JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

“Demand Destruction”: How to destroy national economy

A funny thing happened on the way to the market. The government picked a winner, and everybody clapped as the losers left the room. But the electricity prices doubled, and unpredictable brutal price spikes started to happen (forty times a month). Then the real free market (or what was left of it) reacted — traders started to game the system, and the investors start to back away. Welcome to Queensland.

But dire news for everyone:

Australia passes a ‘tipping’ point in energy crisis

There is an energy crisis in the world’s largest exporter of coal, the second largest exporter of gas and a major exporter of uranium. We need real solutions. Unless we make decisions really quickly, and I mean in the next 12 months, that re-establish base load capacity then we have no chance of sustaining the economy in the shape that it is in now. – Financial Review

“In the end the market will work its way to balance,” Freyberg continued. “It will stabilise – but the wrong way and for the wrong reason. The inability to secure affordable base load supply means that the problem will befixed by demand destruction.

Ouchy prices….?

In January, while other state markets circled averages of $80/MWh, the Queensland average was $197.65/MWh.

Nonetheless, many major industrial customers continue to maintain that Queensland’s state-owned generators have been acting with enriching but perilous opportunism in pushing prices to the regulated ceiling when demand is high.

It is understood that Glencore recently stopped importing copper anode to support cathode production at its Townsville plant because of those surging power prices. And the company is said to have baulked at investing something less than $50 million in a re-lining of its Mt Isa copper smelter because of uncertainty over the availability and price of gas.

-H/t Eric Worrall

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (85 votes cast)
"Demand Destruction": How to destroy national economy, 9.7 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kqw3a4w

194 comments to “Demand Destruction”: How to destroy national economy

  • #
    Gordon

    Like a said in a previous post, Elon Musk is going to solve the problem with his battery packs. Nothing to worry about. It will be done in about oh lets see now….ahh….well in about……. um……..

    360

    • #
      Harry Passfield

      Gordon: You are Diane Abbott and I claim my £5 !! You can’t fool us with your great maths.

      100

    • #
      F. Ross

      … 10-15 years? Like controlled nuclear fusion; always just around the corner?

      130

  • #
    Spetzer86

    Every country that pursues green energy seems to have similar effects. Major problems can be delayed if the pain can be shared with others, but ultimately the piper must be paid.

    How long before this plain cycle can be seen for the wasted effort that it is?

    280

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes but virtually all of those countries are now also building coal fired power stations. The reasons are clear. They need them for stability as well as to slow down the increase in power prices if not reverse them. That makes us the dumbest nation on earth for locking ourselves into a death spiral as the legislation and polices make it impossible for us ever to build another coal fired power station. It’s even getting harder to start up new coal mines in this country. How dumb can we get?

      320

      • #
        Allen Ford

        It is considered bad form to say, “Ï told you so”, when some foretold disaster strikes, so to pre-empt being accused of being a smart arse, here is my foretelling, Australia:

        “some time in the near future, this suicidal plot to use “renewables” as a serious source of energy will end in tears, and particularly for pollies!”

        260

        • #
          el gordo

          Within a few years the fat lady should sing, assuming global cooling begins, but don’t worry China is at the ready to build coal fired stations in a jiffy. In the meantime…..

          “Your precious budget is intact, the China infrastructure bank will happily supply you with the necessary capital at a very reasonable rate. Also we are having trouble selling our renewables so we’ll give you heaps at a knock down price, in this way we can both benefit from this ongoing hoax.”

          70

        • #
          Leonard Lane

          gordo, you may be right. But two things that make let the politicians get away with it: 1) Most are lawyers, so they can pass legislation to protect themselves and 2)The different parties may get together and declare a national emergency and thereby seize extraordinary power and shield themselves from their consequences.

          70

          • #
            el gordo

            Leonard they are all protected from prosecution by the ‘precautionary principle’.

            60

          • #
            PeterS

            You are placing too much blame on the politicians. It’s the voters who have to share much if not most of the blame. We get the government we deserve as the voters are not children but adults that ought to brush of the cobwebs on their critical thinking capabilities and use them.

            161

        • #
          PeterS

          Yes it will all end in tears when we’ve gone through the crash and burn scenario but every cloud has a silver lining. After the dust settles it will all be OK. We just have to go through the turmoil first and weather the disasters that will be bestowed on us by non other than by ourselves as best we can.

          31

        • #
          clive

          Slightly off topic?The Palaszczuk Government was complaining about the fact the the Federal Gov’t didn’t give her any money for the “Cross River Rail Tunnel”which SHE said would benefit ALL Queenslanders.Sorry but I don’t think we are that”Gullible”The only people who will benefit from the”Tunnel”will be some of the people who use Brisbane rail.So if she is so desperate for money,why not use the money that would have been wasted on”Renewable”projects to finance the”Rail”project?Solar panels in”Cyclone”country is about as”Stupid”as it gets.

          20

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘How long before this plain cycle can be seen for the wasted effort that it is?’

      We need a repeat of the 1962/63 winter in Europe, it was was the coldest for 200 years in Britain.

      150

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    The US NAS engineered the destruction of the US economy and the new director of the US DOE (Department of Energy), Rick Perry, seems afraid or unwilling to confront the US NAS that will control future reviews of DOE’s proposed programs and budgets.

    That is the root of the problem.

    111

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Two members of the discussion group on neutron repulsion independently suggested that the Vatican’s Pope John Paul II is the only hope for mankind now.

      I neither endorse nor dismiss that suggestion, but the present situation obviously offers the Church a remarkable opportunity to make amends for past abuse of Copernicus and Galileo for advancing knowledge.

      30

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Scripturally speaking, a dead ( or alive ) pope cannot be mankinds best hope…its mocks the core of Christian belief, namely the role of Jesus.

        The vatican back then ( and little has changed since, IMHO ) was about maintaining power – Gallileo and Copernicus threatened the roman churches’ power base directly.

        Consequently, as we now have in efefct a new earth-based green religion, which also will not tolerate threats to its power base. IMHO the Vatican has also shown itself to be very pagan by embracing climate change willingly, ignoring the Christian rule of not mixing with non-christian religions.

        As they say, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep….

