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

If Greens cared about CO2 they would dump renewable targets

Those who say they want a “free market” in carbon still don’t understand what a free market is.

Wind farm, RET, Renewable Energy Target,RET’s or Renewable Energy Targets are screwed (in the head): If Tony Abbotts Direct Action plan was useless, RETS are five times more useless.

In Australia the Renewable Energy Target (RET) in theory, helps wind and solar,  so we lower CO2 emissions and cool the world, slow storms, things like that. But Tom Quirk calculates it costs $57 a ton (at best) for those “savings”. Since the Direct Action plan cost $11 a ton,  we could reduce five times as much CO2 if we blew up the RET scheme.

The secret is that the Abbott plan tackled CO2 directly rather than picking winners (see “competition”,
“free markets” that sort of thing).  Predictably, the Greens hated it — who needs CO2 reduction if you can support big-government-loving industries instead? (Especially the kind who lobby for the side of politics that wants more bureaucrats, more handouts, and less independent competition?)

Those who say they want a “free market” in carbon still don’t understand what a free market is. It’s pretty simple, if they want a reduction in CO2, they need to pay for a reduction in CO2. That’s not the same as paying the wind industry. When a subsidy is applied to a secondary, indirect factor, it has perverse effects other than the supposed original aim. Quirk shows that we are not just paying a bit more to reduce CO2 this way (like 500% more), but quixotically we effectively pay more to displace gas emissions rather than brown coal.

The other perverse effect is that by insisting we take wind and solar “whenever” — these generators are not competing in the wholesale market at all, they simply bypass it and head straight to the retail level. Effectively, they take a chunk out of the demand side of the wholesale market which would be useful at peak load times,

The RET started at 2%, is now 12.5% and is climbing to 25%.

In Table 2 we see that utilization (or capacity factor) is very low for all the generation types in SA. A great deal of infrastructure and capital is just lounging around drinking pina coladas or something. Ironically, the whole free market idea is so botched up that  SA has an oversupply of electricity, yet pays more for electricity and suffers more blackouts. Tom Quirk calculates that the RET currently adds 2.15c for wind power and 0.26c for solar to power bills in SA. This does not include the cost of state based schemes, nor the diabolical effect of having an excess of supply at the wrong times and perverse subsidies:  price spikes and volatility. The real cost is o-so-much higher…

Jo

____________________

States of confusion

Guest Post by Tom Quirk

The Renewal Energy Target (RET) scheme is a splendid example of the growth of a policy cancer that if not checked will do substantial economic damage. The scheme was introduced during the time of the Howard government with a target of 2% contribution from renewable sources of electricity and has grown tenfold within the federal government jurisdiction and has spread to state governments that aim to double the present federal target of some 25% renewable energy contribution by 2030.

The wholesale electricity market has been bypassed for roof-top solar PV and wind power has impaired the financial basis for baseload power supply.

The following examines the lack of logic in forming the scheme and the example of South Australia which may well be the best example of what should not be done in mixing renewable energy into state electricity supply systems.

The logic of RET subsidies

Generators of renewable energy in Australia, mainly wind farms and solar PV, are being paid a subsidy of $85 per megawatt hour (MWh) for wind and $40 per MWh for solar PV, as well as state subsidies of order $20 per MWh for electricity produced. These sources of electricity displace that generated from conventional power plants. This is an indirect equivalent of a carbon tax. If one MWh of electricity from black coal is displaced that stops the emission of one tonne of CO2 so the carbon tax is $85 per tonne of CO2. But for brown coal electricity with 1.5 tonnes of CO2 per MWh the equivalent tax is $57 and gas turbines have equivalent taxes of $170 to $213, an increased tax for a lower emitter than the black coal generators! The tax equivalents for these energy sources are shown in Table 1 for wind and solar PV.

AEMO report. Table. Carbon equivalent subsidies,

The intention of having renewable sources in the electricity supply system was to drive out the highest emitters of CO2 but the cost structure of the wholesale electricity market is such that the coal burning power stations are the lowest cost generators and higher cost but lower carbon emitting generators became more vulnerable to being stood down.

So the wholesale market is distorted by energy from roof-top solar PV that simply varies the demand to be met by the wholesale market while wind farm energy goes into the market to take the going price and in addition the RET subsidy. This is the case for either non-dispatchable or semi dispatchable wind power as a suitable bid price would ensure that the bid was accepted. Finally the RET scheme has a price structure that is the opposite of the intention to drive the highest CO2 emitters from the market.

The example of South Australia

The latest AEMO report on the performance of the electricity market in South Australia illustrates the major problems of integrating intermittent energy generation into a state supply system.

South Australia has the highest installed renewable energy supply in Australia. This can be seen in Table 2 where wind supplies 30.0% of demand and roof-top solar PV 6.5%.

The subsidies are paid to the wind farm and the solar PV suppliers of energy but these subsidies are by legislation turned into charges to pass on to all consumers of electricity. The average subsidy[1] for the year was $72 per MWh for wind and $40 for solar PV. So spreading a charge of $309 million over all 14,400 GWh consumed becomes $21.5 per MWh from wind energy and a cost of $38 million becomes $2.6 per MWh from solar PV. This is the equivalent of a $24 carbon tax on a tonne of CO2 emissions.

AEMO Report 2016, Table, SA electrcity supply and demand.

….

 

There are three problems that can be seen developing in South Australia as shown in Table 2:

  • The coal fired baseload power stations have low utilisation with a capacity factor of 39%. The high capital cost of a coal fired power station should have a capacity factor of about 80% so that it can supply low cost baseload power. But this is not the case in South Australia as the intermittency of wind power has all but eliminated steady baseload power.
  • A consequence of the intermittent wind power has been the use of interconnectors to draw power from Victoria. This is also intermittent demand that can be as much as the interconnectors can deliver and stresses the Victorian power supply system.
  • Worse still is that on occasions there is so much wind power in South Australia that the surplus is exported to Victoria where it adds supply variations to a system with much larger demand of some 6000 MW with 300 MW from wind farms. These events mostly occur in the early morning between midnight and sunrise and can be as much as 200 MW which is a substantial disruption at a time of best baseload generation.

Conclusion

Finally the intermittent wind power in South Australia is correlated with wind power variations in Victoria. So if the government of Victoria has a renewable energy target similar to South Australia then that may lead to the destruction of baseload operations in Victoria.

The conclusion from this analysis is that renewable energy policies have not been well thought out and if continued without some thoughtful modifications may have severe economic consequences.

But we should not expect much from our politicians as their methods are best described by H L Mencken as – The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

However capping the RET scheme now but allowing all approved wind farms to proceed might stop the various state governments from encouraging and adding wind farms to meet their 50% renewables aspirations.

 


[1] http://reneweconomy.com.au/surprises-renewable-energy-certificate-market-12721/

Tom Quirk trained as a nuclear physicist at the University of Melbourne. He has been a Fellow of three Oxford Colleges. He was a founding director of  the Victorian Power Exchange, the first wholesale electricity market in Australia and Deputy Chairman of Vencor, the Victorian Energy Networks Corporation, which looked after Gas and Electricity after the formation of the AEMO.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (86 votes cast)
If Greens cared about CO2 they would dump renewable targets, 9.2 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jfx7tf2

194 comments to If Greens cared about CO2 they would dump renewable targets

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Thanks Tom and Jo.
    You folks with training have seen this coming, but it seems to still be on track.
    Still, a few folks are noticing.
    Keep at it.

    282

    • #
      cohenite

      Great article; one question: wind (and solar) are intractably intermittent, unpredictable and supply power in surges. If that power supplied is not required at the time, what happens to it?

      152

      • #
        RobK

        “What happens to it?”
        In the case of PV the inverters would be limited by over voltage setpoints, the sunlight just warms the panels.
        The wind turbines would also sense high grid voltage and backoff either by furling the narcelle, feathering the blades depending on design. Should any of these situations arise the grid voltage will be at it’s very high limit, depending on where it’s monitored it maybe beyond it. It is a situation normally avoided but leads to instability.

        132

        • #
          RobK

          Oops,”Furling” should have been “slewing”the narcelle.

          52

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Ouch…..

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/clean-coal-cheaper-than-renewable-energy-says-lobby-group/8288620

          “There is no serious proposal anywhere to have renewables power 100 per cent of Australia’s energy, making Mr Zapantis’s claim an exaggeration at the very least.

          But Chris Greig, a professor at the University of Queensland, said nonetheless, “clean coal” technology could contribute to lowering carbon emissions and should not be ignored.

          “Technically it stacks up very well,” Professor Greig said.

          “I think it has to be economically viable, so it has to compete with other low-emissions technology, and that’s got to be seen on a case-by-case basis.”

          83

        • #
          cohenite

          Apparently excess power is handled by the Power Factor Correction, the ration between real power and real and excess power known as apparent power. Most systems have a 5 – 7% range capacity whereby excess power or reactive power can be accommodated and usually dissipated as heat. Any more excess/reactive power than 5 – 7% and either the affected section of the grid is decoupled and a blackout occurs or massive appliance and equipment destruction results.

          72

          • #
            Rick Will

            cohenite
            Power factor is a simple phase difference between the voltage and current. The energy storage and release is all within a cycle. Most loads have inductive reactance so the current lags the voltage. Capacitive reactance is often installed in the network to bring the current waveform in line with the voltage waveform. Thinking of this as “excess” power is misleading. It is a fundamental factor of alternating current power supplies. A typical induction motor will have a power factor around 0.85.

            Grid connected solar and wind treat the grid as an endless sink for their output. This was tolerable when there was not much of them as they were accommodated by rotating reserve, which is in a voltage control mode and increases or decreases output automatically to accommodate the variability. Now there are enough wind and solar that there is a need for more generators operating as rotating reserve so they can handle the swings in the wind and solar sullies. The more intermittent generation the harder it is to manage.

            All generators will have over voltage shutdown to prevent excessive voltage spikes but this is a l;sat resort. Grid connected solar inverters have over voltage shutdown. If that occurs the panels go open circuit and there is no power delivered. Similarly off-grid solar battery charger allows the panels to open circuit when the battery is fully charged. My off-grid system is sized to supply year round so by 10am most mornings this time of year the battery is fully charged and keeps fully charged until the sun goes down. In june it may not get topped up every day.

            To be clear there is no way power can be stored in the grid second-to-second. Storage can only be achieved if there are batteries or other form of storage like pumped storage. Scheduling and dispatching electric power is an onerous task, requiring energy in to energy out pluss transmission losses every second of every day, and is getting more difficult as the proportion of intermittent generation supplying the grid increases. That is what has caused recent outages in South Australia.

            72

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              The relevent Australian Standards should mandate battery storage to buffer solar panel output and treat it as drawable capacity as needed….presumably you would have to have a standard signalling system from a central point, but it might be onerous to implement allowing for PLC limitations.

              31

            • #

              Can we install torque motor\generators at both Earth’s poles to use all wind power to replace Earth’s angular momentum expended to generate Wind Power! Methinks this Earth has sufficient rolling reserve!

              41

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        Its free love, man.

        Like, … its given to Gaia, man and she makes babies with it, man.

        Like wow, some people are just soooo not with it…

        10

    • #
      peter

      Could Tom Quirk and Jo please appear on the Drum to be interviewed about energy security and climate change? Perhaps they (ABC) won’t offer but you could phone them up and say you know something about the subject, unlike the constant parade of left-wing journalists, social activists and businessmen who are already invested in renewable energy farms who come on the Drum.

      Last night they even had Alan Kohler on talking authoritatively about both climate change and electricity generation. Can you believe it? Alan may know a lot about the share market but would know sweet F all about science subjects.

