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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Australians duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap

Crazy World Quiz #2349:

Let’s close the cheapest generators of electricity. Will electricity bills:

a/ go down,   b/  go up,  or  c/ be paid by The Tooth Fairy?

A quarter of Australians don’t know. A half think the answer is “b” or “c”. It’s that bad.

A new survey came out this week which fans of renewables are using to argue we need more renewables, but hidden in the data is the big misinformation that underlies this attitude.

Coalition supporters back quicker shift to renewable energy

[Sydney Morning Herald]

Adam Morton says:

The wisdom of a campaign by the Turnbull government emphasising the risks of moving too rapidly to renewable energy has been thrown into question by polling that suggests a majority of its supporters don’t agree.

Not at all. The real issue, that Adam Morton misses, is that so much of the country is horribly misinformed. All the key questions in the survey depend on what would happen to electricity prices, and nearly half the country lives under the delusion that “renewables” make our electricity prices cheaper.

All Malcolm Turnbull has to do to turn these figures around is to tell the fact that coal fired electricity is generated for 3 – 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Then run this survey again, and see support for a renewables target crash.

Most Australians have no idea that coal fired power is the cheapest power by far. The Tooth Fairy subsidies mean that some people with solar panels on their roof think they are getting “cheap electricity” when really someone else is paying part of their bill.

Just find us one nation running on wind and solar that has cheap electricity. They don’t exist. The only cost effective renewable energy comes from hydro. Wind and solar theoretically provide cheap electrons sometimes, but we need electricity all day every day, and the net effect the intermittent sources have on the whole grid makes for expensive electricity. The intermittent generators stop us from getting cheap electricity. The subsidies to pander to them (like the RET)  force the cheap generators out of the market.

..Survey, attitudes to Climate Change, renewables, Sydney Morning Herald, April 2017.

If the Australia Institute really wanted to understand what Australians think, they would have told Australians the price of coal fired electricity, told them the cost of the subsidy (RET = 8c/KWhr) and asked people how many dollars extra they are willing to pay for the RET, instead of quizzing them with loaded questions about situations that don’t exist anywhere in the world.

These push-polling type surveys that miss the key facts in the debate are measuring the success of PR campaigns, or the ignorance of respondents.

INFO: The Large scale RET (renewable energy target)

h/t David B

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (83 votes cast)
Australians duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap, 9.5 out of 10 based on 83 ratings

260 comments to Australians duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Renewable energy is the cheapest, so long as you don’t have to use it as base-load power for a State Grid.

    Any engineer knows this, no matter how committed a Greenie they may be.

    The problem is that we have had a scientific cadre rewarded for claiming otherwise.

    1232

    • #
      toorightmate

      We have 3900 MW of wind installed in SA/Vic which is currently generating 200 MW and you are trying to tell me that it is cheap power.
      Surely you don’t believe that and are the minister for sarcasm

      632

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        Nope: that 200 MW is ‘free’ plus cost of maintenance. So, if the capital cost of the idle 3700 MW is low and you can exist off grid for a while the present cost, set by no need to have standby, is low.

        The cost of the fossil (or nuclear) standby is enormous because you pay for its operation all the time even if none is used.

        346

        • #
          toorightmate

          Nope: the capital cost has to be amortised.
          The capital cost for 3900MW of wind turbines would build a heap more coal or oil fired power generation capacity which would not drop to 200MW (or less) on occasions.
          But maybe you know sources of cheap turbines, concrete, cranes, transmission lines, sub stations, etc.

          591

          • #
            turnedoutnice

            Present long term interest rates are very near zero.

            326

            • #
              toorightmate

              As Jo said in the post, the capital was supplied by the Tooth Fairy.

              270

              • #
                turnedoutnice

                Do a proper economic analysis and windmills are incredibly expensive once they have driven the base-load generation to fail. Ask SA government to include the capital it has to provide to build new stand-by as a State-owned enterprise.

                50

              • #

                @turnedoutnice: You clearly understand the DNA problem of windmills. First, they work on low density intermittent wind energy, so the physical machine count required to deliver the total requirements pretty much would cover the globe. Plus, they are mechanically and technically Rube Goldberg complex, need huge and continuous support armies and last maybe 10 years whether they run or sit before you invest the capital all over again.

                If they use 25 workers to sew a few pairs of jeans and try to tell the unwashed public that that’s much cheaper than using automation at scale, they have sucked back the kool aid and joined the zombie train of Social media.

                Sorry, I lost my kool for a sec there, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express and wrote this on windmills at 3 AM one day:

                https://notonmywatch.com/?p=972

                80

            • #
              Geoff

              Not for wind farms. Typically a super scheme offers finance at 8%. So they are VERT expensive rent seeking “opportunities”. Often the super scheme is from a government backed union.

              40

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          I think you don’t understand how the RET works. That 200MW would get 200 Large scale Generation Certificates (free) which the Retailer MUST buy at currently $86-90 each. The wind scammer gets the wholesale price on top of that, so the average wholesale price goes up. The Retailer then pushes up the cost to the customer by that amount + their margin + GST, so the Retail price increases in line with the percentage of renewables, compounded because the conventional generator has to spread his costs over a smaller amount.

          100% coal fired wholesale cost = 3-4¢ per kWh. Retail cost 12-15¢ per kWh.

          40% wind and 60% coal fired = 0.40 x 5 + (5 to 6.7)x0.60 = 2 + 3-4 = 5 to 6 wholesale. Retail now 39.2 to 43.2¢ per kWh.
          Check out Germany 34% renewables 42-46¢ per kWh, Denmark 42% renewables 50¢ per kWh.

          530

          • #
            Environment Skeptic

            “Denmark 42%”

            If you factor in that the Dutch actually invented printing money out of thin air with their windmills in earlier times, it would be more self evident that It actually costs a highly rarefied ‘nothing’ (money printing can actually be done in the absence of thin air these days with electrons from solar panels.) to print the money people use to pay for the service, other than a bit of incredulity…..

            71

            • #
              Environment Skeptic

              If the money printing prints more money into the anthropogenic system, the price goes up….if less money is printed into the anthropogenic system, the price goes down.

              If electricity is sovereign belonging to the nation, like CO2 is sovereign to plants, then it might remove the financial factor??

              82

            • #
              Environment Skeptic

              I guess the question is…did money out of thin air create the renewables, or did the renewables create the money printed out of thin air.

              101

        • #
          Greebo

          This is free, is it? Probably more than $100K per blade, and that’s without the cost of the purpose built trailers. How many of them are there again?

          40

      • #
        Graham Richards

        The carbon tax is being implemented by stealth. That’s what’s happening.
        Don’t give a tax a name and nobody seems to mind or realise what’s going on.
        All The nonsense is about indirect taxation. Everyone has to have electricity to survive so if you want a “captive market” for your taxes electrical power is the perfect conduit. Consumers actually get a double whammy because not only does your domestic bill go up but product s you buy , food you eat also contains the additional cost of power to the manufacturer, to the shopping centre, to the shop or supermarket.

        This whole energy”crisis” is the biggest hoax/scam ever perpetrated.

        And when governments need more tax money they’ll simply say “CO2 levels have increased” so suck it up & pay more.

        Keep up your rage & keep polishing the baseball bats!

        390

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          Graham, there is a major problem in that if one was designing an economic system from scratch energy would be a sound and fair source of tax revenue.

          Our biggest problem is that the Luddite work practices built by government regulation into our economic system have to date been funded by cheap electricity. Take away the cheap electricity and the changes that must be made will be very painful.

          The Marxists plan to use this pain to destroy the free enterprise system and replace it with a centrally planned economy. A majority of the non-Marxists are too dopey to comprehend this. They have fallen for the scam.

          191

          • #
            Graham Richards

            With due respect Ted, tell us something we don’t know. It’s a full on attack on Capitalism not to mention a heated attack on nationalism by the Globalist/ One worlders.

            Electricity should be cheap. Coal is the way to produce it . To stop that cheap production demonise the fuel. Communists use the “ownership” of the means of production to take over & control a country.
            What better way to control the means of production than to control the means to energy. It’s far less messy & far more effective & final.

            We are in a fight to save the whole capitalist world & it has nothing whatsoever to do with global warming.

            All the discussion about the theories of gasses, climate science is just a smoke screen to keep us all talking while they get on with the job of destroying the industrialised western economies!

            180

            • #
              Ted O'Brien

              Graham, in a word, yes.

              40

            • #
              clive

              Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

              “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

              “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

              10

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            TO’B,
            Sorry, I don’t get it. Which criteria make energy a good tax base? I go back to first principles about the reasons to have a government, in summary, to do things better done collectively than by individuals, like running a national defence force. As it needs money, I ask how to impose taxes on the people for this particular purpose. If energy is not clearly involved in the purpose, should it be taxed at all?
            In my simple ideal world, there still must be some tax free personal activities in the scheme of things, or alternatively, one should not be of a mind set that cowers saying ” Should I dare start this new enterprise for fear that if I do, it will be taxed out of existence?”

            20

            • #
              Ted O'Brien

              Geoff. Ultimately, all taxes are funded by production. Energy is a well spread component in production.

              When all is said and done, the only reason for which it is absolutely necessary to have a government is to maintain national security. Here we are seeing our own government destroying our national security.

              50

        • #
          tom0mason

          “This whole energy”crisis” is the biggest hoax/scam ever perpetrated.”

          Manufactured electricity crisis worked for Enron in California, so why should it not work here.

          41

      • #
        mikeo28

        Please stop using MW it is fairly meaningless. It is power not energy you say it is generating 200 MW was that for a 10th of a second and hour a day what? You need energy megawatt-hours that is what is important. Here are the figures for the last three years in megawatt-hours. I agree it is pathetic. This data comes from the AEMO public data sources. It is accurate!

        In 2014 the plate capacity of all wind power stations was 3466 MW. Maximum output is 77.9 GW hours, on 28/03/2014 the output was 3.7 GW hours that is 4.7%.

        In 2015 the plate capacity of all wind power stations was 3573 MW. Maximum output is 85.8 GW hours, on 15/08/2015 the output was 2.6 GW hours that is 3.0%.

        In 2016 the plate capacity of all wind power stations was 3675 MW. Maximum output is 88.2 GW hours, on 24/08/2016 the output was 5.1 GW hours that is 5.8%.

        10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Renewable energy is the cheapest, so long as you don’t have to use it as base-load power for a State Grid.

      Any engineer knows this, no matter how committed a Greenie they may be.

      turnedoutnice,

      OK! Any engineer knows this. The problem is that government provides subsidies for adopting renewable sources, thus hiding probably a significant part of the cost. The other elephant in the parlor is that you can’t run even single households on renewable so you still need the grid and still have the problem. So why even mention what I quoted you as saying? The total problem is what needs attention, not the cost of a single piece of it.

      Just asking…

      330

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Behaviour wont change until the sheeple FEEL PAIN.

        *Then* things will change…

        “First they came for the …”

        81

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Nicely explained Roy, that’s clear enough for anyone to understand. It’s kind of like ‘comparing apples with apples.
        GeoffW

        20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … so long as you don’t have to use it as base-load power for a State Grid

        So, if the whole network is renewable, you have no frequency synchronisation – you know, the signal that keeps your clock on time, and makes sure that Aunty Mabel’s dialysis unit is working correctly, Fifty Hertz in Australia and New Zealand, and Sixty Cycles in the US.

        So you have got to have a base load, with a spinning reserve, that drives the frequency of rest of the power grid. Frequency adjustments to each of the units also represents hidden losses in the actual power generated.

        And if you are going to build a base load source, it would probably be more efficient to build on a large scale so that you can generate a constant base load, get a better return on the investment. Now, where have I heard that before?

        30

    • #
      PeterS

      You are effectively saying one would be better off financially getting off the grid provided renewable energy is used to replace it. Certainly the initial capital outlay would be very high and unaffordable for most people. Then there is the maintenance and replacement cost as it doesn’t last forever. There are certainly advantages in getting off the grid but it’s not cheap if you look at the whole picture. If it were many people would be dong it by now.

      91

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        PeterS. Unfortunately,you may get a test of how well people can do without the grid in SA this winter. Of course, the poor people would suffer most because they couldn’t buy a generator or go live outside SA until until the problems are solved.

        70

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      turnedoutnice,just tell us all one thing-are you left handed or right?
      GeoffW

      50

    • #
      Mark A

      turnedoutnice
      April 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm

      I don’t think you quite understand the problem.

      20

  • #
    Popeye26

    If only Turnbull realised that he’d be on a winner if all he said was “We’ll stop the RET and stop subsidising renewable energy”

    But ALAS, he only wants to get in good with the Indians whilst he’s being a tourist over there.

    “Let’s give a BILLION to Adani so they can have OUR coal.

    We are LEADERLESS!!

    Cheers,

    320

    • #
      toorightmate

      Popeye and other good folk,
      Do you realise that the only railways used by resource companies that were not paid for by Australian State Governments are those of the Pilbara (world’s best I might add).
      The Pilbara rail systems utilised loan finance from the USA. That was really smart – wasn’t it?
      The Queensland coal rail systems enabled Queenslanders to have the lowest tax economy in the country until Wayne Goss and successive Labor Governments decided to kill the fatted calf.

      150

      • #
        Mark

        If I remember correctly, Sir Joh made the coal companies pay for the rail and rolling stock. What the state made out of coal could have ran the Brisbane metro rail system foc. Queensland was a great state, mate…till the ideologue’s got in and broke the place.

        120

        • #
          amortiser

          That is exactly right, Mark. The state government provided the rail corridor and the coal companies provided the construction cost of the lines plus all the rolling stock and then the State government charged very high freight costs for good measure. To rub salt into the wound the state government under Bligh then sold the freight component of Queensland Rail and coal lines were then bought by the coal producers. Which had already been built and paid for by the coal producers in the first place.

          The greenies will still swear black and blue that governments subsidise fossil fuels and they are allowed to get away with it.

          190

        • #
          toorightmate

          Mark,
          The coal companies paid for it (hand over fist) with the rail freight cost.
          However, the INITIAL capital was Qld Government.

          30

          • #
            el gordo

            The most likely outcome is that the line will be built with monies from the infrastructure fund. Adani develops the mine and Japan builds a HELE power plant, and the Australian government pays it off over 20 years.

            10

      • #
        Kim

        I think you will find the only company`s allowed to use those rail lines are
        BHP and Rio Tinto , twiggy and gina have to use their own transport , the last
        I heard twiggy carts magnetite to port through trucks and soon to be rail , also
        the first of four ore carriers are transporting iron ore around the world .
        My opinion for what its worth , if your going to extract the minerals from Australian soils , build your rail lines to get the minerals to port , however the rail line is not exclusive to your use but all Australian company`s and Australian infrastructure such as a passenger train or minor ore mining company`s , pay your taxes and royalties or piss off .
        Please note I am not endorsing twiggy or Gina`s personal politics here in this comments , only that their actions speak less global than their rhetoric as being globalist .

        01

    • #
      Dennis

      The proposal is a loan with interest.

      20

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    A lot of people I speak to say that the cost of solar or windpower is coming down.

    That’s all they know.

    You repeat something enough in public and nobody questions the statement, and then it sticks, and becomes indisputable truth.

    The fact that it has dropped from 298% of the cost of 30 year old coal fired plants to 296% is hidden from them.

    Renewables are “becoming” cost effective.

    You can’t deny that no matter how stupid the statement may be.