        90

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        It would be especially appropriate if Vatican’s Pope John Paul II intervened in this case because:

        1. Dr. Kazuo Kuroda received the Chriatian first name Paul from a priest on the ship bringing him to the United States from Japan in 1949, and

        2. Dr. P. K. Kuroda risked the rest of his life by secretly retaining a copy of Japan’s design for atomic bombs so humanity would understand Kuroda’s insight into the birth of the world while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima in Aug 1945: “The beginning of the world may have been just like this” [See page 2 of P. K. Kuroda's 1982 book, "Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon"]

        20

      • #
        TedM

        By “the church” it appears that you mean the Vatican. The church is much greater than the Vatican.

        61

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Hopefully Pope John Paul II has the wisdom to see beyond the simplistic agreement of the Big Bang Theory with the Bibical story of creation to now embrace the concept of God as the whole infinite, cyclic universe composed of two forms of one fundamental particle:

        Expanded and compacted electron-proton pairs: H-Atoms & Neutrons; Alpha & Omega

        https://www.google.com/amp/abcnews.go.com/amp/International/wireStory/vatican-celebrates-big-bang-dispel-faith-science-conflict-47273540

        00

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    It is great that high profile people —

    Peter Freyberg is the most senior Glencore executive based in Australia and the company’s global coal boss.

    — make statements such as this. However, I don’t think it comes as a surprise to readers of this site …
    … that 15 years of failed governance had reduced one of the world’s biggest energy exporters to a state of domestic shortage and paradigm-shifting pricing unpredictability.

    Hats off to Jo Nova! {and contributors}

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I just had to look this up:
    Australians favor baulk (baulked) and Canadian writers favor balk, and US folks, like me don’t have a clue.
    However, I do think that “balk” (with an ‘a’)is wanted in this case, that is, balked. The meaning being “to stop short”, in contrast to a mass of coal or iron ore — “bulk cargo.”
    One learns so much from others. Life is grand.

    110

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Baulked has been around all my life. Shy (v) is when they do it sideways or more violently. But I am a farmer. Another word that our modern education seems to have lost, though somebody used it in the last week or so, is reined. Not reign as with a King, reined as with a horse. Another in these modern times when punching noses is so illegal is toe, not tow, the line.

      100

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    And on our ABC’s 4 Corners last night- the answer is an Emissions Intensity Scheme. Apparently gas is OK now. Big solar farms with batteries in FNQ will save us- not sure about what will happen in the wet season though when there’s heavy cloud cover for days and weeks. Would you believe coal fired power stations, all like Hazelwood by implication, are “old, dirty, and inefficient”. Cue Tony.

    372

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I thought the 4 Corners a poor effort; no serious mention about base load needed to drive industry- nor the pittance of the renewable mix. The program seemed to be about wishful thinking that a snap of the fingers and we will have clean,green energy and all will be well and everyone lives happily thereafter. That’s how the ABC (and friends) would have it. What does it take to get serious about this.

      301

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        4 Corners may be Australia’s proudest TV program, but it has a lot of revenge coming its way!

        61

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          All is foolishness….the ABc need to be sold off as its a far-left outpost…

          91

          • #
            Raven

            Well, selling off the ABC is all well and good but it’s value is the sum of the assets and a projection of potential future profits.

            Who might be a prospective buyer?
            Fairfax comes immediately to mind, but they’re on the edge of an abyss anyway.
            I reckon one could characterise Fairfax as really just the print arm of the ABC with, I’d suggest, the same audience.
            While I like the idea of selling it, as a commercial proposition, I don’t reckon there’d be many lining up with the cash.

            50

      • #
        Fantail

        The entire pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-tidal, pro-green movement is wishful thinking. Just a few more solar panels; just a few more windmills; just an adjustment to the mix with tidal; a large mirror in space is only a decade away. It’ll be self-sufficient and capable of 100% of energy production with just a little more time and investment. Delusions are grand.

        151

      • #
        Environment Skeptic

        I didn’t watch it because governments all over the world are now privatised meaning that they are controlled by banks/moneychangers/debt ……so it looks to me as though all i can see is sophisticated bread and circus’s…… and also i did not watch because we are entering what i suspect is a mini-ice-age….the signs seem to be there….I study tomatoe growth and my research and my tomatoes suggests increasing cold….

        “Cold snap that destroyed English vineyards may be worse than first thought, growers fear”
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/08/cold-snap-destroyed-english-vineyards-may-worse-first-thought/ ……

        https://www.sott.net/topic/14-Extreme-Temperatures

        40

    • #

      I just loved the way that guy, whoever he was, said ….. wind, solar, pumped hydro, batteries, viola baseload power plant.

      No one actually mentioned that the batteries needed charging or that the pumped hydro needed as much power to, you know pump the water back up the hill, you know, actually use the power for distribution and to charge the batteries at the same time with the same power.

      Tony.

      450

      • #
        David Maddison

        They also don’t understand that there are significant losses (20% as a ball park figure) associated with charging and discharging batteries and pumped hydro.

        121

      • #

        Why is it that we NEVER hear from actual Electrical Engineers on programs like this 4Corners beat up. All you get are politicians and economists, not one of which actually understands how the electrical power is generated. Because of that, the public (what there is of it who watches 4 Corners) get a false idea of how these renewables are somehow ….. EQUAL to what they are intended to replace.

        4Corners could actually do one of their 50 minute shows just with some EE’s and allow them to actually explain it all.

        That would be quite literally revolutionary, because even I know it will NEVER happen.

        Imagine if you will that the people actually understood how power was generated. There would be questions asked that would make all those now doing what they are doing squirm.

        I’m almost afraid that we have actually lost.

        We’re just going to have to wait for the coming catastrophe, because that what it will be, and there’ll be nowhere to hide then. People will want explanations.

        Oh, and have no worries about Queensland. We have the youngest fleet of coal fired power in the Country, and the Government has given themselves the insurance of saying that they will not be closing down any coal fired power plants before 2030, stated in black and white. (shown at this link – Just follow the prompt and you’ll get the two page pdf document, and it’s at the very bottom of page 2)

        That of itself is a Nameplate of 8203MW and even at the daily peaks these days it still only gets to 7000MW to 7500MW. They’ll just cover any situation with all that coal fired power.

        Until people actually understand that a renewable power plant is nowhere even the smallest fraction of equality with a large scale coal fired power plant, then this renewable $t00pidity will just continue.

        Oh, and 4Corners (or any TV or radio channel) ever doing something remotely even close to what I mentioned, well forget that. It’ll never happen.

        Tony.

        320

        • #
          Rick Will

          Why is it that we NEVER hear from actual Electrical Engineers on programs like this 4Corners beat up.