      262

      • #
        Ross Stacey

        The problem with all of these arguments is that for 20 years Authority has told us that CAGW is real and can not be discussed. The population now correlates CAGW with the environment. Everyone agrees that humans are damaging the environment. To separate the two and to get CAGW properly discussed I propose the following.
        Request the Chief Scientist to publish 10 unarguable facts proving CAGW.
        Have these facts published in the MSM.
        If he can’t do that we should take out full page adverts showing the uncertainty of the theory and how much it is costing Australians to minimise CO2.
        I would be prepared to pay $100 toward this proposal and suggest that the cost of my proposal be crowd funded.
        Does anyone on here know how to do this and will anyone support it?

        20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Political survival ultimately relies on keeping most of the people happy so steps towards sanity where cheap reliable power is available is essential in saving your party while attempting to save face when backing away from the climate faux par.

    Scrapping the RET will be akin to dumping that carbon tax but the majority wont realise what was imposed on them apart from a nice drop in their bills, when you see the government floating the idea of Taxpayers could help pay for coal-fired power stations through Australia’s $10 billion ‘green energy’ bank under changes being considered by the Turnbull government, you know panic is setting in.

    172

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘It’s called the Clean Energy Finance Corporation not the renewable energy corporation,’ he told the ABC.’

      Great line from Josh, wonder who writes his material.

      72

    • #
      What Class?

      faux par pas, whatever. That’s one small step for a man but a giant cock up for a country.

      32

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    To recharge battery vehicles means they indirectly produce about 1.6 times more CO2 than a present day liquid fuel motor. However, politicians are intrinsically stupid virtue signallers, so set out to bamboozle the voters in the simplest possible way, which is to claim that wind energy is free: no it is not free because of Grid disruption.

    Furthermore, to expect politicians to understand that IPCC Climate Alchemy is based on fake physics is also a problem because that would mean the politicians have been stupid. They will hold out until an Australian version of Trump comes along, willing to drain the Canberra and State Capital swamps!

    247

    • #
      AndrewWA

      I’m still holding my breath as Trump has really done nothing yet in this area.

      72

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Give him a chance!

        Trump faces the almost incredibly difficult task of correcting the UN and the UNAS (united national academies of sciences), seven decades after they were formed on 25 OCT 1945 to save frightened world leaders from nuclear annihilation by hiding the source of energy in atomic bombs from the public – NEUTRON REPULSION

        131

      • #
        Dennis

        One (1) month in office !!!

        60

      • #
        BobC

        Oh my goodness. A whole month and he’s done NOTHING. Can you believe it.

        50

        • #
          John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

          The way CNN and the MSM over there (and here) are bashing him on everything, I would not be surprised if he resigns and hands the running of the country to CNN. At the moment, the fifth column, Intelligence Community, abetted by the MSM, are leaking like a sieve to permanently damage him.

          121

      • #
        Shauno

        He has to get all his appointments in place first. Its definitely happening. I think things like funding the UN have to wait for the budget coming up as does the tax reform. I saw an interview with Paul Ryan the other day and its very promising the Republicans in congress are behind him and the Wall is going to funded the tax reform is happening but may end up being 20% not 15%. They are trying for 15% its all in the calculation stage. The reforms to the EPA and climate change stuff will happen when the people are in place. Already Trump has rescinded a last minute EPA regulation on the coal industry that Obama dumped on them.

        30

    • #
      Willard

      Statement from Turnedoutnice- To recharge battery vehicles means they indirectly produce about 1.6 times more CO2 than a present day liquid fuel motor, I can’t see any mention of battery vehicles in Jo’s thread, so as well as your above claim being incorrect it is also O/T.

      310

      • #

        The statement is correct! It is also on the topic of CO2! :-(

        93

        • #
          Willard

          Would you like to back up that statement with some up to date comparisons between an EV and an ICE vehicles WJ?

          38

          • #
            bobl

            No need to go that far. Coal fired power generates around twice the CO2 of hydrocarbon engines even taking account of the thermal efficiency differences so ICE vehicles produce about half the CO2 of an EV charged with Coal based electricity MWh / MWh. It all comes from the fact that when you burn a hydrocarbon you burn one part Carbon and 2-4 parts hydrogen producing CO2 and water. The hydrogen reaction gives you a large part of the energy. This is why gas turbines produce lower CO2 than coal too – It’s all in the chemistry.

            71

            • #
              Willard

              Can you add the emissions of an oil refinery into your calculations please Bobl?

              23

              • #
                turnedoutnice

                Natural gas power generation does not need an oil refinery!

                40

              • #
                Willard

                So the EV is charged from Natural gas power generation?

                21

              • #
                bobl

                Chump change Willard, doesn’t make a substantial difference, you. Also have to account for the fact that battery charge discharge is no more than 80% efficient. EVs emit more CO2. Hybrid are probably the best of the EVe because they eliminate the battery inefficiencies.

                02

              • #
                Willard

                So tell me Bobl do your “chump change” imaginary oil refineries run using a couple of solar panels, a few ebay sourced wind turbines with back up power from unicorn farts? I would say you know less about oil refinery energy consumption than you do about electric cars, but it’s not possible to know less than nothing.

                00

          • #

            Willard February 21, 2017 at 11:33 am

            “Would you like to back up that statement…?”

            Raff,
            I would not so like! You can do that yourself if you are interested!

            22

            • #
              Willard

              I didn’t think you would WJ, so here’s one I prepared for you earlier, let’s use West Virginia as it burns a fair proportion of Coal to charge EVs, and the results based on the default setting of 12,000 miles per year – BMW i535 6cylinder 5.2t of Co2 emissions, Tesla model S 2.9t of emissions ,that’s the EV with the lower figure, you can even go to this site and run through a few comparisons for yourself and finally get it into your head that when comparing to similar size and performance cars the EV will ALWAYS produce less emissions regardless of how much coal is used to generate the electricity-https://www.befrugal.com/tools/electric-car-calculator/

              23

              • #
                bobl

                Willard, that is because all things aren’t equal, your EV with low emissions is also producing 1/3 of the power. It’s like comparing a car with a truck. The EVs have enormous power limitations and sacrifice performance for economy, for example try running aircon in your EV. You could run a small car on a motorbike engine too, but none would want to drive one!

                22

              • #
                Willard

                Bobl, your quote- “your EV with low emissions is also producing 1/3 of the power” how about I destroy your opinion with some facts, the BMW 535 in the comparison is a very respectable car, 6 cyl turbo, 225kw and 400Nm of torque at optimum revs, the latest Tesla model S is the P100D, rear motor 376kw, front motor 193kw, combined torque 1220Nm the instant the motors rotate, Motor trend recently tested the P100D using the much compared 0-60mph run, the car nailed it in 2.28 seconds, let me repeat TWO POINT TWO EIGHT SECONDS, that is faster than any production motor car has ever reached 60 miles per hour, faster than any Ferrari, Porsche and even faster than a $4million Bugatti Veyron, the model S is a 2.2 tonne 4 door, 5 seat electric sedan.. Bobl do some research, the world is passing you by.

                10

              • #
                Willard

                Where have you gone Bobl? Cat got your tongue? Stunned that your internet filter is on the blink and you missed the past few years of news on electric cars?

                00

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Will, he’s got so much backed up there isn’t any more room left.

              00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I would have thought that 1.6 was on the low side.

        Any form of “renewable” power is extremely inefficient and ostentatious.

        You can see an association between renewable virtue signallers and Rolls Royce drivers.

        Superficial. The one difference between them is that not all Rolls drivers would be superficial.

        That all sounds a bit twisted but then again so is the global warming concept.

        KK

        91

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I worked it out once very roughly – if every household had an electric car, your daily power consumption would double, up to about 20-25 kwH / day ( ours is about 12 kwH ) .

      Not sure about the infrastructure in every street – could it cope if average daily power consuption doubled? Can anyone comment? Tony?

      61

    • #

      ” Furthermore, to expect politicians to understand that IPCC Climate Alchemy is based on fake physics is also a problem because that would mean the politicians have been stupid.”

      IPCC Climate Alchemy is based on fake physics!
      The politicians have been stupid!
      The politicians must continue to act stupid, that’s their job!

      113

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    It is possible to believe that politicians are out to bamboozle voters –
    I think it more likely they are of limited cognitive ability, and bamboozled themselves
    by some single issue zealot, then forced to equivocate around that position to defend their jobs.
    A political person has two ends, a thinking end and a seating end. The career depends on the sitting end….
    the thinking end seems to atrophy. Can you think of an example?

    150

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Anything that seems to good to be true often is, especially in politics.

    The most recent example of this was when I heard President Trumball finally throwing it back at the opposition and saying that he wanted to use the “renewables fund” to subsidize coal fired power generation.

    I almost couldn’t believe it. And sure enough, after a week of this seeming reversal we finally saw the member for GoldSaks pull down the Australian flag and run up the Jolly Green Rodger.

    True to form there is a rider on the coal fired generators planned to provide reliable base power: They will incorporate carbon capture and storage.

    This means that the final cost of electricity from these plants will be little different from the appalling cost of current “renewable” power.

    The capacity of politicians to amaze and confuse remains intact. I was worried for a few days thinking that rational thought had surfaced in Australian politics.

    Shouldn’t have worried: full steam ahead for them that economic “shoals”.

    Last weekend I drove past the now abandoned aluminum smelter at Kurri Kurri, closed by power cost conflict, and was reminded of the no doubt soon to be closed plant at Raymond Terrace, which recently was denied power for a day.

    The pollies would say it was only for one day, but the unexpected shutdown probably will keep plant management awake at night for the next six months cleaning up the mess.

    My faith in politicians is restored.

    Jobs, jobs and jobs.

    All gone, except those in Canberra.

    KK

    230

  • #
    James Bradley

    Stupid: An action which benefits no one.

    40

    • #
      Gordon

      Not really! The prison system always has people trying to get in! Creates jobs.

      50

    • #

      It does benefit some, the Green-Left. It is all part of their long term plan to socialise Australia and make government all controlling and people all dependent on government.

      Ruining Australia economically is a good thing in their eyes, it accelerates their grand plans.

      130

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    The State of SA will continue to suffer from rolling blackouts, power failure, skyrocketing electricity prices, and at some point the system will break either physically or economically.
    Then the cost to fix things will be another burden on the citizens, and especially the taxpayers. Add to this the uncertainty and fear produced in potential business investment in SA and a downward spiral is now in place.
    I will take more and more money to fix the power inefficiencies and subsidies to renewables.
    It is not a question of if physical/economic catastrophe occurs, the question is how serious and how long will it take the citizens to wake up and take care of these problems.
    The stronger the leftist greenies are the more SA will suffer.

    140

  • #
    RobK

    Thank you Tom and Jo,
    The RET and it’s energy certificates make renewables parasitic on the fossil fuel generators by design.
    This hobbles a scheme that was working and forces it to subsidize one that is not just not proven but lacks all important “dispatchability”and consistency in the quality of the electricity’s characteristics.(viz.harmonics, reactive power, volt drop, distributed supply etc)
    These issues have implications in the instrumentation and monitoring of the grid, the sectional area and length of conductors, the robustness of switch and control gear etc. Effectively a major rework of the grid is not costed into Tom’s otherwise excellent critique of the RET. I appreciate he likely passed over these matters to keep his salient administerative point uncluttered.
    Thanks again.

    70

    • #
      RobK

      If I can add:
      The cost to the grid is substantial and is termed “complexity” in bureau-speak. It is the cause of many a black out and instability. This will only get worse as the proportion of renewables capacity increases.

      110

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Scrap the RET and lock up all politicians involved in its creation and ongoing operation , sell their assets to help pay for a 20 year stint doing hard labour .
    We would still be in front wouldn’t we .