    KK

    320

    • #
      Gerry, England

      And if you stick taxes on fossil fuel generation of course it makes renewables look cheaper. But then the ignorant masses whine that their energy costs just keep going up. We have that in the UK where EDF has just announced increases and the regulator is not happy because wholesale costs haven’t increased. No, but the non-wholesale government costs have. They really are that stupid. And if that wasn’t enough, this Summer they are due to pay generators not to generate because there will be an oversupply of energy. And that cost is on top of the guaranteed price for their wind or solar power. And to cap it off, they are thinking of getting industry to use more power to soak up the excess by giving it away free. That is cheaper than paying not to generate. Anyone’s head hurting now?

      211

    • #
      Environment Skeptic

      For goodness sake…..the Dutch invented windmills to print money out of thin air…..then it was done with electrons from solar panels……can you guys give me a break……how can money printed out of thin air actually be expensive???

      118

      • #
        D. J. Hawkins

        Please look up “Weimar Republic” and get back to us. We’ll wait.

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        how can money printed out of thin air actually be expensive???

        Because it has to be turned into real money by those who have to borrow from the fresh credit pool. Repayments is when it bites.

        20

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Money REPRESENTS wealth. It is NOT wealth. “Printing” it merely devalues it since you have more “money” representing the same amount of wealth.

        Econ 101

        10

    • #
      Fantail

      Any country that:
      a) Can implement a ban on using cellphones while fueling a vehicle, and;
      b) Introduces some irrational, confusing diagram for the back of trucks that has something to do with the back wheels going around a corner in a tighter radius than the front wheels,
      Will find that convincing a population about the imaginary benefits of wind and solar in comparison is a piece of cake.

      70

      • #

        what’s a cellphone?

        43

      • #
        Annie

        I agree about the cars (or trucks) with crossing wheels. However, my daughter did a safety course related to running a fuel station and was strongly advised of the dangers of using a mobile ‘phone while tanks are filling, indeed, was informed that explosions had happened. On the course the ‘students’ were asked what they thought was the silliest thing anyone had done at a petrol station; they couldn’t guess. It was trying to fill supermarket plastic shopping bags with petrol! :o

        50

        • #
          toorightmate

          The cheapest liquid you can purchase at a service station is petrol.
          Yes, even cheaper than bottled water (at a service station – not supermarket)!!!!

          40

        • #
          Tom R Hammer

          I don’t think there’s ever been an instance of a mobile phone setting off a petrol fire…ever. The old ones the size of a suitcase were candidates, but the new ones? Nah! Perhaps they should ban pacemakers, torches, mobile phones anywhere nearby in case they receive a call and start ringing, car keys with remote door locks, etc.

          40

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            It might have been a Samsung.

            The idea has been around for at least 30 years. Basically it requires a spark which is more likely from static electricity.

            On the question about dumb actions, how about someone refuelling their car while smoking, and using the hand holding the cigarette to pull the nozzle out of the tank.

            30

            • #

              Compare the tiny spark you might get using a mobile phone with the great burst of sparks from every car’s starter motor, and you wonder why they bother. Dangerous fume pooling is checked for by every motorist at every bowser on every fill :)

              30

          • #
            D. J. Hawkins

            Mythbusters did an episode on this. As hard as they tried, they just couldn’t make it happen. I think they finally pulled the cover off the battery compartment and created a dead short and that may have worked.

            30

          • #
            Ve2

            You should get a job as safety officer at an oil refinery.

            10

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    I think the Ret survey reinforces my belief that we live in Dumbfukistan .

    303

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Exactly, and now, having read all of the comments above and allowing for some sarcasm, it’s apparent that we still haven’t worked out the best way of presenting it to the public. Graeme No 3 did a great outline and a few others hit the Mark but it’s confusing.

      Politicians who designed and constructed this scam to rip us off must be congratulated.

      But it still doesn’t make sense. Why would Trumball want to be President of a country that he has deliberately made dysfunctional.

      A case of true cluster foolishness.

      KK

      170

      • #
        Mark

        Simples…what was Malcolm’s day job? He.wants to keep clipping the ticket on all those trades. He will NEVER dismantle ANY trading scheme.

        From yesterday’s Herald..Denial Andrews artificially creates a hostile environment for Engie by tripling coal royalties. They shut down Hazelwood. Denial then “Earnestly” worries about all this unemployment created by evil foreign company creates a highly paid job to create jobs by giving plum job $340000pa to teachers union hack who is also local branch president.

        Who are these people serving…it certainly isn’t the State of Victoria!

        130

        • #
          sophocles

          He.wants to keep clipping the ticket on all those trades.

          Of course. He’s a w.. ah .. banker.

          30

  • #
    Bushkid

    That’s a startling and very concerning level of ignorance – 45% of people quizzed thought electricity prices would rise without the RET? Sure, the question might have been poorly framed, but informed and thinking people would have seen through that.

    201

    • #
      Kim

      Consider all the so called reporters that would love to work for the ABC (
      our equivalent of Pravda communist broadcasting ) $60 thousand a year versus $120 thousand a year , why would you not report what the ABC rhetoric is looking for a ABC pay packet . Whilst any Country has a broadcaster controlled by the Government of the Country , You have a Communist Country .
      The ethics of the reporter slash commentator do not come into it , its just a means to a higher salary , meanwhile the Government hands out just enough advertising revenue to the free to air media with don`t drink or smoke speed or do drugs but take these Government approved drugs with premiums , you get the Gist , if your Government will not shut down its Pravda ( ABC )you have a
      communist Government .

      30

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    To be fair, no matter what the ‘RET’ or ‘government’ or the ‘energy industry’ actually does the only trajectory of consumer power prices is up!

    70

  • #
    cedarhill

    And that’s how propaganda works. It’s not that folks are misinformed (or ignorant); it’s because the media, most politicians, the educators, most pundits, most celebrities … the Blob, intentionally misinform them. A better term might be gullible. Even shallow. But such is the stuff of democracies.

    230

  • #
    TimiBoy

    We are losing.

    71

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Do not be so sure. The poll itself is probably fake news. I am sure there is a portion of the population that does not think and therefore parrots the party line. But for those who write he checks each month, they know. But they also know they can lie when asked the question. And it does depend on how the question is framed.

      You CAN fool some of the people all of the time. But not all of the people all of the time.

      172

    • #
      Mark M

      We’re losing?
      Winning:
      Unfortunately, a “very concerted disinformation campaign” has been underway for many years to “undermine and discredit the scientific consensus on climate change,” Leiserowitz says.

      That campaign, as his recent survey shows, has worked to a large extent.

      https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-10/its-possible-inoculate-mind-against-climate-misinformation-new-study-shows

      Fight on!

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      People tend to treat survey questions as if it were part of quiz-night down the pub. “What answer would the interviewer think was correct?”

      Nobody I know, shares what they really think, with some young, and newly employed interviewer.

      In fact, I usually go out of my way to think of the most ludicrous answer I can think of. Nothing brightens my day more, than flummoxing an interviewer. I like flummoxing, it is such an Anglo-Saxon sort of word.

      60

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    The sad fact is that humans tend to believe authority figures, especially when authorities figures disguise their false propaganda as “97% consensus scientific opinions” of Nobel-Prize winning scientists!

    130

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Jo,
    it is not 8¢ a kWh. Firstly a Large scale Generation Certificate sells at $86-90 a MWh (so 9¢ as it would never be rounded down), plus the retailer would add their margin (say 20%) and then the State government gets 10% GST on top.

    Because this mechanisn is hidden from the public, and they have been told repeatedly that wind and solar are cheap, and have no idea what the costs of generation are, it is no wonder that they believe that the removal of the RET would help them. I posted the comparative costs in comments on The Australian and met with flat refusal by some to believe the figures.
    For all that the idea that more renewables means higher electricity bills is starting to gain traction in SA.

    121

    • #
      toorightmate

      Graham No 3,
      You can finesse to the nth degree, but I would gladly pay rather pay 11.9 cents/kWh, plus a bit more for poles and wires.
      It would be a welcome change from the King’s ransom we are currently paying to prop up renewables and grossly inefficiently overheaded suppliers/transmitters.

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I agreed with your comments further up, but now I’m confused.

        Don’t we want to get rid of the RET?

        30

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        I agreed with your comments further up, but now I’m confused.

        Don’t we want to get rid of the RET?

        10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        toorightmate:

        I have some “good” news for you – you certainly are paying.

        Firstly let me point out that back in the dim dark ages when the electricity supply was publically owned, the politicians treated it as a cash cow, but wanted to keep price rises down (as that was then a popular idea) so the net result was that the budget for maintenance and up-grading the system was reduced. When it became obvious that the price would have to rise to correct that neglect (or possibly because they just wanted more money to spend, or both) the politicians sold off the grid, and sold off the right to sell electricity to the public as well to Retailers. On top of that they introduced the RET madness.

        The result has been some up-grading of the grid, but mainly so it could deal with renewables. Extending/boosting capacity of supply lines to turbines in Woop Woop, transformers etc. (Most of the transmission lines damaged in the SA blackout were still 50+ years old). On top of that the new Grid would have had bank interest (and repayments of borrowings) to pay, as well as expanding their ‘back room’ as they now had to keep track of which Retailer the end user was with, i.e. so the usage figure (read by the Grid owner in SA) went to the correct ‘seller’. On top of that the Grid supplier would want a return on the lump sum paid to the State Government (and promptly spent by them) so would have raised the Supply Charge for use of the Grid to the Retailers.

        The retailers duplicated the ‘back room’, advertised ‘discounts’ etc. and sent out the bills to the public (including any GST). Part of the bill was the cost of electricity and by the increased supply charge. They also increased the percentage they kept as profit. ( If you were getting 1.5¢ out of 15¢, and the cost rises pushed that up to 30¢ (of which you got 3) why not add another 1¢ which the customer wouldn’t notice?).
        In addition they had to pay more for the electricity they bought. First this was boosted as above for the renewables content, and beause the reliable conventional suppliers had to keep their plants running while the renewables took a share of the market, their price to the retailer went up. ( their costs were more or less fixed, but now they had to spread that cost over less sales. e.g. if you charge $40 a MWh over 90% market share and that share drops to 60% then you have to charge $60 a MWh or shut down the power station).

        So the retail price that the public pays more than doubled. The politicians waved their hands, and tongues a lot and blamed ‘gold plating’ of the system. In reality it was all the extra costs being pushed onto the system including the previous neglect by politicians. Higher prices will continue until it is cheaper to go off grid (around about 70 – 80¢ a kWh).

        70

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          I have simplified it above, by neglecting ‘the Supply Charge’ which you will find on your bill. You are supposed to think that this goes to maintaining and improving the grid, and a small amount might even do so. In practice when enough people decide to go off grid they will find that the Supply Charge will still be levied if the electricity lines run past the property.

          Did the politicians foresee this? Do they undersand it? Almost certainly not. What was it an ex-PM said about standing between a State Premier and money?
          It all comes down to the belief in Canberra (and other Public Services) that there is an inexhaustible supply of money out there.

          Down on the Floor the State Treasurer stands,
          with his budget in his tight grasping hands,
          he looks around for a contrary vote,
          in case it rocks the boat.
          Up go the taxes, boys,
          Up, Up, Up.
          Up go the charges and levies too.
          The Government is doing really well, and the rest of us can go the hell.

          30

          • #
            Joe

            Graeme, you and Jo both quote a cost of ‘generating’ electricity at 3-4 cents per kWh. What does that figure refer to? Surely the cost alone of the coal at $100 per tonne would exceed that – maybe half a kilo per kWh – maybe a bit more? I thought that the levelised cost in Oz for a very modern plant, if we built new ones was more like 10 cents per kWh – and that was the break even cost without the profits for the owner (only some notional return for the financier in the cost of capital). I don’t know if those costs were based on a Chinese manufactured plant either, but like the solar panel costs too, these are ‘artificially’ low as most production comes from China and China is far from being a free market.

            00

            • #
              Robber

              Joe, see my summary of AEMO reported wholesale electricity costs at #25. 3-4 cents/KWhr has been the average wholesale price ex generstors for the last 15 years in Victoria, but with the closure of Hazelwood, the current price is around 10 cents/KWhr. But then wind/solar get another 8 cents/KWhr through their sale of “renewable certificates”.

              10

              • #
                Joe

                Thanks Robber, so the 3-4 cents is the generator’s selling price not their production cost and that would suggest an extremely low operating cost considering the price of coal. Wouldn’t we expect the production costs to follow the coal price which is set by market factors? How has the coal price varied from 1999 till now? Every coal fired plant in Australia is likely to be an old Government built/subsidised plant and as such the capital costs are very skewed. Should we not be quoting the current free market costs of building new (and far more efficient) coal fired stations? I very much doubt that anyone could build and run a modern plant at 3-4 cents in a free market. Even at 10 cents it seems like a good deal. If the Gov pumps up the retail price of electricity to 40 cents and people are still willing to buy it, it is most likely going to be the same price in a free market – why would the market choose to make less profit? China has a lot of its own coal and mines it at a very low cost because it is not a free market and if we want to export our coal to China, it only happens if we do it at a very cheap rate, so China’s ‘non-free’ market skews our own ‘free market’. In essence we depend a lot on that huge communist economy to keep our costs low.

                20

              • #
                Analitik

                See here about the relative costs of running wind and PV farms vs brown coal plants
                http://reneweconomy.com.au/infigen-energy-where-to-from-here-79184/

                Northern in SA was a bit different because they built it at Pt Augusta instead of Leigh Creek (where the coal was mined)

                10

              • #

                Now, as much as this sounds like I’m trivialising it, I couldn’t give a flying hoot what a new tech HELE USC coal fired power plant costs, because let me show you this.

                ONE new tech USC Plant – 2 units – 2000MW Nameplate. Cost. Who cares!

                Large scale wind plant – Macarthur – 420MW Nameplate. Cost in today’s dollars $1.8 Billion, and keep in mind here that no matter what they say about the cost coming down, the equivalent sized plant, (now failed) for King Island was $2.2 Billion, so here I’m going on the good low side for wind.

                So let’s do the equivalent actual power delivery for wind power.

                USC – Yearly power delivery would be (around) 15TWH. (15,000,000MWH)

                So now we need to actually construct wind plants to equal that actual power delivery, uisng Macarthur as the model.

                420MW Nameplate at 30% CF, (hence 125MW) so a yearly power delivery of 1,105,000MWH

                So just to equal the power delivery for the USC, we need 13.6 of these wind plants, hence a Nameplate of 5700MW, almost 1.5 times the current existing wind power Nameplate in Australia.

                The USC has a life span of 50 years and the wind has a life span of 25 years, and note again, I’m quoting best case for wind, and that every wind turbine will operate as new for the full 25 years.

                So now we need 27.2 of these wind plants the equivalent of Macarthur, so let’s again just say they need 27 of them.

                Macarthur cost $1.8 Billion, so, when multiplied by 27, that comes in at $48.6 Billion.

                Now I don’t care what people say.

                There is no way known that ONE USC coal fired power plant is going to cost $48.6 BILLION.

                Two units at one coal fired power plant or 3800 (X 3MW) individual turbines on poles.

                Tony.

                41

            • #
              Robber

              Presumably coal-fired stations in Oz are profitable or like Hazelwood they would shut down. I wouldn’t know where to start to try and calculate the costs of electricity from a new plant as there are so many variables. And with the RET subsidy for “renewables” no private investor would consider such an option. Of course that doesn’t stop governments – witness SA govt proposal: The planned construction of a $360 million gas-fired power station in South Australia has attracted worldwide interest from 31 companies, with the expression of interest process now closed, the State Government says.