          I doubt you could find many electrical engineers who are not supporting renewables. It is gold from heaven for most electrical engineers and particularly recent graduates. How many recent graduates do you think have actually been in a power station! Australia will need to invest at least 5% of its annual GDP on intermittent energy production over the next 35 years to get close to 100% renewable by 2050. JOBS JOBS JOBS. And not in dusty coal mines and dirty coal fired steam plants.

          Finkel is an electrical engineer and it was primarily electrical engineers who put together the CSIRO Energy Roadmap:
          http://www.energynetworks.com.au/video

          The new AEMO head is a lawyer and a strong supporter of renewables:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdvXBka2nYI

          The majority of engineers are working in specialist fields and few would have taken the time to look systematically at the power grid. Electrical engineers have rose coloured glasses as good as any. My bet is the power supply will gradually transform to renewables with power costs settling around 60c/kWh in current terms. There will be no coal generators unless they are owned/operated as base load providers closely coupled to the load e.g. GPS and Boyne Smelter. Batteries and pumped storage will find some application but the main energy storage will be in hydrogen production as it is a versatile fuel for transport.

          I expect engineers working on water electrolysis and hydrogen fuel cells will have a good future. Hydrogen be compatible with the current natural gas distribution network.

          21

          • #
            Bobl

            Nope, hydrogen is a small molecule that leaks easily from storage, it can’t be liquified so it’s energy density is low, it causes entitlement in metals and breaks down polymers so it’s not compatible with hydrocarbon pipes and storage, it burns explosively, and burning it permanently removes oxygen from the atmosphere. It is just about the worst possible fuel.

            40

            • #
              Bobl

              Enbrittlement, not entitlement, grr predictive text strikes again

              30

            • #
              Rick Will

              Hydrogen is used throughout industry, transported in steel pipes.
              https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines

              Explosions are what IC engines run on. Any fuel gas or liquid vapour can explode given the right combination with air. Hydrogen just has a wider range of explosive mixtures in air than other gases or liquid vapours. It is relatively safe in industry because its buoyancy in air disperses it quickly. Its BLEVE potential is lower than some other cryogenic liquids.

              What do you think hydrolysis means? That process returns the oxygen to the atmosphere or it can be stored for recombination with the hydrogen. The most demanding transport systems on and off the planet have been using liquid hydrogen fuel and oxygen for decades:
              https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/hydrogen_fuel_of_choice.html

              All major car manufacturers are making hydrogen powered cars and there are a few refuelling stations:
              http://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-first-hydrogen-car-launched-with-solar-refueller-63637/
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah1yzbiAwiM
              http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2013-14/environment-products-plan-migration-fcv.html
              http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/vw-golf-hymotion/
              http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-honda-team-create-hydrogen-powered-cars-n714556

              There are different routes being pursued for the most economic and safe storage. Mass storage will most likely be in underground caverns:
              https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/operating-flexibility-power-plants-ccs/2-underground-hydrogen-storage

              00

              • #
                bobl

                I stand by my assesment, methane is a much better fuel because it carries 4 oxidizable atoms per molecule making it several times as energy dense as hydrogen, plus it is able to be made using simple bacterial digestion systems essentially for free using only bio energy or relativley simple chemical processes where electrolysis uses more energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen than is EVER recovered from the hydrogen. All my other points are true in every way, hydrogen is a dumb fuel unless you want to release large amounts of energy in a short explosion as in a rocket.

                Methane is also truly renewable and endless in supply.

                10

              • #
                bobl

                Oops that should be 5 atoms or 3 oxidation reactions. CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O, Octane is even better because it’s a liquid – even better energy density, meaning you don’t need tanks the size of the space shuttle to carry reasonable amounts of energy.

                10

              • #
                Rick Will

                If you understand the challenges of using intermittent generation to supply power on demand then you must realise there needs to be a massive excess of generating capacity. Of the order of 7 times the peak demand with the current NEM demand profile in Australia. All that excess capacity in the electrical network can be put to good use producing hydrogen from water. The energy is free once the energy collection is in place and ubiquitous. Water is readily available in most locations or easily transported in the same corridors as the gas transport. Electric energy storage in gas is a tiny fraction of the cost of battery storage and the energy transfer is much faster than with battery storage.

                The car makers are making massive investments in hydrogen fuel technology. Why?

                Refuelling stations can be solar and wind farms with a water supply. They get high price for the electric energy they supply to the network and get value from the infrastructure producing hydrogen when the network is oversupplied.

                00

              • #
                bobl

                I understand exactly the overbuild required you say 7 times peak, I say 25 times average which is more accurate but within 25% these are the same number. But I’m an EE and an Asset Manager so I take into account reliability of supply and most importantly all the lifecycle COSTS including monetary, social and environmental and importantly the worlds scarcest and most valuable commodity – land. A solar station the size of NSW is simply nuts with enormous social implications enormous costs and the state of NSW tiled with solar panels is an environmental disaster. Remember also that in spite of the palace chooks brain snap, you can’t build solar power stations in cyclone prone areas or in sandy deserts, or below about 40 deg S. 100% solar at 99.5% reliability is in all practicality impossible. Yes the overbuild does provide you a certain amount of non dispatchable – let’s say opportunistic, energy but at what cost – it is low value energy and it’s not economically worth it.

                Let me put it this way, you can’t just scale up your simple domestic solar array to the grid, the design parameters and costs are wildly different. Most of your costs are sunk, grid scale they are not.

                Let me also make the point that even with a x 7 overbuild the CO2 to make the solar power facility exceeds the CO2 saved by the energy created by a factor of at least 3. It’s more expensive, emits more lifecycle CO2 and has a working life 1/3 of coal/gas so exactly what is the point of doing it? Me, I’d rather see cancer cured or malaria wiped from the earth or africa/india completely electrified (using coal power of course)

                Look, I’m sure the truth is confronting, but you know being an Engineer is disillusioning some times I would like it to be true that solar energy can be the saviour of mankind but you know, it’s just not, It’s useful in certain contexts, but not for gridscale. Nor is it remotely possible that the climate works the way the climate models say because the engineering theory – bode feedback theory – has been grossly misused and missapplied. It is not possible to get a x 3 amplification in a psssive system, the climate modelers ignore the time dimension, they assume that feedbacks that occur over different time frmes can be added, they can’t – feedback with time delays is NOT a scalar problem, but the models are scalar. They also ignore saturation effects which any EE knows about. It’s a childishly simple model which has no physical basis for being true.