    90

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      A modest proposal:

      Instead of punishing the politicians who have added immeasurably to the energy crisis, simply require that they use modified cardio bicycles to generate energy when the the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. If they can’t generate enough energy, have them pay a tax for the energy they were not able to produce to make up for the energy deficit. If they don’t want to pay, all they need to do is work harder and longer.

      Yes, it would be impossible for the politicians to do this. The human body simply cannot generate the necessary power to accomplish the proposal requirement. This would be simple justice to counter the endless stream of rules, regulations, standards, and laws that demand the impossible to be accomplished by We the People. Hopefully then, the politicians would pay more attention to what is actually possible to accomplish in the real world. Rather than their current acting as gods who define what reality is permitted to be by simply making noble cause prononcements.

      40

  • #
    Robdel

    Pay the politicians inversely to the cost of electricity. That will solve the problem.

    70

  • #

    I have no idea what exciting new energy source will one day replace coal and oil. However, I do know that old fashioned and limited-use sources like wind and solar will have to be replaced very soon by…coal and oil!

    Wind and solar have killed the market for energy innovation. All the money and effort and enthusiasm that might have gone on trying new things have been frittered on mainstreaming mutton technology dressed as lamb.

    180

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Before the AGW scam, was the promise of abundant energy, just around the corner,” from the investment of federal research funds to develop fusion reactors that operate, just like the Sun!”

    In fact,
    1. The Sun generates H as a SW waste product,
    2. Plants consume gaseous CO2 in plant growth,
    3. There are no fusion reactors here on Earth or in the heavens!

    To modify the quote by H L Mencken – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, and imaginary solutions.”

    40

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Loss of sanity (contact with reality) and respect for the “inalienable rights of individuals” were two of the greatest social costs from the decision by government agencies to hide information from the public after the end of WWII:

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Dawning_of_Truth.pdf

      31

    • #

      “3. There are no fusion reactors here on Earth or in the heavens!”

      Are you claiming that the hydrogen fusion weapons; do not exist, or that they do not fuse hydrogen to helium?

      30

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Fusion of hydrogen into helium releases energy, and part of the hydrogen generated in the Sun does fuse into helium:

        ~60% of solar energy comes from neutron-emission,
        ~05% of solar energy comes from neutron-decay, &
        ~35% of solar energy probably comes from H-fusion

        The natural direction of nuclear evolution as the universe expands and entropy increases is:
        Neutrons => Interstellar H-atoms,
        by fission, fragmentation and decay, not
        Interstellar H-atoms => Neutrons
        by collapse, condensation and fusion

        50

        • #

          “~60% of solar energy comes from neutron-emission,”

          Your evidence of such is where? How is solar N-emission greater than solar EMR? Where are the measurements? Is this the grand joke of CAGW?

          “~05% of solar energy comes from neutron-decay, &
          ~35% of solar energy probably comes from H-fusion”

          Perhaps.

          “The natural direction of nuclear evolution as the universe expands and entropy increases is:
          Neutrons => Interstellar H-atoms,
          by fission, fragmentation and decay, not
          Interstellar H-atoms => Neutrons
          by collapse, condensation and fusion”

          Again where is the evidence? Entropy would maximize with constant low temperature (Fe).. EMR is not mass nor energy but only power, and creates no hydrogen.

          10

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Will,

      I regret that the link didn’t work for you. I will find another link to the same article and post it below.

      The evidence is indelibly recorded in exact masses of the ~3,000 types of atoms that compromise all matter. I gave you a link to the manuscript in which Dr. Carl F. von Weizsacker’s error is most obvious:

      Nuclear energy, calculated from a baseline that slopes relative to mass is very obviously biased relative to Einstein’s 1905 discovery that mass (m) is stored energy (E):

      E = mc^2

      Once you grasp that error, you will be able to understand the source of solar energy:

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_published.pdf

      10

      • #
      • #

        Oliver K. Manuel February 22, 2017 at 5:20 am

        “Will, I regret that the link didn’t work for you. I will find another link to the same article and post it below.”

        I found it. you forgot the (F) in .pdf

        “The evidence is indelibly recorded in exact masses of the ~3,000 types of atoms that compromise all matter. I gave you a link to the manuscript in which Dr. Carl F. von Weizsacker’s error is most obvious:…Nuclear energy, calculated from a baseline that slopes relative to mass is very obviously biased relative to Einstein’s 1905 discovery that mass (m) is stored energy (E): E = mc^2″

        But half that total is thermal energy not nuclear energy!

        NE = (mc²)/2……HE = (mc²)/2 -> (mc²)…After all that spontaneous (Fe) reaches some constant temperature; there is no energy left to power anything!

        “Once you grasp that error, you will be able to understand the source of solar energy:”

        Once you grasp that half that solar energy is entropy, being dispatched, out of universe, via EMR you may discover one iron star with no energy!
        All the best! -will-

        10

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          Entropy is not energy, Will.

          00

          • #

            “Entropy is not energy, Will.”

            The sensible heat of a ‘mass thermal sink’ divided by the temperature of that sink is the definition of entropy! If such entropy powers EMR flux (Sun) in the direction of lower ‘radiance’ matter (Earth) such power can be accumulated by that lower radiance matter into many different forms of energy, or even converted diretly to work\action which is not energy. Only if the direction of such lower radiance contains no mass\mater, is such entropy lost!

            00

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          Entropy of the universes increases for all spontaneous processes in the expanding universe, Will, but . . .

          ENTROPY IS NOT ENERGY.

          Energy evolves from highest energy, highest frequency, largest quanta (cosmic, nuclear, etc) to lowest energy, lowest frequency, smallest quanta (heat).

          High Energy => Low Energy + More Entropy

          Thermodynamics was developed to explain the limitations on using heat energy to do work.

          00

          • #

            (“The sensible heat of a ‘mass thermal sink’ divided by the temperature of that sink is the definition of entropy!”)

            Entropy is but a thermodynamic, never nuclear term. Electrodynamics, (EMR) is not a thermodynamic term. What do you find incorrect with my definition of ‘entropy’?

            “Entropy of the universes increases for all spontaneous processes in the expanding universe”

            I disagree with every one of your words!!
            Entropy is but a thermodynamic term and is only defined only for a closed system.
            universes expanding or not remain but a concept\fantasy. Define universe, give three examples! Give any physical evidence of your fantasy. EMR requires no mass for its propagation of power.

            Earthlings know no limit to spontaneous processes. Why would you claim the spontaneous neutron emission\process increases entropy?

            “High Energy => Low Energy + More Entropy”
            Only for energy in the form of sensible heat!

            “Thermodynamics was developed to explain the limitations on using heat energy to do work.”

            Indeed! Gratuitous mis-application of such to your fantasies is not helpful. When will you present some\any physical evidence that what you claim can possibly be correct? Your mentor had much that needs further investigation. You do him no honor with your trolling.

            10

  • #
    el gordo

    Essential Report indicates that the thinking people of Australia want a coup.

    ‘Among Liberal/National voters 18% say they would be likely to vote for the Australian Conservatives.

    ‘A similar question (asked in December last year) about a new conservative party which included Tony Abbott produced a voting intention of 23% likely (including 41% of Liberal/National voters), 58% not likely.’

    40

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      If Abbot joined Hanson’s party, that would make a game-changer in politics. The Liberal / National coalition party would become obsolete over night.

      50

      • #
        el gordo

        There is no indication that Abbott would desert the Liberals, he wants his old job back.

        20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Yes; Alls I’m saying is that he could romp it in by joining Hanson’s One Nation. It’s right up his ally, and it’d be a win-win for the rest of us too.

          30

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        If Abbott and Corey come lately were to join one nation they would be better off .

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          What about the Nats splitting from the Coalition before the next election and joining the ACP?

          10

          • #
            Greebo

            I seriously entertained the thought that if the Abbott supporters in the Liberals switched to the Nats the Nats would become the senior party in the Coalition. Sure, that would make Barnaby PM, but he could hardly do any worse than what we have now.

            00

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I guess the name “Liberal Conservatives” is just too much.eh? But if the polls indicate a bounce for Cory Bernardi then I can only presume they’re leaking from the LN. On the subject of the National-erstwhile the Country Party – a party of rural protectionists that sucked up to rich wool producers and stuff the rest of the sector ( God save the Queen!) I can speculate that some are less than impressed with Barnaby.

      20

  • #

    Thank you Jo and Tom, for a very lucid and logical setting out of the rational position. All it would take is for politicians to read this and all would be clear in their minds. Unfortunately they do not do this and they remain confused and lost in the labyrinth of CAGW Alarmism. Fortunately Trump is now here and starting work on the EPA and NASA in America. We may see the waves from this, even in Australia,

    100

  • #
    Neville

    Let’s face it the whole renewable garbage is just a super expensive waste of money for a zero return. IOW no measurable difference to temp at all by 2100, whatever the world does and whether we flush hundreds of trillions of $ down the drain or not. We still will not be able to measure the temp difference at all in another 83 years.

    Why can’t the media and these so called scientists understand the simple maths involved in studies like Lomborg’s Paris COP 21 revelation? Even Dr Hansen the father of their CAGW called COP 21 just BS and fra-d and called a belief in S&W just another fairy story. And why won’t more journos in the MSM at least keep reminding the people that S&W energy is a sick joke? I know most journos are barking mad lefties, but surely there must be some more sanity among them than we’ve seen so far.

    http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      Bjorn still believes human induced CO2 causes global warming, but putting that aside I like his ideas on a range of issues and Donald Trump would be wise to casually employ him.

      50

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    Wind power is not free as we are told. You need the same backup from reliable sources as you install.
    A way to level the market would be to demand every MW of wind power to guarantee or buy supply elsewhere to make sure they combined always can deliver a certain amount of power.
    Excess power in stormy weather they need to handle them selves.
    The system existing now is an extrapolation of a few windturbines that did no harm to the system with windparks equivalent to big power stations but out of control.
    Don’t use Denmark as a benchmark. We have neighbours with a lot of hydro and we are only a small disturbance in the supply.
    http://www.svk.se/drift-av-stamnatet/kontrollrummet/
    Look a bit down the page and you have all Scandinavia.

    90

  • #
    PeterS

    Greens like the ALP do not care about the facts and figures. Their performance with just the economy is proof of that. The SA experiment with a high reliance on renewables is also proof. The poisoning of the LNP by leftists has brought them almost to the same level of incompetence and is cause for alarm. So the only thing left for us is to vote 1 for one of the minor parties in the hope the important issues are debated openly and truthfully in the parliament. It’s a catch-22 since much of the public who are not leftists don’t care or don’t know there is even a problem. So it will be extremely hard for us to escape the current stranglehold by the 2-party system where both major parties are leading us over the cliff, one much faster than the other. For selfish reasons I prefer we go the slower path but then my intellectual reasoning says we might as well take the faster one and get it over and done with so we can emerge from the ashes and renew more quickly.

    100

  • #
    TdeF

    So firstly it’s a huge carbon tax.

    No surprise there except neither Carbon nor Carbon Dioxide are mentioned once in the Act, so it is utterly deceitful. Fossil fuels are simply not ‘eligible’, for no given reason. It is an act without sense.

    Secondly, it severely and only penalises fossil fuels which are low in carbon dioxide, which is the reverse of the underlying and unstated idea that the Australian politicians want to reduce CO2 emissions.

    Thirdly and this is a legal point, as Tom says windmills are paid to ‘produce’ electricity, $89 for each Megawatt hour. However it is made clear that they do not have to sell this energy. Any income from actually selling the energy is explicitly additional. So this goes with the wildest subsidies in Europe. There is no actual incentive to produce electricity when it is needed, where it is needed.