              10

              • #
                Joe

                Yes Robber, that does seem like a reasonable presumption to make too, but I was really just questioning how they can manage to do that when the market value of the fuel alone is maybe 5 cents per kWh. I am presuming it has to do with the fact that most (all?) of the coal fired stations were Gov built and their costs perhaps don’t reflect true market costs. If they were not constrained by Gov (even in private hands) you would think that it might be a better proposition for them to simply mine the coal and sell it for that 5 cents rather than go through all the rigmarole of making electricity to sell for 3-4 cents. Even if all the renewable bs went away there is still a limit to how many old stations we could fire back up and if we want to add capacity in Oz it means building new stations and it would be difficult for any investor to do that if the expectation is to produce electricity at a cheap enough rate to be able to wholesale it at 3-4 cents and make a decent profit even with getting rid of all the RET bs.

                10

              • #

                Joe,

                what needs to be remembered here is that the site of most of those coal fired power plants is at the mine itself, and most of the operators who own the coal fired power plant also own the coal mine, so they are in effect using their own coal, and the only cost for the coal is the cost of mining it and the Royalty they have to pay to the State Governments in that State.

                Tony.

                21

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Good one.

          10

  • #
    pat

    below is the full survey done for the CAGW-obsessed TAI by trendy, global ***RESEARCH NOW which, according to Wikipedia, is an “online sampling and data collection company that collects visitors’ digital data” etc. nowhere does it say at RESEARCH NOW or TAI how this survey was carried out, and I see no reason whatsoever to believe any of the results:

    PDF: 7 pages: The Australia Institute: Polling Brief – Renewable Energy: March 2017
    From 17 March to 24 March 2017, The Australia Institute conducted a national poll of 1420 people through ***RESEARCH NOW using representative samples by gender, age and state or territory.

    Q: State governments can create their own renewable energy targets to drive extra renewable energy in their own state. Do you support or oppose an increased renewable energy target in your own state?

    78% of South Australians SUPPORT AN INCREASED RET, UP FROM 71% IN MARCH 2016.

    Q: The current target stops supporting new renewable energy in 2020. Do you think the federal government should set a higher Renewable Energy Target for 2030 to keep building new renewable energy sources?
    79% OF QUEENSLANDERS WANT A HIGHER TARGET…NEXT HIGHEST NSW 72%, SOUTH AUSTRALIANS 66%.
    http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/Polling%20Brief%20-%20March%202017%20-%20Renewables.pdf

    ***didn’t see the 100% question below in this year’s survey!

    Jun 2016: news.com.au: Voters prefer renewable focus: poll
    More than two thirds of voters would rather back a party that invests in wind and solar energy and helps consumers install batteries to store clean power, a poll suggests.
    The survey, commissioned by the left-leaning Australia Institute, also found 72 per cent of voters would be more likely vote for a political party that pushed for solar panels on every home, hospital and school.

    It found 71 per cent would prefer a party that helped voters get battery storage, and 64 per cent would rather back one that wanted to transition to ***100 per cent renewable energy by 2030.
    Queensland voters were more likely than the national average to choose a party that promised all of those renewable plans.
    The Research Now poll surveyed 1400 people between February 29 and March 8 this year.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/voters-prefer-renewable-focus-poll/news-story/8075a7127baa28a2f3829c05e6398ffd

    a taste of RESEARCH NOW:

    29 Mar: Research Now hires Twitter’s O’Shea as VP of global research
    Research Now has announced a series of senior hires, including former Twitter executive Heather O’Shea as vice-president of global research…and Kara Kramer, formerly of CNN, DoubleClick, iVillage, AOL and comScore, as account team lead…

    Research Now Achieves No. 1 Rankings for Thought Leadership …
    Yahoo Finance-3 Apr. 2017

    noticed Buzzfeed and Facebook as clients on one of RESEARCH NOW’s pages.

    41

    • #
      greggg

      I don’t believe that many people are so foolish. Research Now must be surveying people who frequent certain web sites or facebook pages. A company that gets the survey results that the client wants.

      30

  • #
    pat

    from the comments at jo’s adam Morton/smh link:

    PEarn: You guys are all for free speech unless it says something opposite to what you are supposed to spruik.
    Most intelligent people can see what is currently happening with our extreme weather and are able to inform themselves based on the facts.
    Notice I used the word “intelligent”!!…

    Darcy: The game is up for the coal-loving Deniers. Renewable Energy is now Cleaner, Cheaper and improving technology has made it Reliable.
    The experiment in South Australia is far from a failure and has led the way for higher Renewable Energy Targets into the future…

    12 Apr: Australian: Michael Owen: Energy minister changes his tune on last year’s SA blackouts
    South Australia’s Energy Minister says if he had sweeping powers last September to control the state’s electricity market, the statewide blackout could have been avoided.
    This is despite the Weatherill government having insisted since the September 28 blackout that it was solely a weather event, caused by wild storms and nothing else…

    New laws will allow the energy minister to order generators on as he sees fit, and regulate how much power is traded between South Australia and Victoria via an ­interconnector…
    Yesterday, Mr Koutsantonis said if the proposed laws “had existed last year, the statewide blackout could have been avoided by reducing reliance on the ­interconnector and calling on more generation in SA”…

    Mr Koutsantonis said under his new powers he could, in times of high winds and storms, “constrain the interconnector so the eastern seaboard isn’t flooding South Australia with power — we can constrain that interconnector and incentivise our generation to turn on and stabilise the system”…

    This came yesterday as the Local Government Association warned councils would pay 30 per cent to 50 per cent more for electricity this year.
    Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said: “The government has made South Australia the nat­ion’s guinea pig when it comes to transitioning to renewable energy and the price is being paid by households, businesses and local government.”
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/energy-minister-changes-his-tune-on-last-years-sa-blackouts/news-story/9c5fac8b9d7f3da064983a952b38ada4

    32

    • #

      Yesterday, Mr Koutsantonis said if the proposed laws “had existed last year, the statewide blackout could have been avoided by reducing reliance on the ­interconnector and calling on more generation in SA”…

      Oh yeah, calling on more generation in SA.

      In eight tenths of a second. That’s a bl00dy good reaction time, and then to make the phone call, and to start the generator up from cold, all the way to power delivery.

      0.8 Seconds

      as stated by the AEMO in their report.

      I bet his wife loves that.

      Tony.

      242

      • #
        Gordon

        Just out of curiosity TonyfromOz, how long would it take ti start up a gas turbine power plant? Correct me if I am wrong but a coal plant would be a minimum of 2 days.

        30

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          It depends on what type of gas plant. An Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT) about 10-30 minutes to full load. (The faster up, the more stress and the higher maintenance). A Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) takes about 4-5 hours to full capacity.

          Part of the problem is that neither Jay Weatherill nor Tom the silly Koot know the difference. They blame Pelican Point No.2 (a CCGT plant) for not starting up in 30 minutes, ignoring that the 4 hour figure from the operator was correct and that, as the operator said, they didn’t have any gas supply for it as they had ‘moth-balled’ the plant the previous year because State government policies made it loose money. Both those politicians have trouble with reality.

          Starting a coal plant from cold can take 1-3 days, depending on supply, maintenance etc. That is why coal fired stations go to reduced output rather than shut down when the wind blows, as it will be up to them to keep the lights on (and keep any contract for continuous supply). Were the conventional power stations to shut down when the wind blows then there would be hell to pay if there was a 24 hour blackout. Hell hath no fury like a politician shown up as stupid. That is why Jay has announced a package for the gullible of a big $150 million battery and a $360 million dollar OCGT – sometime. (I notice that PowerEngineering Int. thinks the OCGT will cost $531 million but who are they to contradict Jay?).

          I notice that thanks? to the new higher prices since Hazelwood shut down, Pelican Point No.2 is coming back into operation. This increase in continuous capacity, and that from the 200MW of diesel to be installed before summer, will help get throught the hot weather with less drama than before. What that does to Tom and Jay’s fantasy about being able to don a cocked hat and strut around pretending to be a hero by shouting “Start the turbine” I wonder?

          71

        • #
          Greebo

          As we used to know in Victoria, the secret to a coal fired plant is not to turn it off in the first place.

          60

  • #
    pat

    a final, depressing note for fans of Bannon – note the ***CTC reference in the Axios article, second link:

    11 Apr: NY Post: Michael Goodwin: Trump won’t definitively say he still backs Bannon
    Washington’s rumor mill is working overtime on the fate of aide Steve Bannon, who is said to be at the center of the rampant White House in-fighting. When I asked the President Tuesday afternoon if he still has confidence in Bannon, who took over the campaign in mid-August, I did not get a definitive yes.

    “I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”
    He ended by saying, “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”
    http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/trump-wont-definitively-say-he-still-backs-bannon/

    12 Apr: Axios: Mike Allen: Trump kneecaps Bannon
    Allies of Steve Bannon fear the White House chief strategist is about to be pushed out, following the posting last night of an ominous interview with Trump by Michael Goodwin, a New York Post columnist and someone the president has been comfortable with over many years…

    The instant fallout: Swan hears Bannon allies inside and outside the White House were taken by surprise when Goodwin’s column posted, and are distraught. Bannon allies are bitter about the role they believe economic adviser Gary Cohn has played in undercutting their guy to POTUS. In private conversations, they call him “Globalist Gary.” In text messages, the shorthand is ***CTC (Carbon Tax Cohn) or one simple emoji…
    https://www.axios.com/trump-kneecaps-bannon-2357096450.html

    31

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Here is Al Gore patronizing and trying to convince the Bangladesh PM that Bangladesh would be better off with renewables, as shown on Lubos Motl’s blog. Her response to his nonsense is superb.

    170

    • #
      James Murphy

      He’s getting more repugnant with age, which is a remarkable effort. How could anyone stand to be in the same room as that condescending hypocritical windbag?

      80

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    One can hope hat the first state whose energy system totally collapses due to reliance on renewables will serve as an example to the rest.
    But, sadly, probably not. Not number of failures of leftist, socialist states seems to reduce the allure of leftist & redistributionist policies.
    I think its time to start adding the cost of a personal generator in the shed & a long terms fuel supply to the matrix of energy costs as its
    likely that’s what many folks will revert to. Multi-fuel would be good as fossil liquids might have to be bought and sold on a grey market.
    & the value of a property with a fast flowing stream might become quite high, with mini-hydro all the rage.

    60

    • #
      Tom R Hammer

      You better hide that generator. Progressives won’t look at an electricity grid blackout asa failure, but as an opportunity to introduce more legislation against capitalism. Police can inspect your home now for gun control. It’s only a small step to be able to inspect for unauthorized electricity generation.

      20

  • #
    Tdef

    It would help if wind and solar were accurately described as disposables. Hazelwood was running at over 90% when forced to close. Wind and solar ‘investment’ will be lucky to last 20 years.

    91

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s all in the marketing. “Renewables” would be a case of misrepresentation commercially. It sounds like Eternal and Free.

      Let me suggest some more realistic words.

      Unpredictables
      Intermittent
      Seasonal
      Quarter day
      uncontollables
      replaceables
      unreliables
      irresponsibles
      inadequates
      unconscionable
      selfish
      unaffordables
      short term
      unsynchronizable
      grid unfriendly
      over hyped
      and massively
      overpriced and ultimately
      unaffordables

      Feel free to add your own.

      171

  • #
    AGS

    Begs the question, why are so many people so easily duped into believing the solar and wind energy are cheap and robust while also believing coal is dirty and bad for global warming? In the U.S. the people who believe this are typically liberal / democrat and people who actually know the numbers prove just the opposite are conservative / republican. It is clearly a politicized issue. Science and data have very little to do with how liberals / democrats see the topic. They outnumber conservatives in the U.S. Maybe Trump will reduce the political influence by substantially reducing funding to the EPA, DOE, and cutting CAGW initiatives out of NASA. We’ll see.

    I don’t think any amount of logic applied by the conservatives / republicans will have much influence on the liberals / democrats. But cutting the funding to departments heavily staffed by liberals / democrats will reduce the effectiveness of their initiatives. Maybe that will reduce their influence in the long run.

    142

    • #
      Shauno

      Because in Australia the whole education system from kindergarten through to University has been well and truly captured by the left and the kids are just being indoctrinated in green left views.

      80

      • #
        el gordo

        Its criminal the way in which our children have been indoctrinated over more than 30 years. i know a lot of young professionals who are mindless zealots.

        One 32 year old female architect has refused to have children because the end of the world is nigh and she is also going on an Arctic cruise this winter to prove the ice has really melted.

        I warned her not to go because global cooling has begun, but I didn’t make a song and dance of it as her mindset is well and truly fixed.

        90

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      You are right.

      The scientific revolution was derailed in 1935 to become a tool of government control of humanity instead of a technique to empower the people.

      50

  • #

    Let me show you just how Renewable Power will be much much cheaper in the near future.

    Right now, we have an abundance of coal fired power, well, enough to just get by on anyway, around 75% of every watt of power being consumed here in Australia. For that supply, you pay retail around 30 cents/KWH for your power, so for the average household consumption of 20KWH per day, the cost for your electricity is $6.00 per day.

    In a future with just renewables, after they have taken away that coal fired power, you have a case just like you have had today, only scaled way way up. Today, for around 12 hours you were only seeing 200MW plus or minus out of a Nameplate of 3900MW.

    So, scale that right up if you please, and using the same proportion, thank you very much.

    What happens is that there are extended periods where there is not enough power to go around, so you are blacked out sorry, load shedded.

    So, twelve hours of normal power, and 12 hours of no power. Half power consumption, just 10KWH for your day thank you very much, so 10KWH at 30 cents/KWH, so only $3.00 per day.

    See how your power bill has been lowered by just having renewables.

    Easy peasy.

    Tony.

    PS – When they do load shedding, it’s that residential sectors which go first.
    PPS – When they do load shedding, grid connected rooftop solar also does not supply the home, as it is disconnected also, called Islanding.
    PPPS – Note how since Hazelwood has closed the cost of electricity has risen. Funny that. Sorta puts the lie to power getting cheaper eh!
    PPPPS – Oh, and when that future day comes, those power retailers will see their profit margins cut, so they’ll be putting up the cost of power.

    311

    • #
    • #
      Graeme No.3

      But Tony, without conventional generation there will be no excuse for subsidies via Large scale Generation Certificates (under RET) so people will have to be charged the full cost of wind power, or $120 a MWh so the bill will be 12 hours at $120 or $12 a day or double for half a supply.

      Then there is the “remote” chance that the wind won’t blow for 3 days. “remote” despite studies that show that in the current AEMO area the wind is NOT ALWAYS blowing somewhere. How much would a cable to Macquarrie Island cost?

      30

    • #
      el gordo

      Tony could a brand new non-industrial satellite city (population 200,000) survive on renewables?

      10

      • #

        It’s easy for me to give the correct answer here, and that is no, but let me just show you this

        You pick a population number, say, that 200,000 you mention.

        Let’s just look at Queensland, and outside the two largest population centres Brisbane (and Brisbane now also takes in Ipswich as well) and the Gold Coast, you have the next six cities, Sunshine Coast 200,000 (plus a bit) then Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba, Mackay and Rockhampton, all between 100,000 and 160,000.

        None of those cities could survive solely on renewables. You would have to have Industry, for the jobs, hence the need for 24 hour power. You need Commerce for all of them, hence the need for 24 hour power, just for the buildings they occupy. Shopping Centres, Hospitals, Traffic control and lighting, Emergency Services, airports, transport, and the list goes on, virtually every one of them requiring access to 24/7 power.

        You could perhaps build every home with rooftop solar and batteries, but the cost would be horrendous, and that only covers the Residential sector, which would only consume between 25% and 35% of all consumed power, so the other 65/75% would need almost constant supply.

        Now this is only for cities of 100/150 thousand, so that figure of 200 thousand is even larger, so the direct answer to your question is an emphatic no.

        All renewables, so no cars either, hence a need for an electric public transport service, which again, would have to be 100% reliable, and here I’m not just talking a few electric buses or a light rail network, but a fairly comprehensive system.