                00

              • #
                Rick Will

                You are making the mistake common among scientists and engineers that science and engineering matter. They do not. Money matters and it is what drives our economies.

                As long as the banks see a money making opportunity they will exploit it to increase profits and executive incomes. Banks drive the world economy and the politics.

                Banks see massive potential in so-called renewable energy and be clear there is no doubt that it is now technically feasible to have 100% renewable power 24/7 365 days a year. I have been doing it for my largest residential loads for the last 5 years. The amount of land it requires and the CO2 lifecycle are now irrelevant in this debate.

                Unless you are making your own power you will be paying more for grid power as more capital is invested in intermittent generators and the banks need to guaranteed returns by protecting their investment – simple. The banks are backing renewables so that is how it will be.

                Nor is it remotely possible that the climate works the way the climate models say because the engineering theory – bode feedback theory – has been grossly misused and missapplied.

                Making comments about climate models when discussing the merits or otherwise of renewables investment is so innocently naive. Such comments are completely irrelevant. I expect Trump is learning that lesson now. The horse has bolted. The banks have too much to lose by changing course now and an endless gold mine by following down the renewable track.

                You can bleat on about the waste of all the money going into renewables or you can focus on how you can insulate yourself from the financial impact of rapidly rising electricity costs from grid supply.

                10

        • #

          Until people actually understand that a renewable power plant is nowhere even the smallest fraction of equality with a large scale coal fired power plant…..

          You know, like the current situation, right now, 3.00PM Tuesday 9th May 2017.

          Australia currently has 4395MW of Wind Power.(Nameplate)

          You know, almost the same as for Bayswater and Liddell Power plants combined, and that total is 4640MW. Keep in mind here that Liddell is now basically used by the owners AGL, (you know, that mob getting out of coal, yeah right) and AEMO as rolling reserve, so those four 500MW Units at Liddell just run as they might be called upon, and now they run at a derated half rat power, around 280MW per unit, umm, still more per unit than nearly all wind plants in Oz, from an ancient old clunker of a plant now nearly 50 years old.

          So, effectively, All those wind plants should, should have enough Nameplate, (bu hey the public thinks Nameplate is what’s written underneath the plate they eat dinner off) to replace both Bayswater and Liddell, eh.

          So then, almost equal value Nameplate.

          Current amounts of power actually being generated

          Bayswater 1885MW from three of four units as AGL carries out a $63 Million upgrade, shutting down one unit at a time, until the end of this Month.

          Liddell 1120MW for ALL four Units running

          So, Bayswater plus Liddell 3005 MW you know, barely three quarters of all that Nameplate for that massive wind power from 45 Wind Plants with around 2000 plus towers.

          Wind power actual generation 25MW, and yep, you did read that correctly Twenty Five MegaWatts. That’s a Capacity factor of 0.56%

          25 MW, you know, what Bayswater and Liddell are currently delivering in, umm, 30 SECONDS.

          What would actually happen if someone went on TV and actually mentioned that.

          He’d be laughed at, that’s what.

          Tony.

          181

        • #
          Bushkid

          That of itself is a Nameplate of 8203MW and even at the daily peaks these days it still only gets to 7000MW to 7500MW. They’ll just cover any situation with all that coal fired power.

          Tony, that will only happen if government regulation etc., doesn’t make it uneconomical for the power station operators to keep operating. That’s one of the problems that beset SA last year, and the reason for the closure of the coal fired power station in Victoria last month. I suspect we Queenslanders (including those of us who did not and never will vote liebour) are actually in for abad time like the rest of Qld. Remember, the aluminium smelter here in Gladstone has just reduced capacity due to electricity costs – despite owning part of the local power station here.

          10

    • #
      David Maddison

      I’m glad I didn’t watch it, I find listening to ignorant fools very depressing.

      190

      • #
        Annie

        We made a conscious decision not to watch it as we knew it would send the old BP too high. I’m so fed up with all the smarmy ly1ng coming out of the MSM and our being criticised for daring to want to find the real truth.

        What is truth?

        131

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Truth is Australia returning to the 1970s depressing warfies and coal mining strikes of the UK that paraysed the country…

          Ah the Left…..it still stinks, no matter the decade….

          151

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        I didn’t see all of it, but given that the ABC is a Marxist enclave it looked to me a useful description of the scene we see. However I see that others will not see it in the same light that I do.

        What they won’t see is that 1. CO2 is not harmful, and 2. The Market is corrupted by politics. They rightly blame politics, but their view will be on the wrong side of the problem.

        130

    • #
      chriso

      I hope the turnbull coalition team wasn’t watching this dribble…..they seem to base decisions on what the green/left minority barks at them.

      30

  • #

    Then there’s this: http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/murraydarling-basin-water-savings-lose-their-spark/news-story/cd133a0f3d225c3124e4dadb2892e4f3.

    SKYROCKETING power prices are undermining water ­efficiency works in the Murray-Darling Basin, irrigators say.

    Many of the projects funded under the Federal Government’s $626 million On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program require electricity to drive pumps that feed water into lateral and pivot irrigators, pipes and risers on dairy farms or pressurised pipelines for spray and drip irrigation.

    “Everyone is getting into water-efficiency grants, but haven’t realised it’s killing their energy efficiency,” Murrumbidgee Irrigation director Tony Sergi said. “What we’re saving in water, we’re losing in electricity.”

    Rising power bills led Mr Sergi to abandon electric pumps on his own plum and winegrape property and opt for diesel instead.

    220

    • #

      And to add to the insanity: http://www.dailywire.com/news/16154/global-quackery-earth-has-not-warmed-past-19-years-joseph-curl:

      The Telegraph newspaper in the UK has published a fascinating article detailing data from the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI).

      Ever since December temperatures in the Arctic have consistently been lower than minus 20 C. In April the extent of Arctic sea ice was back to where it was in April 13 years ago. Furthermore, whereas in 2008 most of the ice was extremely thin, this year most has been at least two metres thick. The Greenland ice cap last winter increased in volume faster than at any time for years.

      As for those record temperatures brought in 2016 by an exceptionally strong El Niño, the satellites now show that in recent months global temperatures have plummeted by more that 0.6 degrees: just as happened 17 years ago after a similarly strong El Niño had also made 1998 the “hottest year on record”.

      This means the global temperature trend has now shown no further warming for 19 years. But the BBC won’t be telling us any of this. And we are still stuck with that insanely damaging Climate Change Act, which in this election will scarcely get a mention.

      Must be fake news.