    Then you get Victoria’s Premier increasing the cost of coal suddenly by 300% without explanation.

    You get the Government banning of fracking, of onshore and offshore gas exploration for our future.

    You also get the demolition, not mothballing of South Australia’s coal power plants.

    Then the Green lawfare against coal mining which is crippling our biggest export as a country.

    The picture is growing of a Green fringe determined to force everyone out of work, destroy our quality of life, energy security and cripple us with taxes and send money overseas for Chinese windmills and solar?

    All of Australia is up in arms except the current generation of smug professional politicians who care more about their super and gold passes than they ever did about their electorates. People will vote for anyone other than Green Labor and Malcolm’s Green Liberals.
    Bill and Malcolm have estimated that they can ignore the rusted on Labor and Deluded Conservative voters and just court their Green friends.

    When did our parliaments become the playthings of the Greens who have one member in the democratically elected House of Representatives? We want our democracy back. We want our real PM back. We do not want Bill Shorten or Malcolm Turncoat who transparently care much more about themselves than anyone else.

    130

  • #
    Dennis

    Capitalism is about letting markets pick winners and losers, Socialism picks winners and losers and pays subsidies to ensure that the winners they pick can survive.

    61

  • #
    Dennis

    What a pathetic waste of taxpayer’s monies: Renewable Energy Target, subsidies, renewable energy surcharge, etc. And now discussion about subsidising new coal or gas fired power stations so that shareholders can profit from their investment which otherwise would not be commercially viable because of subsidised so called renewable energy businesses.

    60

  • #
  • #
    Rick Will

    The grid defection is gaining pace in South Australia:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-18/off-the-grid-with-battery-storage-and-solar-panels/8280968
    Stand-alone systems will be getting serious consideration by those affected by repetitive multi-hour outages. It is foreseeable that insurance policies will be lower if you can source your own power rather than taking losses when the grid cannot. The common theme will be that it is the consequence of extreme weather events as it gets disconnected from the unreliability ensured by generators that go up and down at the whim of the wind.

    51

    • #
      Annie

      Sorry for red…my hand was hovering while my OH was talking! Accidental touch.

      20

    • #

      ‘What giants?’ asked Sancho Panza.
      ‘Those whom we see yonder, with their immense extended arms.’ replied Don Quixote. ‘ Some of that detested race have arms that reach two leagues across the land.’

      71

    • #

      Going off grid becomes an option only if the grid supply is unreliable or is too expensive. Farmers in remote areas have had to do it for decades. Other wise it does not make sense. I am not sure what people who live in apartments or work in high rise buildings or factories are going to do.

      The problem with your article is that is that the ABC is still selling the Green Dream. The most useful backup supply is not solar cells and batteries but diesel or mini gas turbine.
      http://www.rttgroup.com.au/project/bladon-jets-mtg12/

      50

      • #
        Rick Will

        Peter C
        What are the prospects of the grid supply being unreliable and too expensive in South Australia? Or Victoria when Hazelwood shuts down permanently? How much do you think 4 consecutive outages in a matter of months will do to insurance premiums. If Hazelwood shuts I am predicting the second half of June will be the next period of outages for SA; maybe earlier but May is usually fair weather.

        With present subsidies anyone with the roof space can go off-grid and get power no more expensive than buying from the grid. Why stay on the grid and suffer outages from the intermittent generation as well as contributing to their growth via the various subsidies incorporated into your electricity bill. Desert the sinking ship and leave those stuck with it to live with it. Sure there will be innocent people bearing some pain but there will be those who get what they have wished for.

        The most economic stand-alone system includes a small generator but it is less complex to pay for a few more panels and be watchful of your demand in June than having the nuisance of refuelling and checking the generator.

        20

        • #

          With present subsidies anyone with the roof space can go off-grid and get power no more expensive than buying from the grid.

          Possibly. The subsidies are what we are trying to stop! However If you wish to take advantage you should do so now.

          Given the situation that you outlined in your submission to the Finkel enquiry it seems that you have to buy a lot more generation capacity than you intend to use to cover the worst period during June/July. Can that still be cost competitive with a diesel generator sized to the demand? What happens if cloudy weather lasts for a week or more?

          I think that grid power with a back up generator would be a lot cheaper, but I could be persuaded if someone has figures.

          10

          • #
            Rick Will

            Peter C
            The economics depend on your cost of funding and what you can do yourself. Without subsidy my current off-grid averages around 45c/kWh. It makes money because I get 66c/kWh for the power exported from the grid connected inverter by shifting load off grid. I am very interested in the cells and monitor them. I rebalance them at least once a year but they do not shift much. I do not use a BMS but inverters shut down with more than 10% left and the chargers shut down around 90%. There is a bit of voltage flutter at the top end because on a good day the panels can get up around 3kW, which is a rapid rate for a 5kWh battery. Normally on those days the battery is fully charged by 10am. But if the morning is cloudy and it clears the battery can get a quick charge.

            In four years I have never had a day in Melbourne when I did not collect energy. As I state in the submission the lowest full sunshine equivalent was 20 minutes. I only need 1 hour full sunshine equivalent to collect enough energy to supply the load each day. The worst consecutive days were 4 days where I averaged 30 minutes. I have two days of storage and ran close to cut out on 1 day in 4 years. I transferred to on-grid for about 4 hours to let the battery catch up. I have an awareness of the weather and how the battery might fare because in the first year I just kept adding panels in 500W lumps until the battery recovered.

            The lowest cost system includes a small generator but it adds complexity. I would have a small generator if I went completely off grid. I do have a 500W charger for the battery that would allow me to get it up if the sun did not comply. 500W over 24 hours is more than my load. The cost of a small generator is recovered in less than a year by eliminating the service fee.

            The panels are secured to the roof and have not deteriorated noticeably in 4 years. I check the outputs each year and there is no change so far. The battery sits in a cabinet in the garage. It does not take up much room and I have it covered with clear plastic panel to protect it from falling objects but allowing easy view of the connectors. I have a multi pin plug that allows me to check the status quickly and connect the ballancer for a day or so to level the cells. I clean the panels once a year and check the battery a few times a year and balance about once a year. There would be no more effort with all panels supplying off-grid and a bigger battery. I have split the panels, chargers and inverters so I can use low cost units and have the redundancy. I even run separate wiring to outlets at the loads I have off-grid. My battery system is less than half what Tesla charge but I did buy the cells when the exchange rate was better. Panels have stayed almost constant in AUDs but cells have climbed in the last 4 years. I am yet to see any indication of battery prices dropping so subsidies are worth considering – the pragmatic view. Join the scumbags benefitting from the rort or continue to pay for them.

            My grid connected system has already paid for itself. The off-grid system earns about $2/day so it is not quite half paid for yet. But that is based on higher export and reduced purchase averaging around 50c/kWh. I do not know what subsidies are on offer for batteries but I would be wary of offers that enable supplier control of battery output to the grid. Iy you remain grid connected then you want to be certain the system can operate in Island mode.

            I expect the Finkel Inquiry will push hard for battery storage and possibly distributed in households but able to add a lot of power to grid when needed. 5 million households each with 10kWh of battery could solve some problems. Still well short of the 700GWh needed for 100% intermittent supply but would certainly help stability and allow time for gas to come on stream.

            20

            • #

              5 million households each with 10kWh of battery could solve some problems.
              So, let me see if I have this right.

              A 10KWH system costs around $8500, (installed) and be aware that this is a proper system with the requisite three days storage, and not one of those Mickey Mouse things. And be aware here that the average power consumption for an Australian home is up around 18 to 20KWH per day, so that 10KWH system would probably not cover that even, considering two thirds plus of all power consumption in the average home is after 6PM.

              So, at that $8500 each, and only 5 million of them, (5 million of them, who makes up these numbers) that comes in at, umm, …..

              FORTY TWO AND A HALF …..BILLION DOLLARS

              and with a 12 year lifespan, (good luck with that) then that’s another $42.5 Billion to cover the life of the panels, if they make it out to 25 years.

              So, to cover the cost of residential power, alone, we are looking at $85 Billion.

              How easy those numbers just roll off the tongue, unless you’re the one paying for it that is.

              How many people will be willing to fork out the cost of the rooftop installation and then the 17K for the life of the panels. And for all those renters, I’m willing to bent that the owners will not be installing them, and for all those in high rise accommodation.

              Surely Finkel will not be even game enough to suggest this. He must think that Governments have pretty deep pockets.

              Tony.

              100

              • #
                Willard

                How many people are willing to fork out the cost? A helluva lot in Australia it appears, and power supply problems similar to the recent events in SA just drive up demand, many householders are not the least bit interested in who’s fault it is, the political chest beating, the technical details, they just want the power on at home or their small business. Most battery suppliers haven’t even got around to being price competitive with Powerwall 2 yet, no hurry, demand is ahead of supply, when LG chem and competitors get up to pace and the price drops further this is going to be an avalanche.

                26

              • #
                Rick Will

                Tony
                The good news is that if you are buying power you will be subsidising the purchase of those batteries. It is already happening in South Australia:
                https://community.agl.com.au/t5/Renewable-Energy-and-Technology/AGL-battery-storage-offer/td-p/1095

                It is expected that customers, who will pay about $3500 each for the heavily subsidised batteries, will save up to $500 on their annual electricity costs.
                The system when fully loaded has the capacity of 7MWh of energy, with an output equivalent to a 5 MW solar peaking plant, which can be directed back into the grid.
                AGL CEO and managing director Andy Vesey said the “solar virtual power plant” was the first of its kind in helping customers manage their energy bills and contribute to grid stability.

                Households wil be asked to volunteer to provide space for the batteries and a nominal price to get the the day-to-day benefit but AGL willl have control over them to aid grid stability. A pittance at this stage but you can bet Finkel and Tesla will be strongly promoting massive expansion of this.

                If there were 1 million homes in each capital with something similar then there is enough capacity to ride through weather fronts for long enough to bring gas fired plant on line. So it would avoid total blackouts.

                This is the brave new world of intermittent generation and it is heading your way. Without substantial storage all the money spent building renewables may have been flushed down the toilet for the same effect – actually that would have cost less. How often have you heard any government come out and say they made a horrible mistake. Both flavours in Australia are complicit – the only party vocally against it is PHON. There is a cost to saving the globe and if you buy electricity you are contributing to that effort; like it or not.

                20

            • #

              Thanks Rick,

              You are obviously an enthusiast with significant knowledge, Thanks for your submission to the Finkel enquiry. I hope that they will extract a different message from your data than the one you envisaged, but you are probably correct. The terms of reference require renewable energy in the mix!

              I have a few questions here;

              Without subsidy my current off-grid averages around 45c/kWh. It makes money because I get 66c/kWh for the power exported from the grid connected inverter by shifting load off grid.

              You seem to have two systems; a Grid Connected system and an Off Grid system. I do not have the picture of your roof available now but I thought that you had about 20 panels at various orientationn (10kW total)

              If your grid connect system earns 66c/kWh that is a massive subsidy (paid for by us) so I am not surprised that you have paid it off in 4 years. You did not even pay the full price for installation because that was subsidised also.

              But moving on to the Off Grid system. You say:

              The off-grid system earns about $2/day so it is not quite half paid for yet. But that is based on higher export and reduced purchase averaging around 50c/kWh.

              Electricty can still be purchased in Melbourne now for abour 22c/kWh so can you explain your 50c figure. By my estimate you still have at leat 12 years to pay off your Off Grid system.

              Congratulations on your battery storage system and the efforts that you have made so far. I bought 30x2Ah LiFePo4 cells about 5 years ago. Several cells have failed already I and am not skilled in relodering the remainder so my battery pack is out of action!

