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/18-states-sue-feds-over-expanding-critical-habitat-areas-no

    00

  • #
    pat

    biggest FakeNewsMSM helping out…READ ALL:

    9 Dec: Breitbart: Aaron Klein: Activist Who Served on George Soros-Financed Boards Behind Scheme to Take Trump’s Electoral College Votes
    Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig has announced that he is teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “free and confidential” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who will vote against President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state
    Lessig, a one-time presidential candidate, has served on the boards of numerous groups financed by billionaire George Soros.
    Lessig’s Electoral College scheme, which is being called the Electors Trust, is a last-ditch effort to stop Trump from becoming president.
    It comes after a petition drive by the Soros-funded MoveOn.org activist organization sought to abolish the Electoral College altogether…
    Lessig’s effort to help electors vote against Trump was first reported on Monday by Politico (LINK):…
    Politico reported advocates of the bid to turn the votes of electors against Trump have briefed allies close to Hillary Clinton. (LINK)…READ ALL
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/09/activist-served-george-soros-financed-boards-behind-scheme-usurp-trumps-electoral-college-votes/

    00

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Go it alone …

    This is a great article, although the content pertaining to the head of SA is extremely worrisome.

    00