      361

      • #
        Dennis

        And the usual suspects if informed of this would respond about the cooling with their usual warning that the warming will return, global warming will be back and worse.

        I can’t wait for next summer.

        40

  • #
    Graham Richards

    And we all thought the Carbon Taxes were a thing of the past!
    I comment regularly that the Turnbull Government is pushing thru the carbon taxes under any devious, name changing, devious means possible. This, one notices is the only policy which the ALP does not oppose!

    270

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well yes….Turnbull is a Socialist….it was a prerequisite for gettingt he top job..that and being the Globalists bell hop boy….

      120

      • #
        Dennis

        No wonder he dislikes Tony Abbott who said in 2015 when he was still Prime Minister: I will not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

        51

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well yes, which is probably also one of the reasons Abbott was thrown out….cant have the feline out of the bag so easily….

          40

  • #
    Pauly

    Many people acknowledge that politicians, as a group, are woefully lacking science knowledge and understanding. That explains why they have been taken in by the political campaign pushing CAGW. As a group, they also seem to lack engineering knowledge and skills, so seem incapable of seeing the impact of solar and wind power on national electricity grids, even when entire states suffer blackouts.

    However, I would have thought that understanding economic theory and the basic relationship of policies to economic change would be a more common skill. Apparently not. A weakness of democracy when the argument uses consensus as its central theme, perhaps?

    160

    • #

      Actually, politicians today lack a spine. They merely follow the populist agenda, even if they doubt the veracity of what they are told. It’s why we are headed the South American route, because no politician has the spine to make the necessary difficult decisions. And, with the Liberals, it’s even more stupid because they are going to lose the next election anyway, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by making hard decisions.

      170

    • #
      Spetzer86

      Think link to an old Dilbert might identify what the problem is: http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-11-23

      120

    • #
      Mark

      They are all bloody lawyers! What do expect? Garbage in equals garbage out, or rather, no matter what goes in garbage comes out!

      60

      • #
        TedM

        “They are all bloody lawyers” Yes and their lips are moving!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        40

      • #
        Allen Ford

        Same as with bean counters – they are great at counting beans that someone else has created, but hopeless at actually creating new beans. Hence, never, ever put bean counters in charge of setting policy!

        60

    • #
      clive

      The climate change believers are still at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. Sadly, they have and will cause great damage to the rest of us on their way to their final battle.

      101

  • #
    Antoine

    I can’t wait for demand destruction and blackouts in Qld. No better nor faster way to drive people away from renewable energy BS. Only when it hurts the masses will they awake from their slumber and react.

    150

    • #
      C. Paul Barreira

      Not in South Australia. The public generally is blind, very happily ignorant and content to remain that way. Perhaps Queensland will be different. At least, as the chief executive of Rio, Jean-Sebastien Jacques, remarked (final sentence of linked article in AFR)

      Power in Queensland needs to be fixed, and it’s not a lack of capacity. It’s a question of regulation here.”

      In SA, government deliberately destroyed that capacity (Victoria seems to be following suit). “Failed governance”? Not really. Duplicitous—yes. Ideological—yes, in the direction of a command economy and away from liberty.

      170

      • #
        Dennis

        I once started a new political party, the Apathy Party of Australia.

        Nobody turned up for the first meeting.

        50

        • #
          Yonniestone

          I was a member of the OCD party until I was thrown out for being efficient, they told me to “leave and shut the door 8 times after yourself.”

          50

          • #
            OldGreyGuy

            I suffer from CDO. It is the same as OCD, but the letters are in the correct order.

            30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        C. Paul Barreira says:

        Antoine says:

        I can’t wait for demand destruction and blackouts in Qld. … Only when it hurts the masses will they awake from their slumber and react.

        Not in South Australia. The public generally is blind

        I say No! The public in SA are not blind. They are just positive thinkers! The blackouts are not a tragedy, they are an opportunity. When us Queenslanders are watching our televisions or reading books at 9pm when the power goes out in SA, the southerners will be taking advantage of the fantastic opportunity a citywide power outage represents for practising astronomy!

        An increase in light pollution and the purchase of a new telescope led the group to create a permanent observatory in 1986 north of the city in Stockport.
        “Australia has some of the most darkest skies in the world,” Mr Curnow said.
        “We are in one of the best places in the world [to stargaze].”

        See, not blind at all, in fact they have been seeing bigger objects than you can at 9pm. Get your head out of the Earth, skeptics! /s
        :)

        31

    • #
      Robdel

      I agree. The quicker the better to get rid of the CAGW insane policies. Otherwise it will be a protracted death.

      80

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        It will the death of someones loved on an operating table due to a black out , that will be the wake up call…I’d hate to be any pollie that allowed the power mess to happen on that day…they will be digging fox holes to hide from the public that fast all you will see will be dirt flying…

        70

      • #

        Robdel, death by a thousand cuts?

        00

  • #
    TdeF

    The problem is not the electricity prices per se, 8c kw/hr or 18c kw/hr. The problem is the huge tax on ‘fossil fuels’ which is the RET (Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000) which is a 9c kw/hr tax on coal and gas and oil. This is for nothing at all and is at wholesale, so the public see it doubled without knowing why? Coal is 4c kw/hr and ‘renewables’ 8c kw/hr, but the additional 9c kw/hr makes coal and gas 13c kw/hr of which most is cash to windmill operators.

    Remove the RET and prices would plummet. The $5-$6Billion of tax either goes in markups to electricity poles and wires operators and another half to people who import windmills, so $3Billion overseas, $50Million a week. This is half the interest on the National debt.

    Consider that aluminum is 90% electricity. As the head of Bluescope has publicly said, he can buy power in the US at 1/10th of the AUstralian price.

    Further billions in our State taxes are being secretly paid to keep these places open.Without secret subsidies, every smelter would have closed two years ago, so you can double the cost to the taxpayer and electricity user, which is everyone.

    Senator Malcolm Robert’s team is looking at it. The IPA is looking at it. What is needed is a High Court challenge to the RET as being beyond the power of a Federal government, as it is not a tax and not a government service and there is no demonstration of any benefit. It is a ripoff, legal extortion by windmill suppliers, a mandated payment to anonymous third parties, a power which is beyond government. At over $200/ton for Natural Gas, it is easily the highest Carbon tax in the world, without mentioning the word carbon nor the word tax.