              20

              • #
                Rick Will

                Peter C
                The google map image was taken quite early in the morning. You can only see about half the panels. The rest are partially shaded at that time of day. In winter when it matters the sun swings further north and the trees do not block much. You are overestimating the size. The biggest panels are 250W.

                I only have 3kW in each system. So 6kW total. I have space for another 4kW of panels on the roof if I wanted to keep adding. I also have a large back yard that is not shown in the photo that has less tree coverage and would be good for a row of panels.

                The on-grid system has been in since 2011. It took about 4.5 years to pay it off as it was expensive at the time but capital cost was also subsidised STCs.

                When you do calculations of viability you can add the service fee if you are prepared to go off line – up to $1/day.

                If your battery is big enough relative to the load it does not cycle deeply. I have that hardware running a fridge and a separate freezer. They are my largest year round loads. The consumption ranges from around 3kWh combined in summer down to as low as 2.5kWh in winter – depends on weather and frequency of door opening. The battery typically operates between 53 and 55.5V so I am not using much capacity most of the time meaning I should get very high cycle life. Decision day on full off-grid will be in 2024 when the FIT expires. The economics depend on the battery life. No one knows how long a well managed LiFePO4 battery will last as they have not been around very long. When I did my analysis no commercial installer was contemplating LiFePO4. I determined that I could never get close to economic with Pb/Acid batteries but LiFePO4 are close for residential use. I have a lot of technical analysis on the battery comparison.

                My off grid system is not subsidised at all but it was low cost compared to say Teslas. All up it cost $6000. The 5kWh battery cost $2400. Panels were just over $3000 mounted. The rest of the hardware about $400 plus an $80 cabinet. For economic viability normal tariff here is 30c/kWh plus 85c/day service fee. My financing cost is low because the money comes out of term deposits that do not earn much – I usually work on 4%pa. Solar battery that are unsubsidised are unlikely to be economic at existing prices but I expect grid prices will rise strongly as more intermittent generation gets on the grid. Most people with roof space can go off grid for about the price of buying a mid size car. How many people do the financial analysis on buying a car compared with using public transport? I expect the grid will get harder to manage and more people will seek alternatives. If they have to pay a bit more to stick it up the retailers then so be it. Obviously not everyone will have the capacity to do that.

                I have quite a few LiPoly and LiFePO4 batteries. I replaced all the NiCad batteries in old power tools with LiPoly. I have a battery mower where I replaced the Pb/Acid with 10Ah LiFePO4 cans. One of those failed after a couple of years but I replaced that and the rest are OK. I have fitted battery power to a couple of boats using LiFePO4 and they are working fine up to 5 years later but they do not get cycled much. The lithium cells need to to be carefully managed. Mainly avoid full discharge and overcharge on any cell. I was warned off using cell connected BMS because more battery failures occur through BMS fault than cell fault. However I do check balance a few times a year. One of the boat batteries I did for a friend had a BMS and I found the plug partially connected so it was trying to balance only a few cells. I found it before it did any harm. Hw now connects the BMS for a a day now and then to balance the cells but then leaves disconnected.

                30

      • #

        My idea with the gas turbine generator was to run it off natural gas, which we have supplied.
        12Kw is about twice what I need. So if I could share the cost with a neighbour we could have our own Power Station on demand.

        20

        • #
          Rick Will

          The GT has a service interval of 8000 hours – less than a year. What does that entail? What happens with the fridge when the unit is being serviced?

          How much do the GT cost? There could be opportunity to use waste heat for household heating.

          I expect power costs will climb dramatically and reliability will drop. Now is a good time to assess options and play around with them. My off-grid is mainly being used to assess battery life. I want to be in a position by 2024 to decide if I will go off grid using solar/battery.

          10

  • #
  • #
    pat

    can’t find the report online, as yet:

    21 Feb: Reuters: Susanna Twidale: Flexible system needed make UK renewables cost-effective – report
    Britain needs a more flexible electricity system if it is to make intermittent renewable sources as wind and solar cost-effective, an independent research report said on Tuesday, as the government tries to hit emissions targets.
    The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) reports comes as the government is under pressure to act on rising energy costs after three of Britain’s “Big Six” suppliers announced price rises over the last few months.
    Britain has a legally binding target to cut emissions of harmful greenhouse gases by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, and hopes to achieve this partly by increasing its renewable generation and closing coal-fired power plants.

    “Without investing in greater flexibility you could end up with a system where (renewable) integration costs are almost as much as generation costs,” Robert Gross, one of the report’s authors and UKERC Co-Director, said during a media briefing.
    If the country generated 50 percent of its electricity from intermittent renewables, the costs associated with connecting them to power grid and providing back up power when they do not run, would range between 15 and 45 pounds per megawatt hour (MWh), the report said.
    For the cheapest figure to be realized the country would need to develop a flexible electricity system, using tools such as more power links with other countries and battery storage to better manage supply and demand, it said…

    The cost of renewable electricity generation has fallen rapidly over the past few years…
    As much as 20 percent of Britain’s electricity can be generated by wind farms at present.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-renewables-costs-idUKKBN160009?il=0

    31

  • #
    pat

    OriginalSteve & Dennis have linked to ABC reporter on AM this morning mocking the following:

    Mr Zapantis said buying enough batteries to keep ***renewable power supplied to everyone would cost more than the process of stripping carbon from coal plant emissions and storing it underground…

    (it’s clear Zapantis is referring to electricity)

    ABC reporter mocks the statement by saying:

    ***There is no serious proposal anywhere to have renewables power 100 per cent of Australia’s energy, making Mr Zapantis’s claim an exaggeration at the very least…

    ***so what is this about, ABC? or are you admitting it’s not a “SERIOUS PROPOSAL”?

    6 Feb: EnergyMatters: 174,340 Solar Panels Along Canberra’s “Solar Highway”
    An extra 36,000 solar panels now installed along Canberra’s “solar highway” will generate enough clean electricity to power approximately 3,000 ACT homes.
    Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability Shane Rattenbury announced on Friday that the Territory’s Williamsdale Solar Farm has been completed. The facility will produce around 21,900 megawatt hours of electricity annually.
    According to Minister Rattenbury, more than 174,340 photovoltaic panels are situated adjacent to 50 kilometres of road.

    ***The ACT has set a target of 100% renewable energy by 2020, a target it looks well-placed to meet. Last year, the ACT Government also passed legislation to achieve zero net carbon emissions across the Territory by 2050.
    http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/canberra-solar-highway-5890/

    21

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I have a friend in the ACT who said that there is lots of solar, but no one has seen a reduction in their bills yet…

      An awaful lot of “feel good” but no tangible usefulness to the taxpayers who funded the wonky green dream…

      30

  • #
    Ruairi

    The Greens don’t deserve any say,
    In power production today,
    When cheap energy ‘s got,
    By clean coal burnt hot,
    For which millions are willing to pay.

    130

  • #
    PeterS

    Labor today made the comment that building coal fired power stations would be like building steam trains instead of electric ones. Where do they think the electricity comes from to power the modern electric trains (apart from the diesel electric ones)? We have to rely on a few large “steam trains” called coal fired power stations to supply the base load power that’s mandatory to run the trains 24/7. If only the commentators and journalists had the intelligence and knowledge to fire back at so many stupid and false statements made by Labor and the Greens. It would be so easy to humiliate them on the spot. Yet the are silent and the leftists get away with saying anything. That’s the large part of the problem – our media don’t think fast enough if at all. Even those who are on our side, such as Andrew Bolt misses too many of these fantastic opportunities to shoot down the lefties in flames and make them look so foolish and stupid for all to see. The only ones that see through all the crap are those like many of us here who bother to do their own research. Trouble is most people don’t have the time, the inclination and/or the aptitude to do so and as a consequence rely on what they see and hear on the main stream media. Unless something changes in the way the media manages such comments and interviews we will continue on the current path until the pain is so great people finally wake up by which time of course it will be too late to avoid the devastation caused by the global warming scam. But then again perhaps that’s the best way for the public to learn the truth. Pavlovian conditioning often does work.

    90

    • #
      PeterS

      Bluescope’s call for base load energy target is another example where the media have missed the point and Labor+Greens are shouting down such calls. We are certainly a country that is lead by dumb politicians and listens to dumb journalists. Is it any wonder why this country is so dumb?

      110

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Media. Intelligence.Ha!. They are all brain- dead hacks nowadays .

      40

    • #
      Ross Stacey

      See my comment in 1.2.1 above

      00

  • #
    Dennis

    The Australian today has an advertisement presented as a news item claiming that a Sydney family is saving lots of money of electricity because they have installed a Tesla power wall battery. When I last checked the cost of this system with solar panels there was a disclaimer at the bottom of the web page explaining that installation might not result in savings.

    I wonder how want to be green families would react if they were informed about the environmental costs of manufacturing their system and disposal truths? And the renewable energy without government subsidies real costs?

    70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Predictably, the Greens hated it — who needs CO2 reduction if you can support big-government-loving industries instead? (Especially the kind who lobby for the side of politics that wants more bureaucrats, more handouts, and less independent competition?)

    Kinda says all there is to say about it, doesn’t it? Analysis of the plans shows all the details but the bottom line was written a long time back already. CO2 isn’t a problem in the first place.

    Dare I recommend that you find a homegrown Donald Trump? ;-) But then our Trump seems to be keeping at least half the populace alarmed here so maybe not so good an idea. I wish I knew what would work because climate change is still sneaking around in the grass like snake, ready to bite the unwary “denier”.

    51

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Off topic but I think warranted: I just saw the news about the plane crash at the Melbourne mall near Essendon Airport. It looks very bad from the pictures. There is no death or injury toll given and I hope it’s low. I’ll be saying some prayers tonight and hoping that no one we know is affected by this.

    40

  • #
    pat

    20 Feb: Bloomberg: Europe Needs a Higher Price on Carbon
    Europe’s promise to lower greenhouse-gas emissions looked bright a dozen years ago, when its leaders created the first big market for trading carbon permits. Sadly, though, its system has failed to encourage investment in clean technology and appreciably lower carbon dioxide emissions. Until the European Union trims the number of permits traded enough to drastically raise the cost of emitting carbon dioxide, its market will remain dysfunctional…

    The cap was set, and has remained, far too high. Free allowances were handed out generously. And when the financial crisis hit, industrial production fell, turning a surplus of emissions allowances into a glut. While the ETS has brought about a modest decrease in emissions, its low carbon price discouraged the kind of widespread shift to clean technology the system was meant to drive…
    Experts say that, to make a difference, the price of carbon dioxide should be about $30 a ton today, rising by roughly 5 percent a year. Today in Europe, the price is down to about five euros ($5.29)…

    Last week the European Parliament passed a set of reforms to take effect after 2020, one of which would double the number of permits to be taken off the market. This could push the carbon price up to 25 euros a ton by 2020, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance. But first the reforms will need to survive the EU’s legislative process…

    The EU has set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030. If it can’t make the emissions-trading system work, then member states will have to find alternatives. The U.K.’s floor on the price of carbon emissions — 18 pounds ($22.35) per ton — will put all its coal-fired power plants out of business. France announced a price floor last year, and other countries may need to follow suit…
    But without a high enough price on carbon, a permit-trading system has no force to bear…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-20/europe-needs-a-higher-price-on-carbon

    11

  • #
  • #
    pat

    read all:

    21 Feb: Bloomberg: How EU Can Limit Coal’s Life for the Cost of a Pint of Beer
    by Mathew Carr, Tino Andresen and Brian Parkin
    Driving most of Europe’s dirtiest power plants into retirement is probably cheaper than you think.
    Companies from German utility EON SE to Sweden’s Vattenfall AB are calling for measures including a minimum price on pollution rights to kickstart the European Union’s sputtering carbon market. Such a levy would effectively force all but the most efficient coal plants to close…
    “Installing a carbon floor price would be the most cost-efficient solution” to avoiding the worst of climate change, said Johannes Teyssen, chief executive officer of EON, which last year spun off its fossil-fuel plants. “A well and efficiently functioning emissions-trading system could, in fact, restore Europe’s reputation as a leader on climate policy,” he said by e-mail.