        Also, the area encompassed by a city of that size, and as an example The Sunshine Coast is closest to your 200,000 population figure, and that’s almost 250 square miles, a huge area.

        It would not get out of a thought bubble.

        Tony.

        121

        • #

          And I left out perhaps the most important thing of all, the water supply, and sewerage systems, and try operating them without 24/7 power.

          Tony.

          121

        • #
          el gordo

          Okay thats all good, thanks for the definitive report.

          Coal is king, which is why Barnaby supports Ardani because it fits his decentralisation plan.

          http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/News/Releases/Centralised-Senate-Inquiry-looks-at-decentralisation/

          10

          • #

            I just wish we could just use our own d@mned coal. Build a new plant at the mine site, like all the others.

            Too d@mned scared to do that though.

            Tony.

            101

            • #
              el gordo

              Decentralisation demands base load power to run satellite cities and bullet trains, Barnaby has staked his political future on a beneficial outcome.

              What would be the rough cost to build a state of the art coal fired power station and a timeline on a completion date?

              10

          • #

            Not too long after I actually started doing all this back in early 2008, the initial Series I did was aimed at replacing just part of the U.S. coal fired power fleet, in fact, just enough to comply with getting CO2 emissions in the U.S. back to the level required by the Kyoto Protocol.

            Back then, they were only just starting out on the path down the renewables way, with emphasis on just wind power.

            I got into trouble when I mentioned that it couldn’t be done because there was always a need for (huge) amounts of 24/7 Power, and that wind power could not provide this. One wind friendly commentator mentioned that they could ramp it up to a huge level, and even though wind power was variable, and even then I used that 30% CF figure, then he wrote that if they ramped it up to a huge level, there would always be wind blowing somewhere to provide large levels of power even when some wind plants would be generating very little.

            Here, right now, in Australia, we can put that to the sword.

            People, especially those living in the U.S, think that Australia is a tiny little Country, and when I show them a map of Australia superimposed over the U.S. (as shown in this image) they actually think it’s photoshopped, because they just cannot believe it.

            So, here we have a very large size, and now we are at the stage where a large part of that Southern region is covered with wind plants. Even so, with a relatively large (for Australia anyway) coverage of wind plants, with a total Nameplate of 3900MW (the equivalent of two large scale coal fired power plants) there are times (like right now in fact, 1.30PM Thursday) when they are only generating 150MW at a CF of 3.8%.

            What do you do when wind is all you’ve got, and you have a situation like that?

            During my time doing this, I have seen two thought bubbles, one to place wind towers all along the Great Australian Bight (GAB) to supply all Australia, and two to fill the Simpson Desert with solar panels to supply all of Australia.

            You just cannot tell these true believers that power generated on the GAB could not supply Cairns, as the power would diminish to zero in barely a fraction of that distance.

            Small scale plants like renewables must be built close to where the actual power is going to be consumed, so they are then subject to that variability.

            People just WILL NOT believe that.

            You just cannot replace large scale coal fired power with any renewable.

            Two large scale coal fired plants, feed in the coal, get 4000MW all the time.

            Thousands and thousands of wind towers, and you get times when you only get 150MW out of 4000MW.

            There is quite literally NO ONE out there who will actually explain this.

            Tony.

            181

  • #
    Shauno

    A majority of students polled said democracy wasnt the ideal type of government! The brain washing and dumbing down of the Australian young is nearly complete. Imagine when the current generation is in their 40s and 50s running the place we could be headed for the same fall as Venezuela.

    80

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Democracy is not the ideal form of government. It has all sorts of problems, mostly because the people are always divided about what to do and how to do it. Unfortunately something more ideal has yet to be invented. So we either muddle along with the best we have available or we go backward.

      I’ll vote every time to muddle along the way we are.

      Those same students didn’t happen to say what they think would be better?

      70

      • #
        Shauno

        I cant remember was a couple of years ago I think probably will turn up in google.

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I kinda thought so. Usually those who disapprove of what we’re doing now to govern ourselves can’t seem to come up with a better alternative. They always fall back on things that have been tried and were abject failures. But of course, they’re bound to work better if tried enough times. Go figure.

          Google may yet save the world I guess. They’re certainly trying hard enough. ;-)

          30

        • #
          el gordo

          In Australia it was the Lowy Institute poll which showed young people believe a military dictatorship is somehow better than democracy.

          In first world countries the problem is endemic, young people are ignorant.

          https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/charts-that-show-young-people-losing-faith-in-democracy/

          70

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Their minds would change in a heartbeat if they actually lived in a dictatorship. I’ve heard someone (read it) asking why we couldn’t put together a benevolent dictatorship to take care of us through life. The trouble is always in the fine print. Who defines “take care of us”? And of course, eventually, with that much power at his disposal the dictator succumbs to temptation and becomes a tyrant. But then we see that in our own “democracies” where those who manage to obtain some political power soon begin to abuse it.

            Ignorant isn’t half the truth though. They’re also unrealistically idealistic. And that’s a bad combination. Life requires a certain amount of live and let live, otherwise we begin fighting were we should remain committed to each other’s preferences even when we don’t like what the other guy prefers. But even with that attitude we can’t seem to get it right. The rules always get either too loose or too tight.

            40

            • #
              el gordo

              Beijing believes their approach illustrates the qualities of a benevolent dictatorship, the Silk Road strategy is a prime example.

              The dictator becomes a tyrant only if he’s the supreme commander, this is clearly illustrated in North Korea.

              10

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              While I will not claim all, many of the worst despots in modern history started out as benevolent dictators who had the best interest of their people at heart. But they lacked both the acumen and resources to fulfill their vision and so had to take ever more ruthless steps to force compliance from their people in order to make it happen.

              The most despotic dictators are those who do not realize their own limitations

              10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            I was talking to someone last night about a dictatorship we both have experienced.

            An observation was made that originally it started out as only one official waiting for a “gratuity” and now forty years later there is a whole line of them.

            Eventually such a country will collapse.

            And there is peace for a while until the overburden becomes unbearable.

            Such is life.

            10

    • #

      Democracy is an unstable phenomenon as it caters to the lowest dominator. The Roman republic was probably the longest quasi democratic system followed by the American democracy which is falling apart now. History, teaches us that Democracy will eventually end voluntarily or by external forces. Western democracies achieved its maximum around year 2000 or just after when increased government intervention destroyed capitalism. With no or very limited true enterprise there is no natural mechanism for growth, wealth creation and rebound of the economy. With poverty increasing and more people wanting something for nothing, the decline and eventual collapse is just a matter of time.
      The time of the republic will be over soon with the time of the empires inevitably will follow. I Predict that such collapse will happen in 15 to 20 years when debt will be unserviceable and the fiat dollar becomes worthless.
      May the force be with you.

      41

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Dariusz,

        That’s true, democracies cater to least common denominator thinking by their very nature. But nothing about democracy says we can’t raise the level of the least common denominator thinking. After all, isn’t that the reason we all run an expensive system of public schools and require compulsory attendance until finished with grade 12?

        We seem to have forgotten to make that effort of late.

        Dictatorships tend to fall too, some sooner and some later but they aren’t inherently stable either. They take large numbers of people who will support the dictator and he has to keep them satisfied somehow lest they overthrow him or allow him to be overthrown.

        The bible records that Pontius Pilate was worried about what his boss in Rome would do if there was an uprising of the jews. And he wasn’t even a dictator of more than one province in the Roman Empire, governor of Judea under Tiberius Caesar. Yet he had to look over his shoulder every moment lest any misstep cost him dearly. Imagine the weight Caesar had on his shoulders.

        Then there are the isms, those that fall apart after awhile of their own dead weight. I’ll take the Republic I have any day and twice on Sundays.

        60

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘I predict that such collapse will happen in 15 to 20 years when debt will be unserviceable and the fiat dollar becomes worthless.’

        I predict the yuan will be king in 20 years and democracies will still be bumbling along, Beijing doesn’t have a problem with the concept but its not their bag.

        10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        As was supposedly said:
        “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville

        What he did say:
        “I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”
        ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Tocqueville: Democracy in America

        40

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Democracy is an unstable phenomenon …’

        Yes and the best way to stabilise it is to give people the vote in one of the tiers, in Australia that is called Local Government. At the State and Federal level the politicians would be indirectly elected.

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    After reading TonyFromOz for so long I’m convinced that renewables are a trap, unfortunately a trap into which we here in California are falling. If we go just a little too far down that road we’ll be in the same situation SA is in were some failure takes down the whole grid — hard. Failures somewhere are fairly common but they stay limited to one local area unless something big goes down. It’s always possible that a failure takes down everything but the smaller ones are more frequent because smaller distribution centers are more common than the big ones. So why become so much more vulnerable?

    Let’s not even mention the increase in the price we pay per kwH.

    Tony, is there any chance that you can get a gig speaking to a joint session of the state legislature, senate and assembly, with the governor also present? Well. I know the answer. They would dismiss you for lack of true green credentials among other reasons. But I can dream can’t I?

    150

  • #
    David S

    The problem is that in Australia the RET has bipartisan support so there is no political party that has the will to explain how it works to raise prices. Unless you are a voter whose info comes from skeptical web sites you would really have no idea about the RET. I see the only hope of some sanity being espoused in Australia is if the One Nation Party could end up with the balance of power. If the disastrous blackouts in South Australia can’t sway the political parties the follies of trying to meet the RET then there is nothing that can convince them. Australia is likely to go more extreme down the renewables path at the same time as the rest of the world in particular US and UK are heading in the opposite direction. I fear that economically this will end disastrously for all Australians.

    190

    • #
      David Maddison

      I am dobtful if most or even any politicians understand how the RET works.

      Few politicians understand or have even read the legislation they vote on.

      70

      • #

        I just followed Jo’s link to the Ausgov RET page, and they wanted feedback, so I said “This is an appalling system, I can now see why my kWh price has jumped from 9c to 31c in just 4 years.” I don’t expect a reply…

        50

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      True, it is the fringe parties that have different views. The Greens and Xenophon want even more renewables. One Nation and The Conservatives are against the RET.
      Think about the coming election – Vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee and higher electricity bills.

      50

  • #
    Rinaldo

    As Turnbull, Bishop and the Greens are very afraid that rising levels of carbon, CO2 or both cause the climate to change, then to be consistent they should propose a carbon tax to be paid in advance of WWIII.

    10

    • #
      el gordo

      Happily WW3 is not on the radar, everyone has too much to lose, but sadly Turnbull et al are insulated from prosecution by the ‘precautionary principle’.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    If renewables are so cheap why do they need the world’s biggest carbon tax to make them work?

    121

    • #
      Dennis

      Answer: To ensure that power station businesses can make a “commercial decision” to close down.

      41

  • #
    Mark M

    Manbearpig lectured by a third-world leader about coal:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udl-7RYK7vw

    (via the reference frame)

    20

  • #
    Robber

    How do we get the facts out there for the general public to understand? The media used to do good reporting, but now they seem to just publish comments and opinions.
    AEMO’s data dashboard page reports annual, monthly and daily ex generator prices by State.
    For Victoria, the average price from 1999-2009 was $34.8/MWhr, for 2010-2016 the average price was $39.4/Mwhr (ie 3.94 cents/KWhr).
    In 2017, the average price in Victoria in January was $62.04/MWhr, in Feb $86.05/MWhr, in March $90.63/MWhr, and the first 12 days of April $108.71.
    What changed? Hazelwood coal-fired power station closed down at the end of March and more gas-fired stations are being used to meet demand. So in Victoria we have gone from wholesale prices under 4 cents/KWhr to 8-10 cents/KWhr. Every supplier is now laughing all the way to their bank. And note that this morning, all wind farms in Australia are producing only 200MW from a nameplate capacity of 3900MW.

    But wait, there’s more. Wind is cheap right? Wrong.
    The Ararat Wind Farm in Victoria was recently completed with 75 turbines providing a nameplate capacity of 240 MW at a capital cost of $450 million, and generating about 80 MW on average at a 30% capacity factor (but today it’s producing minus 2 MW). To provide an 8% return on that investment after costs and asset depreciation requires an income of $91/MWhr of electricity sold into the National Electricity Market administered by the market operator AEMO. So with the latest price hikes the Ararat Wind Farm is now generating a decent return on investment. However, as others have pointed out, as well as receiving the wholesale price, Ararat also gets to sell renewable energy certificates, currently about $82/MWhr. So we are paying Ararat a total of 16-18 cents/KWhr in our retail price, and providing those investors with a very handsome return on their investment.

    What is also included in our retail price are increasing network costs as the network must be continually upgraded to cope with ever increasing amounts of intermittent supplies. For example, 100 kms south of Ararat Wind Farm is Mortlake gas-fired station with a capacity of 566 MW. This morning with little wind available, Mortlake is running at 98% of capacity.

    This morning, to keep the lights on, fossil fuels are providing 20,000 MW, hydro 1500 MW, and wind 200 MW.

    90

  • #

    It looks to me like only 24% thought about their answer and the rest guessed

    33

  • #

    Let’s settle it by saying that renewables are cheap for living-treasure public intellectuals and for government-friendly statisticians…but expensive for taxpayers and consumers.

    90

  • #
    PeterS

    Indeed renewable energy is cheap – to destroy our economy and smash our society in the shortest time possible.

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ve just been involved in a debate of sorts about renewables on a local site.

    As usual there are the believers who swallow the great promises and those in the middle somewhere who will thank me for what I post and then there’s me, arguing that we’re going down the wrong road.

    Some will believe government issued statistics like they were a steak dinner for a starving man and some are silent about the whole thing unless it’s something that directly affects them right now. Statistics are the most manipulated numbers in the world. And I guess ignorance really is bliss.

    Amazing! I should save the energy for something more profitable.

    40

    • #
      Annie

      When I was involved in some statistical analysis years and years ago the two favourite quotes were:

      “There are lies, damned lies and statistics”
      and
      “With one foot in a bucket of ice and the other in a hot frying pan, on average I feel pretty good”.

      60

      • #
        PeterS

        Make that one foot in liquid nitrogen and the other foot in molten steel.

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Can I settle for one foot on a banana peel and the other on a rain slick sidewalk. That’s pretty much a description of how I feel at the moment — one misstep and the world goes poof and disappears right out from under me, leaving me to fend for myself against the wolves and the sharks.

          So far, no serious missteps but…

          But hey, no one ever said things would go my way. Right? :-)

          20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Roy,

            Being involved in this blog, in my opinion, is a good idea because it is attempting to discover and hold on to a small bit of reality.

            And another observation; statistics may in certain situations be very useful but more importantly, statistics is NOT science.

            KK
            KK

            20

          • #
            PeterS

            It depends on the final outcome. I believe we are heading for a crash and burn scenario hence my analogy.