    Remove the RET now and we will suddenly stop having the highest electricity prices in the world. Otherwise every smelter will close, Portland, Port Pirie, Whyalla Glencore. Australia is being crippled by this massive Green tax and governments at every level are pretending they do not know why Hazelwood closed. It worked fine but at 4c kw/hr, it could not turn a profit.

    362

    • #
      TdeF

      Even the adopted name RET is not the name of the act. Politicians pretend it is a Renewable Energy Target, but that target has no meaning in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act. The target is not mentioned in the original Act. Nor Tax. Nor Carbon. Since 2000 every government has fiddled it and now it is a monster and ministers complain about the failure of the ‘market’. Utter deceit.

      282

    • #
      David Maddison

      TdeF, thank you for your ongoing analyses of how the carbon tax works.

      What I would also be interested in is what are the legal implications of removing the RET since there are contracts in place to provide the unreliables suppliers with vast profits at the expense of the consumer.

      Can this tax be removed without massive litigation?

      101

      • #
        Robber

        Amending legislation to implement the Government’s reforms to the Renewable Energy Target (RET) was agreed to by the Australian Parliament on 23 June 2015.

        The package of reforms includes measures that will provide certainty to industry, encourage further investment in renewable energy and better reflect market conditions.

        The RET has been amended to:

        – protect Australian jobs and help industries remain competitive by increasing assistance for all emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries to 100 per cent exemptions from all RET costs
        – remove the requirement for biennial reviews of the scheme and replace them with regular status updates by the Clean Energy Regulator, to provide more certainty to industry and transparency to consumers

        The LRET creates a financial incentive for the establishment or expansion of renewable energy power stations, such as wind and solar farms or hydro-electric power stations. It does this by legislating demand for Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs). One LGC can be created for each megawatt-hour of eligible renewable electricity produced by an accredited renewable power station. LGCs can be sold to entities (mainly electricity retailers) who surrender them annually to the Clean Energy Regulator to demonstrate their compliance with the RET scheme’s annual targets. The revenue earned by the power station for the sale of LGCs is additional to that received for the sale of the electricity generated.
        The LRET includes legislated annual targets which will require significant investment in new renewable energy generation capacity in coming years. The large-scale targets ramp up until 2020 when the target will be 33,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable electricity generation.

        The SRES creates a financial incentive for households, small businesses and community groups to install eligible small-scale renewable energy systems such as solar water heaters, heat pumps, solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, small-scale wind systems, or small-scale hydro systems. It does this by legislating demand for Small-scale Technology Certificates (STCs). STCs are created for these systems at the time of installation, according to the amount of electricity they are expected to produce or displace in the future. For example, the SRES allows eligible solar PV systems to create, at the time of installation, STCs equivalent to 15 years of expected system output.

        RET-liable entities with an obligation under the LRET also have a legal requirement under the SRES to buy STCs and surrender them to the Clean Energy Regulator on a quarterly basis.

        While it is possible for owners of renewable energy systems to create and sell the STCs themselves, in practice, installers of these systems usually offer a discount on the price of an installation, or a cash payment, in return for the right to create the STCs.

        So all the subsidies are set in stone, and therefore we pay ever increasing amounts for electricity. Wholesale prices up from $46/MWhr to $110/MWhr, plus the REC subsidy of $82/MWhr for wind/solar/hydro suppliers (currently 15% of supplies so adding another $12/MWhr to average prices, to increase to 23.5% by 2020 or $19/MWhr.

        Theoretically the government could abolish the RET, but all the rent seekers would demand compensation.

        But don’t worry, more subsidies are coming.
        The Australian Government recognises the important role community and household solar plays in Australia’s transition to a low emissions economy with an increase in renewable energy.
        The $5 million Solar Communities program will support local responses to climate change and help deliver lower electricity costs for community organisations. The program will provide funding for community groups in selected regions across Australia to install rooftop solar PV, solar hot water and solar-connected battery systems. Funding rounds for the Solar Communities program are likely to start in the first half of 2017. These rounds will be targeted to specific regions. (ie in areas where pork barreling is required)

        Funding of $2.1 million (GST exclusive) was provided for the programme from 2014-15 to 2015-16 to support community organisations who wish to install a renewable energy system (solar photovoltaic panels or a solar hot water system only) on an existing building that provides support to community groups. The Australian Government has made a commitment to install renewable energy systems in preselected community sites and regions.

        80

        • #
          David Maddison

          So basically what you’re saying is that the economic damage is locked in and there is no possibility of recovery…

          60

          • #
            TdeF

            The people who have planned on this massive hidden tax have taken a risk. Contractually we own them nothing. They are being paid for nothing. It is not even a tax and they have no entitlements. They are opportunists creaming an incredible situation where people are forced to give them cash to buy power from someone else? Just repeal it.

            Consdier no one bothered to ask Mitsui/Engie about their $3.5Billion investment in Hazelwood or the $1.5Bn cleanup bill or the fact that their lease had another 20 years to run? Even Malcolm Turnbull said it was a private matter. How devious is that?

            No one worries about forcing foreign owners to walk away or the billions being paid to Alcoa and the Dutch Owners of Port Pirie or even the owners of Whyalla and other businesses crippled by carbon tax.

            No, the carpet baggers flogging billions in windmills and windmill power and home solar can go home. We do not need them.

            Or if we did, introduce a $6Bn tax in the budget and the government can buy its own windmills. The whole Pink Batts disaster was only $2.5Bn a year. This is double that, every year, every year. What good has it done? NONE.

            100

            • #
              TdeF

              “Theoretically the government could abolish the RET, but all the rent seekers would demand compensation.”

              No. We owe them nothing. They have no contract with anyone. They are not government clients. They are not even our clients. They give us nothing in return for our cash.

              If the gravy train ended tomorrow, they will have lost nothing. If they are building windmills with their money fine, operate them. If they are building them with our money, just stop.

              90

        • #
          TdeF

          So you are saying the smelters might not close, thanks to legislative fiddling? Not the basis of this story. The smelters are closing and the power stations. We cannot afford to use our own gas and we have to stop more billions being spent to subsidize smelters at say Townsville, Portland, Whyalla, Port Pirie and power stations like Hazelwood. Hazelwood was paid of the order of $500Million to stay open.

          “a financial incentive for the establishment or expansion of renewable energy power stations”. Incentive? We are forced to give our cash to foreigners to build their own windmills. We get nothing and own nothing. Power is extra.

          The revenue earned by the power station for the sale of LGCs is additional to that received for the sale of the electricity generated.”

          Translation: Worse than a tax. You get nothing for your money. You still have to buy power from someone who owns the solar panels and windmills for which you were forced to pay.