    EU efforts to reform its $48 billion cap-and-trade system have repeatedly failed to boost the cost of polluting and encourage green investment. While Britain operates a national floor price and France has proposed a regional levy, opposition remains intense…
    What’s crucial for politicians is to find a way to compensate losers from higher carbon prices, (Managing Director at EWI, University of Cologne, Harald) Hecking said. “The climate challenge is no longer a cost challenge, it’s a redistribution challenge. That makes it less daunting,” he said…
    ***“A 30-euro carbon price would push most of the European coal generation to the edge and possibly over it,” said Lueder Schumacher, a utilities analyst at Societe Generale SA in London.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-20/how-eu-can-limit-coal-s-life-for-the-cost-of-a-pint-of-beer

    21

  • #
    Robber

    How our governments spend our taxes. In looking at the website where reports on the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market are listed, I discovered another way to get funds for green causes.
    The Australian Renewable Energy Agency
    Over the past four years ARENA has invested $1 billion in funding into renewable energy projects.
    Our 254 projects cover solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal, ocean, hydro, geothermal and bioenergy, as well as a range of enabling and hybrid projects.
    Among the gems:
    Researchers in Curtin University’s Fuels and Energy Technology Institute have developed a new technology that converts biomass such as mallee crops into biofuels and biochar via biomass conversion (pyrolysis) and biorefinement. $5 million
    Australia and the broader global community are searching for viable, sustainable alternatives to fossil oil as future sources of liquid fuels, and to develop superior solutions to biofuels currently produced from food crops such as corn-based ethanol and biodiesel from palm oil. The aim of project was to scale-up Muradel’s marine microalgae to biofuel technology to demonstration scale and develop an investment case. $4 million
    AGL Solar Project. This project aims to increase knowledge in large-scale solar energy by constructing two solar photovoltaic (PV) power stations in New South Wales, which between them will have a generation capacity of up to 155 megawatts (MW) (AC) of electricity. Total funding $440 million. With more than two million solar panels (2,044,140) now feeding power into the national electricity grid, AGL Energy Limited and First Solar have successfully completed Australia’s two largest solar photovoltaic (PV) plants at Nyngan and Broken Hill with $166.7 million support from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).
    Qantas and Shell Australia collaborated to undertake a feasibility study into Australian feedstock (material that can be processed into biofuel) and refining capacity to produce Sustainable Aviation Fuel. ARENA funding $575k.
    Australian Wave Energy Atlas $1,300,000
    Feasibility study into conversion of Collinsville Power Station from coal to hybrid solar thermal/gas $2.1 million. This project assessed the viability of converting the existing 180 MW coal-fired Collinsville Power Station in Queensland to a 30 MW hybrid solar thermal/gas power station. It was ultimately determined that a project was not feasible at the current time due to excessive capital costs.
    Virtual Power Plant $5,000,000 A world-leading prototype of a virtual power plant (VPP) will be created by installing and connecting a large number of solar battery storage system across 1,000 residential and business premises in Adelaide, South Australia, to be managed by a cloud-based Sunverge control system. The batteries will be able to ‘talk’ to each other through a cloud-based platform using smart controls, forming a connected system that will be able to operate as a 5 MW solar power plant.

    10

    • #
      RobK

      ” The batteries will be able to ‘talk’ to each other through a cloud-based platform using smart controls, forming a connected system that will be able to operate as a 5 MW solar power plant.x
      It’s when they stop talking problems arise.

      20

  • #
    Bruce

    Thank you Jo, for another truthful, inconvenient truth.

    30

  • #
    toorightmate

    Tom Quirk has never sailed on the Ship Of Fools.
    So what would he bloody know?

    31

    • #
      Glen Michel

      OT, but from that great tertiary institution Macquarie University. A world first study finds that classroom discipline leads to better educational outcomes. Bring back corporal punishment I say.

      62

  • #
    pat

    18 Feb: Adelaide Advertiser: Locals exploring options to get rid of wave generator, which sank off the coast of Carrickalinga in 2014
    BLOW it up, cut it into bits, tow it out past Kangaroo Island – or leave it sitting there indefinitely as a blight on the view from picturesque Carrickalinga.
    The first three options were among six considered as a way to deal with the 3000-tonne wave generator that sunk off the coast at Carrickalinga in March 2014, and has been sitting on the sea floor, sticking prominently out of the water, ever since.
    Perhaps mistaking the ratepayers of the small holiday hamlet for marine engineers, the Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Department surveyed them about the preferred method of removal for the generator, owned by failed company Oceanlinx…ETC

    Oceanlinx received a $4 million Federal Government grant for the project, which was to cost $7 million overall.
    The generator was to be moored at Port MacDonnell for testing, and was expected to produce one megawatt of electricity, which is enough to power about 1000 homes.
    But it sunk on March 2, 2014, while being towed by a tug boat from Port Adelaide to Port MacDonnell…
    KordaMentha was installed as receiver of the company later that month and remains in that position.
    A spokeswoman for Transport and Infrastructure Minister Stephen Mullighan said the issue of who would pay for a clean up was unresolved…
    KordaMentha declined to comment.
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/locals-exploring-options-to-get-rid-of-wave-generator-which-sank-off-the-coast-of-carrickalinga-in-2014/news-story/5cbf4cd737499c6837e98806d4c008a8

    2010: CleanTechnica: Massive Offshore Waves Sink Australia’s Oceanlinx Wavepower Pilot
    Oceanlinx; named one of the world’s Top Ten Renewable Energy Investments by the UN, needs to go back to the drawing board to iron out some kinks in the design of its 2.5 MW wave energy power station.
    A massive swell at the Port Kembla site, 150 meters off the coast of Australia was able to sink the continent’s first wave power device to feed power to the Australian grid. The $5 million pre-commercial pilot project had just begun supplying power to the shore in February 2010…

    Sept 2016: IllawarraMercury: Glen Humphries: After a seven-year wait the Oceanlinx barge will be removed by April
    The removal of the Oceanlinx wave energy generator will finally start next week, after the government awarded the job to a Sydney-based company.
    The unsightly hulk off the coast of the Port Kembla coal loader is expected to be gone by April.
    Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) awarded the job of removing the barge, which has sat there for seven years, to Polaris Marine…
    The removal will mark the end of a long-running saga that began in 2009 when Oceanlinx decommissioned the generator after operating it for three years.
    Despite repeated attempts to get Oceanlinx to clean up its mess – including the threat of legal action – the company made no serious effort to remove it…
    http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4138501/port-kemblas-rusting-hulk-gone-by-april/

    June 2016: IllawarraMercury: Glen Humphries: Oceanlinx is still in business
    Despite leaving two state governments to clean up its mess, Oceanlinx is operating in Taiwan.
    And it appears the company’s former CEO Ali Baghaei is still in charge.
    When Oceanlinx went into receivership in 2014, it left two barges behind.
    As well as the one at Port Kembla, there is one stranded off Carrickalinga Beach, South Australia, since March 2014…
    During the receivership, the administrator sold the company’s intellectual property to Hong Kong business Wave Power Renewables Limited – which has only existed since March 2014.
    That company is now trading under the name Oceanlinx.
    The site also touts its new project, a 1mW “demonstration unit” that will sit offshore from Keelung, Taiwan…
    Roads and Maritime is in charge of removing the Port Kembla barge…

    Oceanlinx Keelung Project, Taiwan: Full scale 1MW greenWAVE
    Oceanlinx plans to build and commission a 1MW greenWAVE demonstration unit in an Ocean Energy Testing and Demonstration Zone which was established by National Taiwan Ocean University (NTOU) in sea area of Keelung, Taiwan…
    The first stage is going to be completed by April 2017 and the following phase will be finalized at the end of 2017…

    21

    • #
      Raven

      . . or leave it [wave generator] sitting there indefinitely as a blight on the view from picturesque Carrickalinga.

      How come a dead wave generator is a blight on the view and dozens of windmills aren’t?
      Paint it green and send a pic to Sarah Hyphen Young as a testament of her due diligence.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    I am not understanding where the term Electricity Energy Target arises.

    The Acts which comprise the RET are the Renewable Energy Acts and Regulations. How does this ‘Target’ come into it? As far as I can see, it is the Renewable Energy Tax. Tom interprets it as a Carbon tax as it only affects carbon generation of power but how is the “Target” relevant with this talk of 50%? What is the significance of changing the “Target”?

    There is Greg Hunt’s vague press release.

    “The 33,000 gigawatt hour Renewable Energy Target will not be reviewed until 2020. This will give
    the renewable energy industry the certainty it needs to grow.”

    Where is all this in the legislation and how does the Renewable Energy Act address the ‘target’?

    Sincerely. Puzzled.

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      How do the SA and Victorian governments seriously expect Enegie to fire up Pelican Point and Hazelwood just to make a loss under the RET? Why would they expect gas to fill the gap when it is taxed even more highly than coal? When did politicians become completely disconnected from the idea that people need to be paid, apart from themselves?

      80

    • #
      Robber

      Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015
      Part 1—Required GWh of renewable source electricity
      2017 26031
      2018 28637
      2019 31244
      2020 33850
      2021 33000
      2022 33000
      2023 33000
      2024 33000
      2025 33000
      Hence the use of the term RET. Odd that the target is above 33000 in 2020.

      30

    • #
      Rick Will

      Tdef
      The Targets are prescribed in the original legislation – Section 40:
      Required GWh of renewable source electricity
      Year GWh
      2001 300
      2002 1100
      2003 1800
      2004 2600
      2005 3400
      2006 4500
      2007 5600
      2008 6800
      2009 8100
      2010 12500
      2011 10400
      2012 16763
      2013 19088
      2014 16950
      2015 18850
      2016 21431
      2017 26031
      2018 28637
      2019 31244
      2020 33850
      2021 33000
      2022 33000
      2023 33000
      2024 33000
      2025 33000
      2026 33000
      2027 33000
      2028 33000
      2029 33000
      2030 33000

      Retailers must buy LGCs in proportion to the amount of energy they retail. The cost of LGCs is paid to the renewable energy generator to help their economic viability and appreciation for saving the world from global warming. The LGC prices are set by trading and there is concern that policy changes will lower the price of LGCs so is now viewed as having sovereign risk. ACT has taken the bull by the horns and are guaranteeing contracted prices to new renewable generators of the order of $100/MWh for 10 years. I gather the ACT will then pocket the tax (er subsidy) as it is collected. So anyone buying electricity in Australia is subsidising the renewable energy generator. These values in the legislation are for the 20% RET. The new values for the revised target of 23.5% result in the top figure getting to 41TWh. If the RET in any state gets to 50% then it means half the power must be supplied by renewables (if that is technically possible) and the number of LGCs more than double.

      If this causes your brain to explode please do not blame it on me. I do benefit from the subsidies such that my electricity income pays for my gas usage but I did not dream up the scheme.

      30

      • #
        toorightmate

        Rick,
        I presume these “targets” are nameplate?
        If I presume correctly, then let us all get used to living in the dark with no heating or cooling.
        The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop. CO2 is the best thing since the reinvention of unsliced bread.
        CO2 has nothing to do with climate change and the slow increase from the oceans (from the planet warming) is doing our plants, animals, humans AND environment the world of good.
        In case you missed it – the CO2 horsesh*t HAS TO STOP.