            20

          • #
            clive

            Go out and buy a “Generator”It will be your only”Saviour”

            00

  • #
    pat

    lots of detail…read all:

    11 Apr: Politico: Trump’s climate demands roil U.S. allies
    Documents show the administration pushed other G-7 countries to embrace larger roles for nuclear power and fossil fuels. They refused.
    By Andrew Restuccia; Kalina Oroschakoff contributed to this report
    The United States’ refusal to discuss or mention the Paris agreement in the joint statement was EU’s “biggest” red line during the meeting, the negotiator added…

    The draft joint statement obtained by POLITICO, which is dated March 31 and is labeled as a “second draft,” provides an unfiltered look at the Trump administration’s energy policy priorities.
    In one instance, the U.S. rewrote part of the statement to stress that fossil fuels “including coal and natural gas will remain part of the global energy mix for the foreseeable future,” striking vaguer language from an earlier draft that said countries would rely on fossil fuels for “some time, as countries progressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions of their energy system.”
    In another section, the U.S. added a mention of fossil fuels and nuclear power to a line calling on countries to “work together on policies to deploy clean, reliable and affordable energy.”…

    The U.S. also proposed completely eliminating a line stating that since renewable energy will help cut carbon dioxide emissions, the G-7 nations would “take the lead in tackling the challenges of electricity systems with high shares of variable renewable energy and in addressing the resilience of the electricity system” as the energy industry transitions to cleaner sources…

    Ultimately, the Trump administration’s demands proved too difficult to overcome, and the G-7 nations scuttled the joint statement…

    During a March G-20 meeting of finance ministers in Germany, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin pushed for the removal of language calling on countries to help finance efforts to tackle climate change…
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-fossil-fuels-g7-tension-237129

    11 Apr: Reuters: Elias Glenn: Emerging nations urge rich countries to honour climate finance pledges – statement
    Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in OSLO; Writing by David Stanway
    China, Brazil, India and South Africa have urged industrialised countries to honour financial commitments made in Paris in 2015 to help developing countries fight against global climate change, they said in a statement on Tuesday.
    Following a meeting in Beijing, climate change ministers from the “BASIC” bloc of four major emerging economies called on rich countries “to honour their commitments and increase climate finance towards the $100 billion goal”, and said more clarity was needed to “track and account for” those pledges…

    But the agreement has been plunged into uncertainty after U.S. President Donald Trump, who has questioned the scientific basis of global warming, last month proposed an end to payments to the GCF and signed an order to undo climate change regulations introduced by his predecessor…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-climatechange-idUSKBN17D0X4

    21

  • #
    pat

    11 Apr: UK Telegraph:Toshiba considers sale of Moorside nuclear project in Cumbria as own survival in doubt in wake of £7bn losses
    by Bradley Gerrard
    The Japanese conglomerate, which makes everything from flash memory drives to laptops and semiconductors, admitted it is considering selling some or all of nuclear specialist NuGeneration to keep itself afloat.
    NuGen currently owns 100pc of the Moorside site, after buying 40pc back from France’s Engie for $138.5m (£111m) earlier this month.
    That sale followed the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing of Westinghouse, another Toshiba-owned company which is set to provide reactors for Moorside…

    Samira Rudiga an energy fund manager at Guinness Asset Management, said the news was another nail in the coffin for the UK’s nuclear hopes.
    “Nuclear does not make sense in the UK,” she said. “It takes 10 years to build and can take as long if not longer just to come to a decision to build a plant.”
    However, she expects the Government to still consider nuclear projects and thought there would be companies in Europe and Asia able to take on Toshiba’s stake in Moorside.

    Greg Clark, the Business secretary, travelled to South Korea earlier this month in a bid to save the project, appealing to Korean nuclear giant Kepco to invest…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/11/toshiba-questions-survival-warns-losses-could-hit-7bn/

    Nuclear construction shutdown among options amid bankruptcy
    Sacramento Bee-4 hours ago

    India-US Nuclear Deal Set to Miss June 2017 Deadline Over Westinghouse Troubles
    Sputnik International – ‎9 hours ago‎

    10

  • #
    pat

    CAGW – plugging more holes:

    12 Apr: Guardian: Paul Brown: Painting a new picture of the ‘little ice age’
    Research shows the era remembered for its frost fairs on the Thames may need a rethink
    The cause of the so-called “little ice age”, when frost fairs were held on the Thames and there was a run of cold winters, has puzzled scientists. These uncertainties have given American sceptics opportunities to claim that global warming is nothing more than a natural variation in the climate.
    However, new research (LINK) by the Royal Astronomical Society shows that the period between the 16th and 19th centuries may have had cold winters but it also suffered scorching summers, so it was not an ice age at all…

    The causes of the slight cooling were a combination of lower solar activity, volcanic eruptions and manmade changes to the landscape. Solar activity is again on the wane now, but this will not save us from rises in temperature..
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/11/painting-a-new-picture-of-the-little-ice-age-weatherwatch

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    I posted this on Farcebook.

    What, if any, competitive economic advantages does Australia now have?

    - Thanks to renewable energy insanity we now have some of the world’s most expensive electricity.

    - Demand for our rocks is variable.

    - We basically give away natural gas.

    - Industry is shutting down everywhere due to excessive energy costs, unreasonable union demands and excessive regulations.

    - The government is spending without restraint.

    - Massive amounts of regulation and red tape.

    - We can’t build the most basic infrastructure such as roads eg the East-West link in Melbourne which the taxpayer is paying over $1 billion to NOT build.

    - When infrastructure does manage to be built it is at obscenely high prices. There is a poor tendering process or perhaps none at all. The taxpayer is regularly fleeced on costs.

    - We have wasted billions on unused desal plants.

    - The unions such as the CFMEU are out of control giving Australia some of the world’s most expensive building construction costs.

    - We continue to import uneducated, unassimilable people who will mostly be life-long welfare cases, rather than educated and assimilable people.

    - Due to poor planning and government failures to release sufficient land for building and roads and railways to those areas we have some of the world’s most expensive real estate despite having one of the world’s lowest population densities.

    - We have politicians who are largely incompetent, ill-educated and don’t care about Australia’s welfare. Most politicians don’t bother answering emails from constituents unless it relates to an invitation to a social event and free publicity for them.

    - Greens and Marxists are embedded at all levels of government and the education system. The education system churns out people who lack critical thinking, don’t understand our system of government or the history of how Western Civilisation came to be.

    - Planning approvals for major projects take years or decades (look at the second Sydney airport).

    - We import food cheaper than we can grow it at home. How is that even possible? Australia is now a net food importer.

    I could go on, but the point is, is Australia even viable as a modern country or are we headed for 2nd World status like Argentina or Venezuela? What exactly does Australia have to offer now?

    100

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      David. Is it really true that Australia imports more food than it exports? I find that hard to believe, though there is a great danger that this may come about. And when it does come about a lot of people are in for an awful shock.

      The market for food is a global market. Even perishable foods are traded over great distances by air. So for many food items, and especially for the major food commodities, the price is a world price plus or minus freight, the plus or minus depending on where you are.

      In living memory mainland Europe, Japan and Korea, three of the world’s biggest international traders, have known severe famine. The memory of starvation lasts a lifetime. So these countries put a very high value on food production, and after the second world war they applied heavy subsidies to food production in the belief that this would protect them from ever being hungry again.

      An extreme example of this subsidisation was sugar, where European farmers were paid six times the world price for sugar, encouraging them to produce ever more sugar. It has to make you laugh that now the illiterati are taxing sugar consumption at the same time as they are subsidising sugar production.

      Meanwhile Australia’s farmers, operating without subsidies, are producing at the marginal price. I have seen no sign that any scholar understands that, despite the subsidies, as the marginal producers Australia’s farmers set that low world price which consumers enjoy, and that if Australia’s farmers stop producing, of which at the present time there is a great danger, the price will rise a lot.

      The same scholars clearly expect that if Australian farmers stop producing Australia will still be able to import food at the current subsidised world price. No foreigner will be that silly. Australia will have to pay the full cost of production, i.e. the new price plus the subsidies that have been applied to production. And a profit for the traders into the bargain.

      It will be an awful shock if it comes about.

      30

  • #
    pat

    jo has challenged Lovejoy in the past, so thought i’d post his latest:

    11 Apr: RealClimate: What is the uncertainty in the Earth’s temperature rise?
    Guest commentary by Shaun Lovejoy (McGill University)
    Below I summarize the key points of a new Climate Dynamics (CD) paper (LINK) that I think opens up new perspectives on understanding and estimating the relevant uncertainties. The main message is that the primary sources of error and bias are not those that have been the subject of the most attention – they are not human in origin. The community seems to have done such a good job of handling the “heat island”, “cold park”, and diverse human induced glitches that in the end these make only a minor contribution to the final uncertainty. The reason of course, is the huge amount of averaging that is done to obtain global temperature estimates, this averaging essentially averages out most of the human induced noise.

    Two tough sources of uncertainty remain: missing data and a poor definition of the space-time resolution; the latter leads to the key scale reduction factor. In spite of these large low frequency uncertainties, at centennial scales, they are still only about 13% of the IPCC estimated anthropogenic increase (with 90% certainty)…ETC
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/what-is-the-uncertainty-in-the-earths-temperature-rise/?wpmp_tp=1

    11

  • #
    pat

    hilarious:

    12 Apr: CleanTechnica: James Ayre: Only 3 EU Countries Pursuing Policies In Line With Paris Climate Agreement
    That assertion is the result of a new ranking published by Transport & Environment (LINK) and by NGO Carbon Market Watch (LINK), relating to “the ambition being shown by member states as they negotiate the terms of the EU’s most powerful climate tool, the Effort Sharing Regulation.”…

    Another note: The findings/rankings were created based on “government statements and official documents submitted to the European Commission,” so may not reflect actual eventual actions, but there’s not much else to go on at this point…

    With regard to the loopholes in question, some of the primary ones are the use of higher baselines for measuring CO2 emissions reductions and a greater use of forestry credits (tree planting as an offset). Also, 9 member states “want to exploit the ETS’s huge surplus of 100 million allowances, worth an expected €2 billion, to help them meet their emissions obligations on paper.”

    Given the problems inherent in the structure of the European Union, I remain very skeptical that many member states will adhere to the pledges made as part of the Paris Climate Change Talks. (This includes the future actions of the 3 countries (Sweden, France, and Germany) SEEMINGLY pursuing relevant policies. It’s not clear yet what they will actually do.)
    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/12/3-european-union-countries-pursuing-policies-line-paris-climate-agreement/

    21

  • #
    Peter C

    I must say that I find the survey question a bit confusing?

    What do you think would happen to power prices if the Governement removed the Rewnewable Energy Target.

    The alternatives are:
    1. Increase,
    2.Decrease,
    3.Stay the same,
    4 Don’t know.

    The question does not give a time scale. Nor does it give any information about the alternatives.

    Even given that I think that further proliferation of renewable energy sources will lead to disrupted electricity supplies and higher prices, I find that I am uncertain how to answer.

    Maybe prices would increase anyway from current levels, just not as quickly even if the Renewable target was dropped. Or maybe the power companies would keep power prices the same.

    So I suppose I might answer; Don’t Know! despite having strong opinions on the costs and viabilty of our power supplies due to renewables.

    50

    • #

      Hence my comment that the thinkers were the 24%. Ironically, any other answer is a demonstration of ignorance.

      25

      • #
        Peter C

        Gee Aye deigned to respond to my post, mainly to point out that he said it first at #26, which I hereby acknowledge.

        Thanks Gee Aye.

        Also I decided on a whim to check out his website. Gee Aye has recently updated his website, after a long interval. Check it out.

        More on that later!

        40

        • #
          Gee Aye

          I updated it 12 months ago which, as you rightly point out, is recent for that blog

          02

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Btw I didn’t post to claim precedence but to note that you contextualised my earlier comment which I didn’t bother to do

          02

  • #
    Peter C

    Sad but true.

    The Australia Institute is either ignorant or confused and/or malicious. Same for the SMH reporter.

    40

  • #
    Rick Will

    The headline to this article is not accurate. They are not being “duped”.

    There are 5 million Australians with lower electricity costs because they have installed solar. So their experience is that they install solar and save money. What they probably do not realise is that they have given away their STCs to the installer for reduced capital cost. That means they get a good return on their investment or even a return on borrowings. Further, they are unlikely to realise that people without solar are subsidising their installation costs through the purchase of STCs being included in retail pricing under the RET.

    This link gives a perspective on the information that is sent to people who have installed solar panels:
    http://www.solarcitizens.org.au/mining_the_sun_australia_s_modern_day_gold_rush
    This extract from the last paragraph:

    A survey of Solar Citizens supporters undertaken in January 2016 with more than 4,300 respondents revealed that the primary driver for purchasing solar was financial reasons (60%), over environmental reasons (38%).

    There is zero mention of any subsidies in this propaganda. No mention that those unable to install solar are subsidising those who have.

    Remember there are now 5 million Australians in households who have been willing to put money down to support this technology. They are a strong lobby that is well organised.

    A solar panel installed at Alice Springs will produce power for around 3c/kWh over a 25 year life. So it is low cost energy. However when it comes to making use of the energy on demand, the number of panels go up 7X and an there needs to be storage that increase cost by a further 50%. So the actual wholesale cost works out around 30c/kWh on the basis that the land is provided free.

    Very few people understand how much excess capacity renewables need to provide energy on demand. Britain is already proposing to pay renewables suppliers not to produce because their system has more energy than it needs – on some days:
    https://qz.com/952827/the-uks-electrical-grid-is-so-overrun-with-renewable-power-it-may-pay-wind-farms-to-stop-producing-it/

    There will be great opportunities for different energy storage systems that can make use of excess electrical energy that has zero or negative marginal cost. In my view hydrogen production has to be a good candidate.

    21

    • #
      Peter C

      Rick,

      The message I get from your post is that people are motivated to seek CHEAPER electicity by whatever means.

      If they think that means more and more installed Solar will provide cheaper electricity, they have been duped!

      31

      • #
        Rick Will

        Households are given financial incentives to install solar that saves them money on their electricity bills.

        Renewables are a fact of life in Australia – they are cast in stone. There is absolutely no sign that they will disappear. So it is within that context that adding their own solar saves households money. They are not being duped. It is a simple matter that if they install solar they save on electricity bills. It is a simple equation; spend on solar and save on electricity costs. The ROI is around 10%. In my case it has been better than 15%. Compare that with the best term deposit I can currently get of 3.4%.

        The fact that the burden of electricity costs shift to industry and individual households that cannot install solar, for whatever reason, is not so widely known. That is something that the renewable pundits do not advertise or even appreciate. The RET along with the LGCs and STCs are a subtle transfer payment that few appreciate. If I Google “LGC STC transfer payment” I get 138 hits and none actually make a meaningful connection.

        Further to this, the evidence that I see indicates only a handful of people worldwide actually comprehend what it would cost to go 100% renewable electricity production with present technology. The installed capacity of intermittent generation would need to be 7X the peak demand on a typical diverse demand profile. Then there would need to be almost as much investment in storage as the generation. The numbers are mind boggling.

        The production and storage technology has a long way to go before it can better coal generation for unit cost to meet a particular demand profile but the market has been highly skewed in favour of renewables in Australia and it is not going to change soon.

        It is already possible to get paid to consume electricity at certain times. Then there are times when the price is through the roof. As the surge for renewables increase the frequency of less than zero cost will increase and the peak prices should get lower. The average price is likely to continue to rise to reflect the increasing capital intensity overall. Industry that can control their power demand could get very low average cost. Think of hydrogen production for vehicle fuel or long term energy storage for example – processes that can ramp up and down demand quickly. The Kitemat aluminium smelter in Canada became very good at adjusting demand because they were able to sell electricity from hydro into North America during the Enron years for more money than making aluminium.

        21

        • #
          FarmerDoug2

          So individually it’s sensible to accept the situation as it is and get the best we can for ourselves. Screw Australia.
          Doug

          30

  • #
    David Maddison

    QUESTION:

    Someone told me that the LSGC’s get “passed on” therefore there should be no disincentive to build a coal power station, assuming it would be approved.

    Please explain?

    20

    • #
      Rick Will

      The LGCs confer a significant benefit on the renewable generators. They have an automatic advantage of 9c/kWh over coal fired stations. So any new coal investment is already disadvantaged.

      Putting that disadvantage aside, the coal plant will need a guaranteed operating life of say 30 years working near full capacity to amortise its cost, which means 40 years from now given an approval and build time of 10 years. What commercial operator will take that risk given the present outlook for coal?