          Stop the RET Renewables Energy Tax.

          110

      • #
        Rick Will

        If the RET is lowered or removed there is no incentive for intermittent generators. There is currently no private money for coal fired generators. So there is a T-intersection close ahead where governments have to back the RET and increase it to 100% by 2050 to get the private sector to fund intermittent generation and storage or fund coal fired generation right now.

        Given the present government has taken baby steps toward pumped storage I expect the prospect of money for coal fired generation is near zero. I cannot see Finkel recommending a coal fired generator. Coal will be gone by 2060 and electric power will be more expensive. Individual consumers will have to assess if the grid actually affords any benefit.
        http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/50year-rule-for-coalfired-power-stations-gathers-steam/news-story/85b73c2adb1238c22e6663752553ad41

        It is inevitable that fossil fuels are replaced with other sources, either intermittent or nuclear, but the current rush forced by the Climate Disruption Theory from the Humpty Dumpty Science School is 50 to 100 years sooner than it needs to be. That means there will be higher electric costs because the transition is not driven by economics but rather the nonsense of CD.

        41

        • #
          TdeF

          ” Coal will be gone by 2060″

          Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up? Inevitable? Who said?

          There is absolutely no problem with coal or gas, except those created by the RET. We have had a century of great, stable, adequate and utterly reliable power, so why would we stop? We have hundreds of years of coal. 98% of our CO2 comes from overseas. So what is your problem?

          So we will have all nuclear in Australia? Or windmills? Who is paying for all this when we have such cheap power supply now and for the next few hundred years?

          If it wasn’t for the irrational fear of CARBON, there would be no problem today. CO2 is not pollution. There is no problem which requires the trillion dollar replacement of all our Coal and gas power stations with nuclear, unless you live in another country.

          The only problem in Australia today is the irrational fear of Carbon Dioxide, the world’s worst pollutant which is drowning our cities, wrecking our ecology, removing our beaches and destroying our coral reefs. Is that it?

          30

          • #
            Rick Will

            TdeF asked:

            Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up? Inevitable? Who said?

            Where do I get it from:
            Final Report

            Retirement of coal fired power stations

            29 March 2017

            © Commonwealth of Australia 2017
            ISBN 978-1-76010-542-6

            This is the recommendations:
            http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Coal_fired_power_stations/Final%20Report/b02

            The CSIRO roadmap has 100% renewables by 2050 and coal power stations are deemed to have no more than 50 year life. The last coal power station in Australia was built in 2010 so all gone by 2060.

            There is no doubt that renewables can power what will be left of Australia. All heavy industry will be conducted in places that buy our coal, LNG and iron ore. The only heavy industry in Australia will be mining and many mines already have captive power supplies. Power costs for businesses and premises will be higher whether they make their own or take it from the grid.

            20

            • #

              It’s nice to read a report on things like this, but my thinking is always brought back to the Load Curve for (actual) power consumption in Australia, and it looks something similar to this, (when the graph shows up, press MW at the top right of the image there) only where that dip point here indicates 16,000MW, the actual total for consumption is 18000MW.

              That’s an ABSOLUTE requirement for 24 hours of every day. Renewables are currently supplying around 2000MW on average for the full 24 hours each day.

              Until they can actually supply that full 18000MW for every hour of every day, then there will always be a requirement for power plants which actually can deliver that amount of power.

              Of that 16000MW you see in that load curve, coal fired power makes up almost 13,000MW plus, of it, so it will not be coming from Gas fired power alone.

              And this is not just the Oz households, the residential sector, we are talking about, or even Industry.

              Just to keep Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane alone actually with full power, you’ll need 8500MW alone on a full 24 hour basis.

              Renewables will never cover that actual requirement for 18000MW on a full 24/7/365 basis.

              Australia will never have 100% renewables, no matter what any report might say.

              Tony.

              40

              • #
                Rick Will

                Renewables will never cover that actual requirement for 18000MW on a full 24/7/365 basis.

                Never is a long time and could be right but not for the reason you believe. As costs go up, the demand will fall and may average much lower than 18GW in 2050; the 100% renewables target date that CSIRO have established. It will be cheaper for industry (that survives), businesses and individual residences to make their own electricity so the demand could simply fall to the tiny fraction required for stability across all the distributed generators. The NEM may just disappear.

                As I made clear in my submission to the Finkel enquiry it is possible to go 100% renewable. It simply requires thinking BIG and that translates to higher power costs:
                http://www.environment.gov.au/submissions/nem-review/willoughby.pdf
                The huge excess generating capacity required to meet demand as it occurs could be put to good use producing hydrogen and feeding that into existing gas networks and gas storage. The only distributed service requirement for premises without solar or wind collection is a fuel cell to produce the electricity that the premises requires. Hydrolysis of water, as a means of energy storage, is around 2.5% the cost of current lithium battery storage but the end product is gas that is more costly to convert back to electricity than chemical storage of a battery. On the other hand hydrogen gas has much higher energy density than batteries so suits requirement for transport.

                01

              • #
                Bobl

                Rick, do you believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too? Generating enough reliable energy for Singapore requires a solar plant six times the size of Singapore. Satisfying the world needs requires solar plants covering 40 % of the land mass of the planet, and to give the third world first world access to energy requires solar over 80% of these land area of earth. Factor in say a 50% population increase and suddenly you need solar plants covering 120% of the land area of the planet…. exactly where should we grow our food then. Food production currently occupies about 40% of land area. I’ll put you in charge of the solar farms covering the Himalayas. Solar/wind does not scale the overbuild required makes it impossible and environmentally irresponsible.

                30

              • #
                Rick Will

                The analysis in the submission covers Australia. It is plausible for Australia to go 100% renewable and is the track Australia is heading down. Australia is the best placed country on the planet to go 100% renewable so it would be an economic advantage if all other countries were forced to do the same. It would certainly lower the living standard across the globe but that is the cost of saving the planet or so we are told.

                01

        • #
          TdeF

          “No private money for coal fired generators”. Again such expertise.

          Mitsui/Engie own Hazelwood. A $3.5Billion investment now shut down because they cannot make a profit despite having the cheapest product!
          They also own Pelican Point, a gas turbine which lost $15Million but has clearly done a secret deal with Weatherill to reopen. There is coal everywhere but it cost 3x as much to buy coal power and the money goes to windmills for nothing. That is not funding. That is theft.

          Double the coal incomes and investors would scramble to Australia. Many are already here.