        11

        • #
          Rick Will

          toorightmate
          The values are delivered energy in GWh. The 33000GWh represents 20% of the total generation. The new figure of 41000GWh is the new 23.5% RET that was agreed in 2015 after Turnbull displaced Abbott.

          The renewable generators have to dispatch energy to earn their LGCs. That is why the wholesale price of electricity can quite reasonably go negative because they make this money for all dispatched energy. They actually bid in at negative prices to guarantee dispatch when they can produce. Unless the wholesale price is more negative than the value of the LCGs they still make money. There is no point shutting down if they can still make money. The energy input is free and the life is not going to change much if it is spinning doing nothing or spinning producing electricity. In fact there is likely a cost to taking off line as some one might have get off their backside to do that.

          No amount of noise about the virtues of CO2 on this site is going to have any impact on decision makers.

          It will need a few more scares before governments get really nervous. I have been surprised that some Euro countries have not had problems this winter. Maybe they get so little from their intermittent generators in winter that they are not causing instability. Possibly by August 2017 Germany will be in strife. There is a tipping point where the level of intermittent generation causes instability. I understand Germany was close August last year.
          https://stopthesethings.com/2017/01/13/germanys-energiewende-nightmare-grid-collapse-looms-due-to-erratic-wind-solar/

          00

  • #
    TdeF

    Odd that the “Target” is not clear

    Part 1—Required GWh of renewable source electricity

    is what I read, the only possible interpretation of target. This is all reliant on the Certificates, carbon tax certificates which must be bought by fossil fuel power stations, certificates which enable them to sell power. There is otherwise no significance in the ‘Target’ except that the Renewable Energy Authority has to report back to parliament on how the target is being reached.

    So this confirms that the quite arbitrary ‘market’ for LGCs is what is pushing the coal and gas power stations out of business. Then, by definition, the target will be 100%. However unless they are replaced, if all the coal power producers shut tommorrow, 100% renewables will be reached and Australia will have 10% of the power it had in 2000. What great minds came up with this? Sorry, politicians and Greens. As Wanda said in a Fish called Wanda, “I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs.”

    20

    • #
      Rick Will

      TdeF
      Retailers buy the LCGs in proportion to the power sold. They are not purchased by the generator unless that entity also retails power. The cost of each LCG goes to the renewable energy generator for each MWh produced.

      There is already a lot of business set up around the RETS. That business has a significant voice now. Governments are all about picking winners and encouraging them with taxpayers money. In this case the money goes directly to the renewables industry rather than passing through government coffers. Although there is also direct funding of renewable schemes.

      20

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        Oh really Rick , they need to be an energy retailer do they ? Heard of the solar farm being touted near Wangaratta in Victoriastan, it’s made an exemption from this rule and I wonder if there’s others .

        20

        • #
          Rick Will

          Robert Rosicka
          Why would any solar plant want exemption from being subsidised for the power the produce?

          If you are referring to getting money up front then that has happened already. NSW contributed 66% of the cost for the two grid scale solar plants AGL has in that State. I do not know what the deal is with the LGCs; whether they go to AGL or the NSW government or they split the income from LGCs.

          10

          • #
            Robert Rosicka

            No exempt from having to be an energy retailer .

            10

            • #
              Robert Rosicka

              I believe it’s all in the detail , they still qualify for subsidies but being exempt from having to be a retailer must give them some sort of an advantage .
              This project is being sold to investors panel by panel , the land I think was given to them by the local council and power generated was to go to nearby industrial estate and houses .
              So in a nutshell some “entrepreneur ” has worked out how to milk the system and fleece , local and state govs and the public and do it legally , kudos to the man I reckon .
              Think of it , he has outlayed ziltch, won’t be in charge or responsible for the farm after it’s built , investors are paying for the lot before it’s built he gets concession after concession, zero risk and we’re talking millions of dollars , genius .

              10

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, the retailer is the customer, not generally the coal or gas power station. I have been over this. If you buy $1 of coal or gas power you also have to pay $2.50 to a wind power generator. For this you get nothing, just a piece of paper.

        This does not of itself force the power station out of business, but their competition get paid more than double for generating power at any time at all, even if they do not sell it. If they sell it, they get more. So the base load suppliers get shunted out the moment someone else has cheaper power and that is almost always the case and act as supplier of last resort. The costs stay constant but often at times of high wind input, you get paid nothing. So they quit. Enegie lost $17Million running Pelican point. Why should they continue?

        This is utterly wrong that the largest, cheapest supplier is forced out of the market by government carbon taxes? What sort of free market is that? This is entirely the fault of the RET, the Ridiculous Energy Tax.

        Remove the tax. Get the Green activists out of our electricity supply and it would return to normal immediately. It is a s*c*a*m.

        60

        • #
          TdeF

          The other thing which tell you this is wrong is that the public are unaware of how much they are paying. They are unaware that the government is subsidizing power stations and refineries to hide the impact of their policies. They are unaware the Victorian government is lining its coffers with a 300% increase in tax on coal. Most importatnly the people are unaware that there is already a massive carbon tax because they voted against it and Labor, the Greens and Malcolm’s Liberals are saying nothing.

          We are being ripped off. Remove the RET and electricity would halve tomorrow. However we probably have to worry about the investors of windmills schemes? That is odd because they are very aware that their profits come from carbon taxes.

          50

        • #

          One dollar fer energy,
          two dollars-fifty
          fer a tax on intermittency,
          this is what guvuh-mint
          generates. Who benefits?
          Not the proletariat, that’s
          evident.

          20

  • #
    Robber

    There is an army of regulators at work tracking the certificates.
    Accredited renewable energy power stations are entitled to create large-scale generation certificates based on the amount of eligible renewable electricity they produce above their baseline. As a guide, one large-scale generation certificate is equal to one megawatt hour of eligible renewable electricity.

    Once created and validated, these certificates act as a form of currency and can be sold and transferred to other individuals and businesses at a negotiated price. Large-scale generation certificates are usually sold to liable entities (electricity retailers), who are required to surrender a set number of certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator each year.
    Thus each retailer must purchase a share of RECs to meet their obligations each year based on their total sales of electricity.

    30

  • #
    gbees

    Anyone listen to Kieran Gilbert interviewing Matt Thistlewaite (member for Kingsford-Smith. Note: the word Labor doesn’t appear on his website) on Sky today? Very painful to listen to the drivel exiting his mouth regarding ‘clean’ energy, coal-fired power, carbon tax etc. Truly we are blessed with politicians who have absolutely no idea about much at all.

    31

  • #
    • #
      PeterS

      People here will only notice the man made global warming scare is a scam if and when global warming alarmist world leaders are sued for billions and put behind bars. Anything less will be ignored by the vast majority of the public and the scam will continue here and most other places.

      33

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I am excited about this.

      KK

      21

    • #
      AndyG55

      I wonder if they will be able to check amounts coming into bank accounts.

      It would not surprise me to find extra payments from “anonymous” like BEST Inc gets.

      22

  • #
    Crakar24

    OT, story about Hazelwood on insight tonight

    Cheers

    20

    • #
      Crakar24

      Well that was a waste of an hour

      40

      • #
        toorightmate

        We all know who writes the score for the ABC/SBS.

        20

        • #
          Crakar24

          Take home points “the plant closed due to market forces” engine

          “There will be an immediate rise in electricity prices and black outs are possible” gratton institute.

          The remaining 55 mins was dirty coal renewables, carbon pollution and “we are all really sorry your life was flushed down the
          toilet but the planet remember?”

          50

    • #

      I only watched half an hour. I could not stand it any more after that.

      I hoped that at least one person would say “This is all for nothing” Even the company spokeswoman just said the Power stataion was closing due to market forces, but did not attempt to explain what those forces might be (government regulations).

      20

  • #
    PeterS

    Today we see that 60% believe man made climate change is real – up 6 since the question was last asked in December, with 25% saying it’s normal fluctuation, down 2. A remarkable 65% approve of Labor’s 50% renewable energy target by 2030, with 18% disapproving. No wonder ALP+Greens are ahead in the polls. If these polls are a true reflection of how Australians “think” then our nation is going to crash and burn much sooner than I thought.

    52

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      PeterS , I’m not saying if you can’t beat them join them , but I’m wondering if Labor get back in , maybe it’s time to invest in some bird choppers short term .
      May be some money to be made in the short term .

      21

  • #
    pat

    it’s WaPo and anonymous sources again – real or Fake News? time will tell:

    20 Feb: WaPo: Trump to roll back Obama’s climate, water rules through executive action
    By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
    While both directives will take time to implement, they will send an unmistakable signal that the new administration is determined to promote fossil-fuel production and economic activity even when those activities collide with some environmental safeguards. Individuals familiar with the proposals asked for anonymity to describe them in advance of their announcement, which could come as soon as this week.
    One executive order — which the Trump administration will couch as reducing U.S. dependence on other countries for energy — will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to begin rewriting the 2015 regulation that limits greenhouse-gas emissions from existing electric utilities. It also instructs the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lift a moratorium on federal coal leasing…

    A second order will instruct the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to revamp a 2015 rule, known as the Waters of the United States rule, that applies to 60 percent of the water bodies in the country…
    Bloomberg reported several elements of the executive orders Friday.
    The greenhouse-gas limits on existing power plants, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, represented a central components of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda…

    Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who served on Trump’s EPA transition team, said the president “is fulfilling his campaign promise” by directing key agencies to shift course. Ebell warned, however, that undoing these rules “will take time. It could take days, months and years.”…
    One measure — lifting the moratorium on federal coal leasing — could take immediate effect. That freeze has been in effect since December 2015, and last month the Interior Department proposed major changes to a program that guides coal exploration and production across 570 million publicly owned acres…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/20/trump-to-roll-back-obamas-climate-water-rules-through-executive-action/?utm_term=.72fb077d0a36

    11

  • #
    poitsplace

    An interesting thing most people don’t consider when they think about renewables. There have been almost no conventional power plants shut down because of installed renewable capacity. Indeed, the conventional plants, operating as a backup, are essential for renewables to function.

    So when people are calculating the costs of renewables, they’re not really so much competing as (supposedly) complementing existing, installed capacity. This means that the only savings is in fuel, not in overall costs of a power plant. But wind only makes that pittance when it’s producing, and its wild fluctuations cause wild throttling of normal power plants resulting in even more fuel burned, sometimes bringing the total to almost what it would have been had the renewables not been used at all.

    So the absolute maximum that wind power is normally worth, with ZERO profit, is about $.03(us) per KWH, which would be if it magically produced its 20% capacity factor non-stop for days or weeks and… while matching demand. Which brings up another problem, that frequently even if you did have enough wind energy, like normal plants there would be periods where you simply did not need to use it because the demand was not there.

    And then of course there’s the reality, wind is erratic. The majority of the time it is producing too much or too little. And this means it will tend to drive spot prices of electricity up and down. So now things get worse again, because not only was its absolute maximum value only that of the coal/gas that backs up the system…wind is going to tend to crash prices when it produces. That means that it will rarely even recupe the fuel costs when it does produce, and when it doesn’t produce, it will earn that much less while driving dispatchable energy prices higher (a secondary cost of renewables).

    As one digs deeper into how use of renewables twists the system, it becomes painfully obvious why we gave up on most renewables in the first place, so long ago.