      Right now renewables have standing bids in the NEM at large negative numbers to guarantee dispatch of whatever they can produce at any time of the day. A new coal plant would need to be given dispatch guarantees in a similar way so they are operating near peak performance continuously to keep unit prices low.

      31

  • #
    Robdel

    The only thing that will change the voting pattern is when the blackouts happen with regularity and the electricty bill goes through the roof. Then the people will appreciate the true cost of the ret madness. The sooner we head for 50% renewables the quicker will the scam fall down to earth.

    70

    • #
      David Maddison

      As I pointed out before it seems to me 50% renewables are counted at nameplate only but since windmills only have a 30% capacity factor this means less than 17% of nameplate. So if we have a grid of 50% reliable coal and gas and the rest mostly windmills we will have a grid of only 50% reliables and 17% unreliables or only 67% of what is required. Ie they are going to teduce generation capacity by 33%.

      Is my logic correct?

      20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        No. In SA it is the actual generation. Hence the ecstatic screams when wind generates lots in the middle of the night.

        10

    • #
      RobK

      Robdel,
      That is so but the cost is high, not just to establish the facts empirically but to reverse the damage on such a large scale.

      10

  • #
    pat

    13 Apr: Bloomberg: Brian Eckhouse: Investors Are Cherry Picking the Assets of a Fallen Renewable Energy Giant
    The spectacular failure of what was once the world’s biggest renewable-energy company has turned into a smorgasbord of wind and solar farms being gobbled up by infrastructure investors, clean-power developers and even a vegan soccer team…
    Based in Maryland Heights, Missouri, SunEdison amassed its portfolio by taking advantage of clean-energy’s push into the mainstream…
    In the process, the company piled up $16.1 billion in liabilities by the time it sought court protection from creditors on April 21, a year ago next week…

    Now, it’s looking at how to make a comeback…
    But it’s also sold off so many prized assets and lost key staff that questions remain about what of value will be left.
    “They’re not coming back as anything material, just the rump or shadow of their former self,” Swami Venkataraman, a New York-based analyst at Moody’s Investors Service, said last month…
    Whether or not SunEdison prospers, its assets have found loving owners…

    In the U.K., meanwhile, the Forest Green Rovers Football Club Ltd., purchased SunEdison’s residential rooftop business shortly before the bankruptcy filing.
    Forest Green Rovers, a vegan soccer team based in Gloucestershire, is owned by the clean-energy supplier Ecotricity Group Ltd. Chairman Dale Vince, who wants his club to be the greenest in the world, is building a new stadium made almost entirely of wood, and already uses a solar-powered robot lawnmower…READ ALL
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-12/investors-finding-solar-gems-in-carcass-of-bankrupt-sunedison

    21

  • #

    if we can generate them, then there would be much lower environmental impact than conventional energy technologies. Though it’s hard to operate this in many countries

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…lower environmental impact …’

      Wind and solar farms are ugly monstrosities and carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming.

      20

  • #
    pat

    ***modest? this doesn’t even explain whether the $14/$28 is off each bill, or off a year’s bills! read it:

    13 Apr: Adelaide Advertiser: Daniel Wills: Poles and wires company ElectraNet plan to ease power bill burden on households by $14 under a new business plan
    The company says its new business plan will save households $14 in 2019, and $28 for business…

    However, there are warnings that the ***modest savings will be comprehensively wiped out by the surging cost of power generation amid a political battle about the role of renewables…
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/poles-and-wires-company-electranet-plan-to-ease-power-bill-burden-on-households-by-14-under-a-new-business-plan/news-story/f959c153119b67f155af4f492b3618e1

    21

    • #
      pat

      just noticed it says “plan will save households $14 in 2019″, so presumably, at best, you might save $14 annually. wow.

      21

  • #
    Amber

    Well at least most Australian’s won’t freeze as a result of fuel poverty .
    10′s of thousands in Europe die prematurely because they chose to eat
    instead of heat .
    The push poll survey in this article does demonstrate the publics ignorance courtesy of
    the propaganda tools calling themselves journalists .

    50

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Those Australians that are are duped are a result of our third rate educational system which has substituted the dogma of political correctness for critical thinking.

    70

    • #
      Peter C

      I was told, when I went to University, that a university education would teach me how to think!

      That is probably correct, but it did not teach me how to Think For Myself.

      51

  • #
    pat

    re writer below:

    Wikipedia: Benjamin “Ben” Heard is a South Australian environmental consultant and an advocate for nuclear power in Australia. He is the proprietor of ThinkClimate Consulting and founder of the blog, Decarbonise SA. In 2012 he published the Zero Carbon Options report which presented a case for the replacement of aging coal-fired power stations near Port Augusta with a nuclear power plan.

    12 Apr: ESI Africa: Ben Heard: The hidden costs of high penetration renewables
    (Ben Heard is Founder and Executive Director of environmental non-profit Bright New World. He is also a doctoral energy researcher at the University of Adelaide, South Australia. His most recent paper, Burden of Proof: A comprehensive assessment of the feasibility of 100 % renewable electricity systems, will shortly be published in the peer reviewed journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews)

    There is a tendency in clean energy research for valid work to morph into invalid claims, says Ben Heard, founder and executive director of Bright New World.
    This is the case in the work of CSIR for South Africa, where work described by the authors as ***“thought experiment” generated headlines and belief that the lowest-cost electricity for South Africa involves some 86% annual contribution from renewables – onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) .
    But a series of simplifications means the suggested costing is not even wrong, its irrelevant. It’s based on a system that will not work in a future that should not happen.
    A process of systematic under-estimation begins in the assumed demand being 261 TWh per year, approximately +15% on current levels…

    Currently, South Africans per capita electricity consumption is low, and the pattern of consumption is drastically uneven. Only 40% of the working age population of South Africa is currently employed, and the population of South Africa is expected to grow by 24% from 2015-2050.
    Under the CSIR assumption, South Africa would use less electricity per capita than it does today, sending poverty, unemployment and inequality even higher. Merely the per capita electricity consumption of an efficient economy like Denmark would require closer to 400 TWh per annum by 2050, or +60% from today.
    Might it be higher than that? Certainly…

    The modelled system treats nearly all South Africa as a supply catchment for wind and solar, to derive the benefit of geographic ‘smoothing’ of the variable supply. That demands an expanded transmission network.
    Literature based on the European grid suggests transmission needs to be 5-6 times greater to derive 98% of the benefits of spreading out the renewable generation. That capital would often be idle; for example, every night no solar PV electricity will be transmitted…
    This is yet more inefficient capital expenditure South Africa can ill-afford…

    Wind and solar PV technologies provide asynchronous sources of generation.
    This means they provide none of the inertia that offers the essential instantaneous frequency control that keeps an electricity system within its operational limits.
    If a system falls outside of those limits, the whole system trips and you have a total blackout…

    So the true cost of high penetration renewables based on ‘low cost’ on shore wind and PV begins to reveal itself. In such as system, supply, reliability and stability all have to be purchased separately, and managed through a greatly expanded, inefficiently operated transmission network. To date, it is beyond the bounds of operational knowledge…
    https://www.esi-africa.com/features/hidden-costs-high-penetration-renewables/

    PDF: 50 pages: 22 Aug 2016: CSIR Energy Centre: High-renewables Scenarios
    Thought experiments for the South African power system
    http://us-cdn.creamermedia.co.za/assets/articles/attachments/63272_high_re_scenario_-_csir_-_22aug2016.pdf

    31

  • #
    pat

    12 Apr: Politico: Trump eyes climate skeptic for key White House environmental post
    By Alex Guillén and Andrew Restuccia
    Kathleen Hartnett White, who says carbon emissions are harmless and should not be regulated, is a top contender to run the Council on Environmental Quality, the White House’s in-house environmental policy shop, sources close to the administration told POLITICO…

    “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and carbon is certainly not a poison. Carbon is the chemical basis of all life on earth. Our bones and blood are made out of carbon,” White wrote in a June op-ed. She added that CO2 is the “gas of life” because it is a nutrient used by plants — an argument frequently raised by climate skeptics that most scientists say ***distracts from the climate-changing components of the gas…

    In an interview with POLITICO in September, White proposed establishing a “blue ribbon commission” to relitigate climate science, underscoring her ***unorthodox belief that the science showing human-induced climate change is unsettled…READ ON
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-kathleen-hartnett-white-climate-skeptic-job-237172

    what a beat-up:

    12 Apr: WaPo: Trump’s EPA is seeking a 24/7 security detail for its new leader
    By Brady Dennis
    But a detailed budget plan obtained by The Washington Post last week includes a request to add positions within the agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance “to provide 24/7 security detail” for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

    Pruitt’s predecessor, Gina McCarthy, had what was known as “door-to-door” protection — essentially from her residence each morning until she returned at night, according to Liz Purchia, a communications director at the EPA in the Obama administration. She said security officers typically would leave McCarthy once she was at her office. Previous EPA administrators have had similar arrangements…
    On a handful of international trips, McCarthy did receive 24/7 protection, depending on the threat level of a country, as determined by the State Department, Purchia said. But that was the exception rather than the rule. And if McCarthy was in Washington over the weekend, her security detail would not be with her unless she had an official event…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/12/as-epa-cuts-loom-agencys-new-head-seeks-247-security-detail/?utm_term=.6f4f0bcb66d1

    11

  • #
    pat

    NZ consensus:

    13 Apr: Stuff NZ: Stacey Kirk: Under a cloud of extreme weather beating the country, MPs held significant debate on climate change
    PHOTO CAPTION: The calm before the storm in Whakatane, with calm spells followed by bouts of heavy rain but minimal wind before Cyclone Cook.
    As the tempest of Cyclone Cook bore down on New Zealand, MPs held a rare special debate on the ways in which New Zealand could reach emissions neutrality, following a major new report.
    Net Zero in New Zealand laid out four scenarios in which New Zealand could alter its climate change approach and achieve a neutral emissions status on various trajectories.
    Carried out by UK outfit Vivid Economics, the report was commissioned by a cross-parliamentary group of 35 MPs called GLOBE-NZ…

    Brought about through negotiations with the Green Party, the Government allowed a rejig of the parliament’s sitting day to cater for the two-hour debate – the first special debate held since troops were first sent to Afghanistan in 2010…

    Green Party co-leader James Shaw said it showed parliament “actually choosing to get engaged with one of the great issues of our time”.
    “And most people don’t know this but there has been a change in scientific thinking, which is that 10 years ago the conventional wisdom was that you couldn’t pin any one weather event on climate change.
    “Whereas now, every single extreme weather event has a causal relationship, because of the ***frequency and severity. So as things become more frequent, by definition, they’re only there because of the overall climactic pattern change.”…

    Speaking for Labour Sua William Sio said climate change was a “defining issue of our lifetime”.
    “It isn’t going to go away, it is going to get worse, it is real.”…

    In response to speeches from all parties, Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett said the debate over whether climate change was real and man made had moved on, including within some quarters of the National caucus.
    “So I argue to people that we’re already changing, so don’t freak out. The climate’s changing, but so are New Zealanders as to how we live and what we do.
    “And what we need is the mapped out plan for what those changes are going forward.”
    Businesses mostly wanted certainty…
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91561194/under-a-cloud-of-extreme-weather-beating-the-country-mps-held-significant-debate-on-climate-change

    11

  • #
    pat

    10 Apr: Daily Caller: Andrew Follett: Leaked Gov’t Docs Show ‘Toning Down’ Global Warming Regs To Create Jobs
    The UK will “tone down” global warming positions in international trade deals to focus on job and wealth creation, according to leaked government documents.
    The documents, obtained by UK’s The Times and published Sunday, instruct British trade negotiators to shift focus less from global warming concerns and preventing the illegal wildlife trade to making the country “a great, global trading nation.”

    High energy costs have caused British companies to leave the UK, killing off or threatening an estimated 40,000 jobs.
    UK residents already pay 54 percent more (LINK) for electricity than Americans, and energy taxes cost residents roughly $6.6 billion a year. Green energy subsidies regularly exceed spending caps and account for roughly 7 percent of British energy bills, according to a government study released in July.

    Polls indicate 38 percent of British households (LINK) are cutting back essential purchases, like food, to pay for high energy bills. Another 59 percent of homes are worried about how they are going to pay energy bills.

    A single piece of government legislation, the Climate Change Act of 2008, is could cost the average British household $13,700 by 2030, according to a report by The Global Warming Policy Foundation (LINK). The total costs of the policy will eventually add up to three times the annual British National Health Service budget.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/10/leaked-govt-docs-show-toning-down-global-warming-regs-to-create-jobs/

    11

  • #
    pat

    12 Apr: NoTricksZone: Satellite Data: Post El Niño Global Surface Cooling Continues… Pause Extends To 20 Years
    By P Gosselin
    Critical German climate site wobleibtdieererwaermung.de (WBDE) reports that the earth’s surface is cooling, and presents the latest chart from NCEP…READ ON
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/12/satellite-data-post-el-nino-global-surface-cooling-continues-pause-extends-to-20-years/#sthash.2XPmxaYl.T8oMV4j9.dpbs

    31

  • #
  • #
    pat

    12 Apr: Chronicle: Peter McCusker: North East peer Matt Ridley calls for cheaper energy for consumers
    House of Lords calls for shift in policy on energy to prioritise cheaper bills rather than reducing emissions
    This week the Government committed a further £300m in subsidies to the renewable energy as it continues to strive to reduce emissions from the electricity industry…
    But, earlier this year Office for Budget Responsibility highlighted how environmental levies will triple from £4.6bn last year to £13.5bn in 2021 – and account for 25% of domestic energy bills by then.
    Meanwhile, concerns are growing over the nation’s energy security with margins on the power grid at almost record lows, and the country unable to secure any new gas power stations since 2012.
    A damming new report from a cross-party group of Peers says the Government should shift focus from cutting emissions to energy security and cutting costs for homes and businesses…
    The Price of Power: Reforming the Electricity Market sought views from some of the industry’s key payers and makes a series of recommendations to the Government…

    Ridley: “We can now see that Tony Blair’s decision (in 2008) to bind the UK with the EU Renewables Directive targets, something he did against the advice of civil servants, was a very bad decision.”…
    “Even if renewable costs are coming down, this doesn’t mean that the electricity from wind will be competitive with conventional electricity. As the House of Lords report observed, the ‘system’ cost of keeping the grid going with a high level of unreliable/renewable energy is high.
    “Indeed, some analysts have suggested that these costs are so high that even if wind turbines were free to install, the system costs would mean that their electricity would still be more expensive than electricity from gas turbines.”
    These claims tally, in part, with findings from a recent UK Energy Research Centre report which says the cost of measures to support renewables in the electricity system could double prices…READ ON
    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business/business-news/north-east-peer-matt-ridley-12885831

    21

  • #
    pat

    13 Apr: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: South Australia gets 31 proposals for new back-up generator
    On Thursday it revealed it had received 31 proposals for its proposed new emergency back-up generator, adding to the 90 proposals it got in response to its call for a 100MW/100MWh battery storage installation – Australia’s biggest.
    Apart from deciding on the next moves for the tender for the back-up generator and the battery storage, the government is also yet to make a call on two other key tenders – one for “dispatchable” renewables for 25 per cent of its own electricity needs, and another for a “new player” for 75 per cent of its requirements…

    The gas generator is the biggest ticket item of the plan, at an estimated $360 million, and because energy minister Tom Koutsantonis wants the plant to run “all the time to help stabilise the grid”, there has been speculation that it could include a battery storage element (to provide the inertia but avoid fuel costs).
    “There’s been interest from a dozen countries, including Australia, China, Malaysia, Singapore, France, Finland, Spain and the United Kingdom,” he said in a statement on Thursday…READ ALL
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-gets-31-proposals-new-back-generator-70463/

    21

  • #
    ren

    Murray said Cyclone Cook had changed from a tropical cyclone to a “mid-latitude low” – a “very different beast” from Cyclone Debbie.

    Debbie was spread out, and noticeable bands of rain hit the country interspersed with periods of calm. Cook, by contrast, will be short and sharp, but bring a “phenomenal” amount of rain, Murray said.

    “It is a really tightly packed cyclone – the isobars are very tight – which means strong winds, heavy rain and storm surges.”

    Meteorologist Andy Best said he’d been working as a forecaster at MetService for about 20 years, and had never seen a storm like Cook.

    He said the last one to have similar conditions was Cyclone Giselle, which hit New Zealand in 1968 and contributed to the Wahine disaster.

    The sinking of the Lyttelton-Wellington ferry Wahine on April 10, 1968 was New Zealand’s worst modern maritime disaster, claiming more than 52 lives.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11837255

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes, ren, they share some similarities, but it is false logic to try to draw parallels. This storm has some similarities to Giselle, but that is irrelevant in understanding this storm.

      Tightly packed isobars are an artefact of wind speed, and how wind speed is depicted on a diagram. I can change the scale, and move the lines further apart. That doesn’t affect the weather though.

      As for the Wahine disaster, the Master had the choice of standing off the coast, with his passengers and crew throwing up, or trying to enter Wellington Harbour with a cross-wind and cross-tides. He made his decision, based on the information he had to hand. All history remembers is the outcome.

      None of this is relevant to today’s storm. It might be good journalism, but it is poor science.

      31

      • #
        Ceetee

        Hey Rereke how are ya. Is this just not a case of NZ weather. Small islands copping what the ocean throws at them? Happening forever in our history innit.

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Contrary to popular opinion, I am still alive.

          And yes, this is Pacific weather, but nobody worries about that, unless it impinges on their Easter holiday plans.

          The Cook Islands felt the current storm before it came south, as did French Polynesia. Nobody worries about that though, because it doesn’t directly affect the latte set in the fashionable parts of Auckland.

          61

          • #
            Ceetee

            What popular opinion would that be? Not any that we wise badgers would pay a mind to.
            Have a daughter in a camp freshly delivered. Hope tent living in torrents of rain can be uplifting. Can be if you set your mind to it hopefully. Its all good and she’ll be right. Has gumboots, umbrella and the right attitude which is what counts when counting needs doing. Its weather not climate. We can complain about the weather but we can’t change the climate unless we are arrogant enough to think we can. Mikey E Mann that was aimed directly at YOU.

            30

            • #
              Ceetee

              And before he responds if he ever even came here, let me say that nobody human has ever changed climate like that comic book boy has.

              20

          • #
            el gordo

            Totally unrelated to those living across the gap, there was a cold air outbreak in Darwin.

            ‘Bureau of Meteorology manager of weather services Ben Suter said it was one of Darwin’s coldest ever days on record.

            “We’ve struggled to get above 21C,” he said.

            “There have only been five days in the past 74 years where we’ve struggled to get above 21C.” Mr Suter said cool south east winds and dry air were to blame for the plummeting temperatures. Thin blooded Territorians can expect to leave the jumpers in the cupboard today, with temperatures expected to increase.’

            10

  • #
    pat

    lengthy, read all:

    11 Apr: BBC: David Shukman: Renewables’ deep-sea mining conundrum
    British scientists exploring an underwater mountain in the Atlantic Ocean have discovered a treasure trove of rare minerals.
    Their investigation of a seamount more than 500km (300 miles) from the Canary Islands has revealed a crust of “astonishingly rich” rock.
    Samples brought back to the surface contain the scarce substance tellurium in concentrations 50,000 times higher than in deposits on land.
    Tellurium is used in a type of advanced solar panel, so the discovery raises a difficult question about whether the push for renewable energy may encourage mining of the seabed.
    The rocks also contain what are called rare earth elements that are used in wind turbines and electronics…
    Known as Tropic Seamount, the mountain stands about 3,000m tall – about the size of one of the middle-ranging Alpine summits – with a large plateau at its top, lying about 1,000m below the ocean surface…

    Dr Bram Murton, the leader of the expedition, told the BBC that he had been expecting to find abundant minerals on the seamount but not in such concentrations…
    He has calculated that the 2,670 tonnes of tellurium on this single seamount represents one-twelfth of the world’s total supply.
    And Dr Murton has come up with a hypothetical estimate that if the entire deposit could be extracted and used to make solar panels, it could meet 65% of the UK’s electricity demand.

    He says he is not advocating deep-sea mining, which has yet to start anywhere in the world and is likely to be highly controversial because of the damage it could cause to the marine environment.
    But Dr Murton does want his team’s discovery, part of a major research project called MarineE-Tech, to trigger a debate about where vital resources should come from.
    “If we need green energy supplies, then we need the raw materials to make the devices that produce the energy so, yes, the raw materials have to come from somewhere.
    “We either dig them up from the ground and make a very large hole or dig them from the seabed and make a comparatively smaller hole.
    “It’s a dilemma for society – nothing we do comes without a cost.”…READ ALL
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39347620

    11

  • #
    pat

    11 Apr: British Antarctic Survey: Press Release: Penguin colony repeatedly decimated by volcanic eruptions
    One of the largest colonies of gentoo penguins in Antarctica was decimated by volcanic eruptions several times during the last 7,000 years according to a new study. An international team of researchers, led by British Antarctic Survey (BAS), studied ancient penguin guano and found the colony came close to extinction several times due to ash fall from the nearby Deception Island volcano. Their results are published today (Tuesday 11 April) in Nature Communications…
    Climate conditions around Ardley Island have been generally favourable for penguins over the last 7,000 years and the team had expected the local population to show minor fluctuations in response to changes in climate or sea ice. The surprising result was that the nearby Deception Island volcano had a far greater impact than originally anticipated…

    Dr Claire Waluda, penguin ecologist from BAS: “Changes in penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula have been linked to climate variability and sea-ice changes, but the potentially devastating long-term impact of volcanic activity has not previously been considered.”…
    Read the paper here (LINK)
    https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/penguin-colony-repeatedly-decimated-by-volcanic-eruptions/

    21

  • #
    PeppyKiwi

    An example of “cheap” solar power. $4.3million invested to generate 90c of power on a good day. Definitely great value for money!

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/idahos-4-3-million-solar-road-generates-enough-power-to-run-one-microwave/#ixzz4duKKDzAs

    Enough said……

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    How do the thought bubbles of uninformed and ignorant politicians get turned into multi billion dollar wastes of money?

    80

  • #
    Ceetee

    Australians duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap

    Make that the entire inquisitive world. Brought to you by the likes of BBC, CNN (Clinton News Network), ABC and others who trade on the hard won reputations of the real journalists of past years who paid for the latté machines those prats use. The angry part of me would like to sue the govt for every cent dishonestly ripped from my wallet in petrol tax taken under the guise of “saving the planet”. Go the Donald. Love the fact that they hate him. Love every excruciating minute of their discomfort with every glimpse of his face it causes them.

    110

    • #
      tom0mason

      Ceetee
      Don’t forget the hidden moneyed hand in the steel claw of Soros Inc, or ‘The Club of Rome’ or Bloomberg’s little helpers the Sierra Club.

      50

      • #
        Ceetee

        Good point tomo, lets have in in-depth investigation into just ‘who is and why is’ the nefarious Soros infests our lives. Any bloody self respecting journos out there who do believe they are anything other than the dumb foot soldiers of left wing dogma, this is the perfect opportunity to make a name for yourselves. Those implacably on the left this aint for you, you are too gutless.

        50

  • #
    GD

    It’s a long way from Jo Nova’s blog to the MSM. The majority of people in Australia don’t read science. They don’t need to. That’s what scientists are for. They watch Ch 7, 9 and 10 and the ABC for information. That’s where their ‘belief’ system is formed.

    Couple that with the common knowledge that coal is black, sooty, dirty stuff that you have to wash off your hands, and the majority of Australians are all for ‘believing’ that coal-fired power is dirty and polluting.

    Enter ‘clean renewables’, wind and solar. Sunshine and a fresh breeze instead of dirty, coal dust spewing power stations, it’s a no-brainer. Coal is bad, wind and solar is good. Bugger about the power bill.

    How can Jo Nova’s blog and the opinions expressed therein reach out to the general public?

    120

    • #
      PeterS

      The difference is the MSM are not hold to account for their fake news and other failures. If I have a mechanical problem with my car I take it to a car mechanic to diagnose and fix it as my knowledge of fixing cars is limited. So I have faith they will do a good job. However, if they don’t then I can take it to another mechanic or if I desire consult with the appropriate authoritative to obtain a refund. It’s up to me to do the leg work. So in the case of the majority of people listening to the MSM it is up to the people to use their critical thinking capabilities (assuming they have them as many do not) to check out alternative news outlets to make sure they are getting the true story. Otherwise, they will continue to be duped into believing what the MSM is always true, and so they only have themselves to blame.

      50

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Renewable. A word. Climate sensitivity? Most academics I know have never heard of the word. Climate sensitivity? Well, of course it’s sensitive. The case of a Landcruiser with “I vote Nats” emblazoned several times on the tailboard along with “Our ABC- independent always” ! What a load of nonsense.

      12

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘How can Jo Nova’s blog and the opinions expressed therein reach out to the general public?’

      A journalist might visit here to get another viewpoint, so that they can make their story appear balanced. That’s the best we can hope for in the short term.

      A serious political battle is coming up between the supporters of king coal against the green blob, the government is now totally committed to energy security at the expense of upsetting the brainwashed masses.

      40

      • #

        el gordo mentions this:

        A journalist might visit here to get another viewpoint, so that they can make their story appear balanced. That’s the best we can hope for in the short term.

        That’s a journalist who would need to do an awful lot of research first to understand any part of what those of us here at this site now have a good handle on. It would be horrendously over his/her head.

        Then, and let’s actually pretend he is able to understand it, he writes the story, and then presents it to his Editor.

        There is no way known on Earth that the article would be approved. The Editor would know that it would be his job that would be vacant if it saw the light of day, either that or his response would be that the public do not want to read that stuff, and that it’s way too technical for them to read anyway.

        No, this is the only place you’ll ever see any of the things that are now commonly known here.

        Oddly, I think people are actually crying out to be told the real truth, and will try and understand it.

        Once the truth comes out, and you can bet it will, sooner or later, and in reality, it’s almost too late now, the common response will be why weren’t we told this years ago.

        Those of us who have been attempting to spread the word will then be looked on as just plain old bandwagon jumpers, cashing in after the event.

        Thank heavens the Internet never forgets.

        Tony.

        52

  • #
    Tezza

    I see the official Government website explaining the RET tells you how it works, not what it costs. The implication is that it provides a free lunch.

    70

  • #
    Robber

    I just noticed that as well as the Dr Alan Finkel review into the affordability and reliability of the National Electricity Market, the Department of Environment is asking for public submissions by May 5 to a Review of Climate Change Policies.
    “The Australian Government is committed to addressing climate change while at the same time ensuring we maintain energy security and affordability.”
    If the SA experiment was not enough, now Victorian electricity prices are skyrocketing.
    For Victoria, the average price from 2010-2016 was $39.4/Mwhr (ie 3.94 cents/KWhr).
    In 2017, the average price in Victoria in January was $62.04/MWhr, in Feb $86.05/MWhr, in March $90.63/MWhr, and the first 12 days of April $108.71/MWhr (ie 10.9 cents/KWhr)
    What changed? Hazelwood coal-fired power station closed down at the end of March and more gas-fired stations are being used to meet demand when the wind doesn’t blow.
    Policy Assessment: Fail.

    “Climate change is a global issue that requires international action. The Government has ratified the Paris Agreement and set a target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This target amounts to a halving of per capita emissions and a two thirds reduction in emissions intensity of economic activity. It is among the strongest targets of major economies on that basis”.
    Policy Assessment: Economic diasaster. Business has already expressed its concerns over rising gas and electricity prices. Reducing the emissions intensity of economic activity by driving up costs will inevitably lead to more economic activity being driven overseas.

    The Government has a suite of policies in place to reduce emissions. These include:
    Emissions Reduction Fund. The first four Emissions Reduction Fund auctions have contracted 178 million tonnes of emissions reductions at an average price of $11.83 per tonne.
    Safeguard Mechanism. The Safeguard Mechanism puts limits (baselines) on the emissions of facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of emissions a year. These baselines cover around half of Australia’s emissions, including facilities in the manufacturing, electricity, mining, oil and gas, transport and waste sectors. A single sectoral baseline applies to grid-connected electricity generators.
    Renewable Energy Target. The RET has two components. The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target of 33,000 GWh by 2020 (about 23% of electricity supply) encourages investment in large-scale projects. The Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme helps home-owners and small businesses to install eligible small-scale renewable energy systems and solar hot water systems.
    National Energy Productivity Plan. The NEPP provides a framework and an initial economy‑wide work plan designed to accelerate delivery of a 40 per cent improvement in Australia’s energy productivity by 2030.
    Clean energy innovation support. The Government supports clean energy innovation across the spectrum of research and development, demonstration and deployment. Research and development grants are provided by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Australian Research Council, CSIRO and others.
    National Carbon Offset Standard. The National Carbon Offset Standards provide benchmarks for organisations seeking to make their operations, products, services, buildings, precincts or events carbon neutral.
    Solar communities. The Solar Communities program will support local responses to climate change and deliver lower electricity costs for community organisations. It will provide $5 million in funding for community groups in selected regions to install rooftop solar panels, solar hot water and solar-connected battery systems for community-owned buildings.
    ** Remember pink batts? I can just see the next election policy – solar panels on every roof, and a battery in every garage. **
    Australia’s international climate policies. Australia plays a leading role in global efforts to reduce emissions, including through the Asia Pacific Rainforest Partnership and the International Partnership for Blue Carbon. (Seeking to protect and conserve coastal blue carbon ecosystems – mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrasses – for climate change mitigation and adaptation).

    Some questions from the paper (submissions welcomed):
    Are there particular concerns or opportunities with respect to jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia that should be considered when reducing emissions in the electricity sector?
    Are there particular concerns or opportunities with respect to jobs, investment, trade competitiveness and regional Australia that should be considered for households, SMEs and the built environment?
    What are the opportunities and challenges of reducing emissions from the resource, manufacturing and waste sectors? Are there any implications for policy?
    Are there particular concerns or opportunities with respect to jobs, investment, trade competitiveness, households and regional Australia associated with policies to reduce emissions in the land and agriculture sectors?
    What is the potential role of credible international units in meeting Australia’s emissions targets? How can the quality of international units be ensured?

    “The Government’s policies are working to reduce Australia’s emissions. They have Australia on track to surpass its 2020 emissions reduction target and provide a framework for the longer term.”

    Overall assessment: Lots of jobs for bureaucrats, but no business case justification.
    Recommendation: Set up international competitive benchmarks, not on emissions but on cost efficiency for each sector of the economy. For example, electricity costs to business and consumers; construction costs; transport costs; labour costs; food costs.

    30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Thanks for posting that Robber. We should all make a submission. I think I’ll just rehash my Finkel submission. http://www.environment.gov.au/submissions/nem-review/maddison.pdf

      20

    • #
      Rollo

      “The Australian Government is committed to addressing climate change ….blah blah……..Climate change is a global issue that requires international action. …..crap crap……The Government has ratified the Paris Agreement and set a target of reducing emission …………blah blah…………………..In announcing Australia’s 2030 target, the Government committed ……..BS BS BS….”