    40

  • #
    pat

    20 Feb: DailyCaller: Michael Bastasch: Trump Will Issue Executive Orders To Dismantle Obama’s ‘Climate Action Plan’
    Are More Orders On The Way?
    Trump may not stop with just two executive orders targeting the CPP, WOTUS and the Interior Department’s coal moratorium.
    Obama’s Climate Action Plan also consisted of regulations to cut methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations and agriculture. Obama also used the Energy Department to put out energy efficiency standards for household and commercial for household and commercial appliances aimed at cutting emissions. Future Trump orders could focus on these…

    ***The president is also expected to issue executive actions on the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) estimate that EPA and other agencies rely upon to craft global warming regulations. Critics say the SCC is an imprecise number that can be manipulated by politics…
    Trump could also take aim at the underlying reason for Obama’s Climate Action Plan — the Paris climate agreement…
    Trump promised to pull out of the agreement on the campaign trail and eliminate all funding for UN climate programs.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/20/trump-will-issue-executive-orders-to-dismantle-obamas-climate-action-plan/

    11

  • #
    pat

    20 Feb: WashingtonExaminer: Daniel Chaitin: Republican bills to kill federal agencies face uphill battle
    So far in the 115th session of Congress, which began Jan. 3, Republican lawmakers in the House and the Senate have offered bills to do away with at least three agencies: the Education Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…
    The highest profile lawmaker to introduce department-killing legislation is Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who last week unveiled the “Repeal CFPB Act,” which would get rid of the independent agency that he said, “grew in power and magnitude without any accountability to Congress and the people.” CFPB was created by Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, signed by President Barack Obama in 2010 in response to the 2008 financial crisis.
    “Don’t let the name fool you, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau does little to protect consumers,” Cruz said in a statement. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, introduced the House version of the bill…

    Though Republicans now control Congress and the White House, the legislation would be unlikely to make it past a Democratic filibuster, wrote House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. However, there are still ways the GOP can reign in the agency…
    Two other bills introduced this month seek to “terminate” the Education Department and the EPA by the end of 2018…
    “We want to bring education local so we’re going to be cutting the Department of Education big league because we’re running our education from Washington D.C.,” Trump told Circa in August…

    Massie is a co-sponsor of another piece of legislation from a Republican colleague that would “terminate” the entire EPA, which has elicited the ire of Republicans in recent years under the Obama administration for committing what they view as executive overreach…
    The legislation has only three co-sponsors: Reps. Steven Palazzo, R-Miss., Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga. and Massie.
    “The EPA has been doing some drastic things,” Gaetz told Northwest Florida Daily News earlier this month. “They have exceeded their original mission substantially under both Republican and Democratic presidents and violated the sovereignty of the states. I think we need to start fresh.”…
    Trump has given no indication that he supported a bill that would eliminate the EPA, but said during a rally Saturday that the EPA is in for changes.
    “It’s going to be a big difference,” Trump said of the Pruitt-run EPA before taking aim at the Obama-era EPA. “They were clogging up the veins of our country with the environmental impact statements, and all of the rules and regulations.”…
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/republican-bills-to-kill-federal-agencies-face-uphill-battle/article/2615328

    11

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    This is an interesting video entitled “Modern Grand Solar Minimum” which contains a number of segments including Leonard Nimoy’s 1978 “The Coming Ice Age” and comments by John Casey and many others.

    We should actually be worried about global cooling but global warming is never a problem, even if it were happening.

    57 minutes long, well worth watching.

    https://youtu.be/CTkCGlcuEcI

    32

  • #
    pat

    lengthy piece, which also includes recycling costs/benefits, & other stuff worth noting.
    headline appears to be missing an ending:

    18 Feb: ValleyMorningStar: Rick Kelley: Retiring worn-out wind turbines could cost billions that nobody has ?
    We can expect the Texas winds to blow forever, but the colossal turbines which capture the breeze and transform it into electricity will not turn forever. Like all mechanical things devised by man, no matter how clever, they eventually wear out.
    But the question is, what will this mean to the landscape and future of the Rio Grande Valley and, in particular, the counties of Willacy and Cameron?…
    And then, of course, there are the federal subsidies which make wind energy financially possible.

    Wind energy production tripled thanks to the Obama administration’s aggressive green energy agenda, going from 8,883 megawatts in 2005 to around 82,183 megawatts today, which is about 5.5 percent of the nation’s total power generation.
    The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the total cost to taxpayers of the wind production tax credit between 2016 and 2020 will be $23.7 billion…
    Whether those subsidies will continue under the Trump administration remains to be seen…

    “We don’t know with certainty the life spans of current turbines,” said Lisa Linowes, executive director of WindAction Group, a nonprofit which studies landowner rights and the impact of the wind energy industry. Its funding, according to its website, comes from environmentalists, energy experts and public donations and not the fossil fuel industry.
    Linowes said most of the wind turbines operating within the United States have been put in place within the past 10 years. In Texas, most have become operational since 2005.
    “So we’re coming in on 10 years of life and we’re seeing blades need to be replaced, cells need to be replaced, so it’s unlikely they’re going to get 20 years out of these turbines,” she said.
    Estimates put the tear-down cost of a single modern wind turbine, which can rise from 250 to 500 feet above the ground, at $200,000.
    With more than 50,000 wind turbines spinning in the United States, decommissioning costs are estimated at around $10 billion…

    In Texas, there are approximately 12,000 turbines operational in the state. Decommissioning these turbines could cost as much as $2.3 billion.
    Which means landowners and counties in Texas could be on the hook for tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars if officials determine non-functional wind turbines need to be removed.
    Or if that proves to be too costly, as seems likely, some areas of the state could become post-apocalyptic wastelands steepled with teetering and fallen wind turbines, locked in a rigor mortis of obsolescence…

    Unlike Duke Energy, some of the smaller wind farm companies operating in Texas, with fewer financial resources, may be tempted to just walk away when aging turbines no longer spin a profit.
    Linowes believes such moves may begin occurring even before wind turbines outlive their useful life as manufacturing warranties on the big turbines expire…

    As wind turbine manufacturing has improved, the length of warranties on these products has decreased dramatically and today the terms of most cover between five and 10 years.
    It seems paradoxical that warranties would become shorter as products become better, but many wind turbine manufacturers have found a valuable revenue stream in selling extended warranties, similar to companies which sell appliances to consumers.
    “It could be a very ugly situation in the next five years when we see turbines need work, and are no longer under warranty and not generating enough electricity to keep running them,” Linowes said.
    http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_3a81176e-f65d-11e6-b1bb-b70957ccb19f.html

    11

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Did I just hear right , an Australian company is considering importing LNG from Saudi Arabia .

    10

  • #
    bobl

    Tom,
    As an Electrical Engineer I must point out that your analysis is totally wrong. Fundamentally flawed. The problem occurs because you haven’t amortised the embodied CO2 over the life of the renewables, nor have you equalised for the area of effective deforestation caused by the renewables and related infrastructure or accounted (deducted) the electricity consumed by the renewables industry in perpetuating itself.

    The result is that the renewables displace much less CO2 emission than you expect, Indeed there is often insufficient Renewable Energy to power the renewable energy industry. By shutting down the renewables we would get to shut down the emissions of the renewables industry.

    When you take these factors into account the renewable industry is in fact adding to CO2 emissions, not subtracting from it. The Cost of abatement per MWh is infinite (because there is little to no actual abatement).

    41

  • #
    AndyG55

    OT Arctic sea ice update

    2017 day 50 is higher than 2016 and 2006.

    2016 – 14.175
    2006 – 14.277
    2017 – 14.328

    21

  • #
    David Maddison

    Our job has got doubly hard.

    We not only have to convince the sheeple that the world is not warming, not that it would matter if that were true.

    We have to convince them that the world is probably cooling because of diminished solar output and we are heading for a Maunder-like Minimum. The consequences will be serious.

    Suggest people look at work of John Casey, Piers Corbyn and David Dilley among others.

    21

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Greentards keep telling us that intermittent energy will be so cheap it will put conventional reliable producers out of business even if a free market existed.

    Remember at the start of the nuclear age people thought that nuclear electricity would be too cheap to bother metering. Of course, it is very cheap, but the business model still requires it to be metered.

    Unreliable energy which is low energy density and intermittent and requires thousands of installations can never possibly compete with energy dense nuclear (or fossil) producers which work 24/7 and require a single installation.

    21

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      David.

      The average scientifically aware person understands what you are saying but the politically aware “leftards” cannot possibly comprehend what is being stated.

      In terms they understand:

      Wind energy costs $x per kWh.

      Solar costs $y per kWh.

      Coal fired cost. $z per kWh.

      Work out annual costs for each WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES.

      And then let them choose.

      Will they do the honourable thing?

      Will they?

      Could they face reality and accept that free solar and free wind comes with production costs covered over y manipulative politicians?

      KK

      11

      • #
        AndyG55

        In Germany, their “unreliable” have not reduce CO2 emissions at all.

        Add in the massive amounts of CO2 sourced energy to manufacture and install them and the required infrastructure, it is very obvious that wind and solar are actually CO2 emission POSITIVE. Furthermore, they require further emissions to replace then at end of life in 10-15 years (if lucky)

        Installing HELE coal would very quickly become CO2 emission negative. (ie reduce overall CO2 emissions.)

        33

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Solar not polar

        10

  • #
    observa

    The big picture being rapidly uncovered in South Australia now is all electrons tendered to the communal grid are not equal. The unreliables are simply free-riding on reliable thermals to insure them and not paying a just insurance premium. Quite the contrary with their subsidies and mandates to begin with. The only rational, macro, level playing field would be to restrict every tenderer of electrons to those they can guarantee 24/7, all year round. Game over. Then the unreliables would be forced to partner with thermal generators if they want to lift their average tender rates and pay the insurance premiums and/or invest in storage that they’re finessing now.

    It’s a simple macro remedy to create a level playing field free market whereby the players are left to work out the just insurance premia exchange, but of course it would tip a bucket on the freeloaders and expose the giant scam edifice watermelon Govts have been engineering for years. So naturally it’s a case of obfuscate and deflect while the lights go out increasingly. There is a certain inevitability in these political games but you don’t build base load thermal power stations in 5 minutes as the Weatherill Govt is floundering around with now.

    30

  • #
    observa

    The free-riding is easily demonstrated looking at wind output as a proportion of installed maximum output.

    In 2016 the average output in Australia was 29% which marries with an oft quoted figure around 30% for wind energy in general. Simply draw a horizontal line at 30% and look at all the dips below that line that wind generators would have to pay a thermal insurer to cover them (fast start peaking gas perhaps?)or else install storage to be able to use some of those peaks. Notice also that to the extent they rely on thermal to backstop/lift their tender levels that reduces thermal 24/7, all year round tender capacity, but the bonus is the AEMO and all players then know the absolute level of reliable electrons that are possible and can plan investments against any rising overall demand with confidence. Not a hope in Hell of private enterprise doing that now with the wild roller coaster they’re on, but if you think public servants can do it better with our taxes, then you’re part of the problem.

    20

  • #

    http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

    Indeed, read the whole thing! In her summary Judith points many things that do affect Earth’s surface temperature. She fails to point out is that there is no physical evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels above 180ppmv affects surface temperature at all. We can all observe the greening that more atmospheric CO2 brings, but this greening is unlikely to result in measurable surface temperature change.
    The CAGW scam is perpetuated on two deliberate falsehoods:
    1) A statistical spatial\temporal aggregate of surface temperature has some physical meaning!
    2) The post normal physics teaching that mass emits EMR flux, proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature, but independent of the temperature of surrounding mass.
    Both of these falsehoods are easily dispatched through careful, but not expensive measurement.
    Inquiries welcome!

    33

  • #

    If knowledge is ƒ or zepto-ƒ for politicians. The required painful learning for humans is (1+PI)ƒ!! The one is knowledge, and the PI is true learning of ‘what I do not know!! Da hurrior we go, da be-hinder we gets!
    All the best! -will-

    11