      Reading the introduction to the “discussion” paper seems to indicate that accepting the tenets of climate science will be the starting point for any discussion. In other words if you are are a sceptic, don’t bother, but if you want to make recommendations about how much more money is to be wasted on renewables, mandates and subsidy schemes we want to hear from you. (but good luck to anyone that makes the effort to oppose the dogma)

      50

      • #
        Robber

        So true Rollo. With just a token recognition that there might be some concerns about jobs, investments and trade competitiveness.
        And you have to laugh at the foot in mouth approach: “The Government’s approach to energy policy is to take a technology neutral approach to deliver the trifecta of secure and affordable power as Australia transitions to a lower emissions future”. Technology neutral? Read wind/solar with a whiff of hydro provided no new dams. Trifecta of secure and affordable power with lower emissions? Failure on two out of three, with no evidence the third will have any impact on climate.

        40

  • #
    Egor the One

    If intermittent toy energy was cheap/cheaper/comparable, then there would be no need for forced taxpayer funding of such junk !

    It is obvious to all except the very stupid that all this is nothing more than a racket and a grand scam…..something that heavily enriches a few at the great expense of the many.

    40

  • #
    observa

    The problem is the vast majority have no idea about the true cost of adding disperse unreliable generators to our communal grid.

    50

    • #
      David Maddison

      I have posted that before – it’s a great video. This version has been enhanced with slides added in.

      I suspect grid instability is even worse in Australia than in the US to which his comments refer since we have fewer generators and less interconnectivity to take up the slack.

      I would like to see the politicians and public serpents who are instrumental in the destruction of Australia’s once great, cheap and reliable grid prose cuted for what they have done.

      31

    • #
      David Maddison

      Here is another video with him.

      https://youtu.be/kU6izpryqqw

      11

  • #
    David Maddison

    Are there any figures on the profitabilty of the unreliable power generators?

    11

  • #
    Robber

    It’s a good Friday in SA. Currently there is zero wind going into the grid. Lucky the power cord from Victoria is working to supply base load electricity. Average price for SA yesterday per AEMO price tables was 14.8 cents/KWhr. Some Australians have certainly been duped into thinking that renewable energy is cheap.
    Happy Easter to all.

    60

  • #
    pat

    the impartial BBC!

    11 Apr: Sierra Club: Katie O’Reilly: Is the U.S. Going to Turn Its Back on Climate Change?
    The BBC’s environmental analyst weighs in on what the rest of the world might do if the U.S. backs out of the Paris Agreement
    Last week, Roger Harrabin, environment and energy analyst for the BBC, reported that even as the costs of solar and wind energy falls, some major nations are scaling back on their green energy investments. In Europe, only Sweden, Germany, and France are living up to those terms set in the Paris Agreement.
    Harrabin predicted this might happen…
    Sierra recently called Harrabin at his London office to discuss a number of things, including whether even a failure of the Paris accord can bring back coal. (Spoiler alert: Harrabin says no.)…
    http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/us-going-turn-its-back-climate-change

    8 Apr: Daily Mail: Christopher Booker: From killer diesel fumes to ruinous floods, every green initiative imposed on us by politicians has ended in disaster… and this is the great folly of our age
    This week, it was announced many diesel drivers will soon have to pay fully £24 a day to drive into Central London, while 35 towns across the country are thinking of following suit. Already some councils charge up to £90 more for a permit to park a diesel car.
    The roots of this debacle go back to the heyday of Tony Blair’s government, when his chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, became obsessed with the need to fight global warming…READ ALL
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4392220/Green-initiatives-disasters-says-Christopher-Booker.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    Fairfax has no shame:

    14 Apr: SMH: Katie Kenny: Was that it? Cyclone Cook was supposed to be New Zealand’s record-breaking storm
    Forecasts said the storm would be the worst since 1968, when Cyclone Giselle sank the Wahine in Wellington’s harbour. Auckland and Wellington were reportedly in its path, so city folk left work early, secured their trampolines, and waited…

    “I have never seen an event like this in the 12 years I have been a forecaster in New Zealand … this is not an event to be taken lightly,” MetService forecaster Lisa Murray said on Wednesday…
    “We dodged a bullet,” MetService meteorologist Nick Zachar said in response to the larger cities’ situation.
    “We were lied to,” said people — mostly Aucklanders — on social media. But is this fair? No, not really, Zachar says…

    “If that had hit anywhere close to Auckland, that could have done major damage. We wanted to make sure the public was aware.”
    That’s part of the reason weather systems are given human names — to heighten interest and increase preparedness within the community…

    While it would likely be the last tropical cyclone for a while, winter was bound to bring more southerly storms.
    With that in mind, it’s always better to be safe than sorry, Zachar said.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/was-that-it-cyclone-cook-was-supposed-to-be-new-zealands-recordbreaking-storm-20170413-gvkus4.html

    States of emergency declared as Cyclone Cook bears down on New Zealand
    Sydney Morning Herald – 1 day ago
    Ex-tropical cyclone Cook is bearing down on New Zealand and is set to be the worst storm system in nearly 50 years…

    Mandatory evacuations ordered as flooding hits New Zealand with Cyclone Cook
    Sydney Morning Herald – 1 day ago
    New Zealand authorities ordered mandatory evacuations as floods threaten homes after Cyclone Cook arrived in the Bay of Plenty.
    Cyclone Cook is set to be the worst storm system in New Zealand in nearly 50 years and the Fire Service has already received dozen of calls about rising water threatening homes in the Thames-Coromandel District, Matamata and Tauranga, a spokesman said.

    00

  • #
    pat

    even as it turned out to be a fizzler, BBC kept pushing:

    13 Apr: BBC: Cyclone Cook: Evacuations as storm lashes New Zealand
    Heavy rain and strong winds are lashing parts of New Zealand as Cyclone Cook, called the worst storm in decades, sweeps across the North Island.
    States of emergency have been declared in the Coromandel Peninsula and Bay of Plenty, with landslips, flash flooding and downed power lines closing roads.
    Some coastal communities have been evacuated and thousands of homes left without power…
    One resident, Malcolm Davie, told the newspaper “enormous gusts like freight trains” had been hitting his house.
    “We’re really getting hammered. It’s a lot worse than we thought,” he is quoted as saying…

    The storm has been classified as an extra-tropical cyclone. That means it has changed into a different weather system as it approached to New Zealand, but has not necessarily weakened or been downgraded, according to New Zealand’s MetService…
    New Zealand weather officials said Cyclone Cook would be the worst to hit the country since 1968…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39585868

    10

  • #
    pat

    more renewables PR from ABC:

    14 Apr: ABC: Solar panel installations ‘skyrocket’ in Australia
    By consumer affairs reporter Amy Bainbridge
    Warwick Johnston from energy consultancy firm Sunwiz crunched the numbers and said 91 megawatts of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems were installed during the month.
    “March has been a very impressive month for 2017,” he said…
    “We already saw a surge starting to build up in 2016, and we were wondering if that was going to continue into 2017 and it really has just continued to skyrocket.”
    Queensland led the way, installing 25 megawatts of capacity, which is enough to power about 5,500 homes and businesses.
    Installations were also up in South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria.
    Mr Johnston said the recent blackouts in South Australia were a factor in the rising demand…

    “We’re seeing the uptake occur in states which weren’t affected by those blackouts as well, so it really is people being aware that solar panels are a great way to beat rising electricity bills.” …
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-14/solar-panel-installations-skyrocket-in-australia/8443550

    00

    • #
      Dennis

      Approximately $16,000.00 for a basic solar panel installation connected to a battery pack.

      Add annual interest bill on borrowed money or lost if own money used and no longer earning interest. Then add the replacement cost in, say, 20 years time. And the grid connection fees.

      It doesn’t look to me like a great way to beat rising electricity bills.

      31

  • #
    Rollo

    Check http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy . Wind is doing some heavy lifting right now.

    11

  • #
    Bushkid

    “All Malcolm Turnbull has to do to turn these figures around is to tell the fact that coal fired electricity is generated for 3 – 4 cents a kilowatt hour. Then run this survey again, and see support for a renewables target crash.”

    Unfortunately, Turnbull’s political and leadership skills are so poor, and his own track record on “renewables” and the CAGW scare/CO2 bogeyman, that even if he now began to get up and state this, nobody would believe him. He totally lacks credibility, therefore nobody will take anything he says seriously. It’s actually that bad.

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      In 2010 Malcolm Turnbull aimed for “a situation where all or almost all of our energy comes from zero or very near zero-emission sources”.

      He now says that people who hold that position are “drunk on left ideology on energy”.

      The SA debacle brought him to his senses, so we’ll get hydro and possibly a HELE coal fired power station near Adani.

      30

  • #
    pat

    13 Apr: ABC: EnergyLab: Program to accelerate creation of renewable energy start-ups launches in Sydney
    ABC Radio Sydney, By Amanda Hoh
    Most start-up incubators give entrepreneurs 90 days to develop their products, according to co-founder Piers Grove.
    The companies include:
    •Eveeh: An electric vehicle car-sharing network.
    •Iron Matrix: A Perth company designing a construction system that replaces bricks and mortar with easy-to-manoeuvre steel posts and solar panels.
    •BlueVolt: Solar products that can be installed anywhere by anybody.
    •Energy Assist: Loans company for those wanting to buy energy-efficient appliances.
    The first cohort of start-ups moved into the EnergyLab hub this week at the University of Technology Sydney, where they will receive dedicated mentors, office space and partnership opportunities as they bring their ideas to fruition…
    “[Renewable energy] is so important for Australia at the moment because we’re lagging behind the rest of the world,” he (Grove) said…
    There are more than 1.6 million solar rooftops installed in Australia, which according to Mr Grove is “the greatest penetration of any market on Earth”…
    EnergyLab, with funding from ***Climate-KIC Australia, will invest in four new business ideas every six months.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-13/renewable-energy-startup-accelerator-launches-in-sydney/8442594

    ***6 Apr: thefifthestate: Willow Aliento: Kick start for climate tackling technologies and products
    A new alliance has formed to fast track the incubation of and market delivery of products and services that can tackle climate change.
    The alliance, the Australian Climate Knowledge and Innovation Community, or Climate-KIC Australia brings together governments, academia and business…
    Founding partners of the Australian public-private partnership include the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage; the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources; the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; Suncorp Group; South Pole Group; EnergyLab; WWF Australia; the University of Adelaide; Curtin University; the University of Melbourne and the University of Technology Sydney.
    Christopher Lee, most recently manager impacts and adaptation for NSW OEH, has been appointed chief executive of the organisation…

    3 Apr: SA Premier Jay Weatherill: News releases – Ian Hunter: South Australia commits to Climate-KIC Australia as founding partner
    Climate Change Minister Ian Hunter welcomed the launch of the Australian Climate Knowledge and Innovation Community (Climate-KIC Australia), with the Government of South Australia committing to the initiative as a founding partner…

    Innovations developed through Climate-KIC Australia will assist in helping Adelaide become the world’s first carbon neutral city, as well as helping the State achieve its net zero emissions target and build climate resilience.
    The University of Adelaide has also formally committed to be a founding partner, and with the State Government will provide a strong focus for Climate-KIC Australia in South Australia…
    Climate-KIC Australia will work in close collaboration with EIT-Climate KIC (Europe), which was established six years ago by the European Union’s European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).

    EIT-Climate-KIC is Europe’s largest climate public-private partnership, comprising more than 250 partners across large corporates, small medium enterprises, government and academic institutions. It has delivered more than €1.8bn in climate innovation investment capital.
    Climate-KIC Australia will explore renewable and low carbon energy pathways, develop blueprints for more sustainable, low carbon cities and undertake initiatives to encourage low carbon innovation and entrepreneurship in these specific areas…
    Climate-KIC Australia has established a cleantech accelerator that is piloting activities in New South Wales and will roll out nationally in 2018…

    Quotes attributable to Climate Change Minister Ian Hunter
    Climate change is the biggest challenge and the biggest opportunity of our time, and being part of this innovative community will help further position South Australia to harness opportunities to attract investment, innovation and jobs.

    South Australia is internationally recognised for responding to climate change. Being part of Climate-KIC Australia will help position us at the forefront of a growing global investment in renewables and clean technology industries.

    Because of our size and connectedness, South Australia is the perfect place to ***test new climate change solutions and the impact they can make…
    http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/ian-hunters-news-releases/7282-south-australia-commits-to-climate-kic-australia-as-founding-partner

    10

  • #
    Chris

    Today at 11:55 NEM time SA was generating O MW of wind power, I was impressed that we could have spent that much investment into infrastructure for 0 output, I would not thought it possible. I guess those wind generators were using a bit of power at the time for whatever they do when not spinning.

    50

  • #
  • #
    pat

    13 Apr: UK Independent: Ian Johnston: Solar power crisis blamed on Tory Government as number of new installations plummets 80%
    ‘What we are asking for, and urgently, is fair tax treatment, fixes to a failing policy, less red tape and just a level playing field,’ says solar industry body

    The Solar Trade Association (STA), which produced the figures based on recently released government statistics, found the first three months of this year had seen a catastrophic collapse in the number of solar panels being put up following the withdrawal of virtually all subsidies, a stunning business rate hike of up to 800 per cent and the imposition of “red tape”…

    The STA said it was particularly concerned by a 65 per cent drop in the number of large-scale solar schemes on hospitals, factories and other large buildings, which may well have been caused by the business rate increase. The figures equate to just one large factory roof having solar panels fitted every month in the whole of the country.
    And the number of people putting solar panels on their homes is now at a six-year low…

    Under government rules, solar has not been allowed to bid against other power generators for contracts to supply electricity at a guaranteed price even though it is in a position to save money for consumers…READ ON
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/solar-power-crisis-tory-government-new-installations-drop-80-per-cent-conservatives-solar-trade-a7682501.html

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      From the article
      “No form of energy generation – renewable or fossil fuel – can currently be built without some form of subsidy”

      What does that say about the UK policies? They subsidise renewables for generation, then they subsidise renewables to stop generating. They penalised conventional generation, then they subsidised conventional generation for when renewables don’t work. Then they subsidised diesel generation, then they subsidised nuclear generation (or at least guaranteed them very high prices for the future). They subsidised destroying forests followed by subsidies for heating empty buildings (with wood fires), then they subsidised biofuel production using feedstock from farms replacing food production, with only the occasional river polluted.
      No wonder the UK solar industry wants more subsidies, so they can be cheaper than the penalised, but partially subsidised, conventional
      generators.
      Lewis Carroll wouldn’t believe such a story.

      20

  • #
    Stephen Wellard

    these greens and envonazis are like a fisherman who spends $30k on a boat, $5k on fishing tackle and then when he catches a fish, is over the moon that he got something for nothing?

    40

  • #
    EyesWideOpen

    As an Australian, I can testify that the average Aussie is as dumb as a box of rocks. I simply find the act of conversing with the average Aussie to be about as stimulating as talking to a rock (however stimulating that is).

    The Australian Broadcasting Commissariat is a weapon of mass mind destruction (and distraction).

    The Sports Industrial Complex is a secular, subsidized, materialist religion, and, unfortunately, we are completely DOOMED once the resources boom is completely over; we have no ingenuity in this country … we even have to import (rob) trained doctors from third world countries where they are needed, because the average Aussie is more interested in a government subsidized ‘career’ in interpretive dance, or sports science, or ‘climate science’ (purely now a propaganda and spin qualification which is 100% political science, and 0% actual science).

    God help us … only a divine intervention can overthrow such a saturated level of ignorance and corruption.

    00

  • #
    ATheoK

    a/ go down, b/ go up, or c/ be paid by The Tooth Fairy?

    A quarter of Australians don’t know. A half think the answer is “b” or “c”. It’s that bad.

    Answering “b” is correct, I thought. Answering “a” is fantasy.

    00