          As the world’s biggest exporter of coal, surely it is understood that making coal unaffordable in Australia is totally artificial. Who needs nuclear?

          40

          • #
            Rick Will

            Projects need bank financing. Banks need to be confident that the business will survive to pay back the loan and interest. Can you see any London banker supporting investment in coal fired power plant in Australia without government guarantees. Even if there was a government guarantee, Australia is developing a record for sovereign risk per your power station examples and the tunnel project in Victoria. There is no way the next Federal Labour Government will honour any guarantees for coal fired power even if the present Liberal Government offered such guarantees.

            Coal fired plant WILL be phased out and power prices WILL rise. The trajectory is set and all the ducks are lining up.

            The transition will be hugely expensive but there will be jobs galore for those involved in the transition and everyone else not making their own power will make a huge financial contribution to the transition via their power bills.

            20

            • #
              Bobl

              Nope, not even close, well before then the price signal forces consumers off the grid and into diesel. The loss of customers will completely kill the grids business model resulting in the mass bankruptcy of the electricity industry, with it will be the collapse of civilisation as industry dies. The collapse of grid electricity is an existential threat. Energy prices are already hovering around the level where technology substitution is viable, we are at the precipice of a collapse. No government is willingly going to preside over that!

              40

              • #
                Rick Will

                Energy prices are already hovering around the level where technology substitution is viable, we are at the precipice of a collapse. No government is willingly going to preside over that!

                It is cheaper to use solar panels and batteries than diesel although the most economic solution at present entails a small diesel (or fossil fuel generator) in combination with panels and battery.

                The Australian Federal Government and all current State governments are presently presiding over exactly what you describe. There is no magic wand to the current situation. A coal fired power station cannot be built inside 10 years so the interim solution is more gas plants. rapid response diesels and battery installations. The latter 3 are all getting funds.

                00

              • #
                Bobl

                Sorry but it’s not, Solar doesn’t work 24x7x52 and to make it do so at grid level reliability requires a 25 x overbuild. That means that by far the most economical solution is a small solar array, with a small battery and diesel top up of batteries during energy deficits. This setup is about 1/10th the lifestyle cost of a solar only solution.

                The thing you ignore with you naive assertions is the grid equivalent reliability requirement. That your 5 KW system can deliver 5KW whenever you want it to.

                20

              • #
                Rick Will

                If you had bothered to look at the link to my submission for the Finkel inquiry you would be aware that I run a portion of my residential load off grid 24/7 365 days a year. I know exactly what it takes to do this in Melbourne Australia.

                The dimensions of what is required to run the NEM using solar are given in that submission:
                http://www.environment.gov.au/submissions/nem-review/willoughby.pdf

                Reading this and absorbing it will improve your knowledge on how it is done and what it would cost if the load stays as it is, which I doubt as there are no benefits to scale and the basic energy supply is ubiquitous.

                00

              • #
                bobl

                Perhaps you should read my submission which shows how reliable energy from 100% renewables is effectively impossible.

                10

              • #
                Rick Will

                Perhaps you should read my submission which shows how reliable energy from 100% renewables is effectively impossible.

                Where is your submission?

                00

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s the ABC’s summary about last night’s 4 corners and the link.

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2017/05/08/4663424.htm

    Power Failure

    POWER FAILURE – Monday 8 May 2017

    “It is remarkable how much we have stuffed up energy policy in this country.” Mining Lobbyist

    Four Corners investigates how a nation as rich as Australia is in coal, gas, sunshine and wind, has found itself in the middle of an energy crisis.

    “We’ve had a catastrophic failure of national policy making.” Industry Lobbyist

    For a decade, the politicisation of energy policy has divided the major political parties and brought down their leaders.

    “We’ve had a series of disasters, bad political decisions to end up where we are.” Energy Analyst

    The result is an uncertain energy future and soaring power bills.

    “We’ll pay about $750,000 this financial year, and next financial year we’re looking at about a $1.2 million gas bill…It’s an uncontrolled and sudden shock to our business.” Manufacturer

    On the eve of the Federal Budget, the program charts how short term politics has repeatedly overridden the national interest.

    “Blind Freddie could have seen this coming. Only those who are neglectful or deceitful or didn’t want to face this problem, wouldn’t have known this was coming.” Industry Lobbyist

    Four Corners has travelled across the nation to see how the lack of affordable and reliable power is driving some businesses to the wall, others are going offshore.

    “We’re the lucky country but at the moment it seems that we’re giving away most or all of our competitive advantages.” Manufacturer

    And with experts forecasting that winter will bring even higher power bills as well as blackouts next summer, there are calls to end the politicking and for real action to be taken.

    “Everyone keeps blaming everyone else and I would love as a consumer of electricity, I’d love both sides of government to come out and just find a solution.” Business Owner

    Power Failure, reported by Michael Brissenden and presented by Sarah Ferguson, goes to air on Monday 8th May at 8.30pm EDT. It is replayed on Tuesday 9th May at 10.00am and Wednesday 10th at 11pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 on Saturday at 8.00pm AEST, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      Not a mention of the Renewable Energy Tax? Our massive Carbon tax? It is working so well, crippling Australia and most Australians do not know it exists.

      200

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      They forgot to mention deliberate sabo***ge

      110

    • #
      Sceptical lefty

      There was also a conspicuous failure to mention the breathtaking hypocrisy of decrying ‘filthy’ coal while simultaneously being the world’s largest exporter. Unless all the purchasers of our coal are diligently reburying it to SAVE THE PLANET, we may as well burn the damned stuff ourselves. It also failed to mention that the only significant public health risk from coal is due to atmospheric particulates derived from combustion. These are adequately dealt with by scrubbing.

      It still hammered the ‘green’ meme that “carbon is bad”.

      Furthermore, when quoting the report into the South Australian storm-induced blackout, it was stated that renewables had no part in the disaster. This is literally true. The problem is not renewables, per se, but the brainless pursuit of them. As part of an overall plan, renewables undoubtedly have a place, but there needs to be serious consideration of just how much high-inertia baseload is required. The whole business is underpinned (sabotaged?) by the not-up-for-debate assumption that carbon is bad.

      I’ve practically given up. This unholy alliance between unthinking, idealistic Left-wingers and cynical, opportunistic Right-wingers* has acquired too much momentum. The science is virtually irrelevant. Unless we have undeniable cooling in the next few years we are likely to experience severe economic consequences. It will then turn out that nobody was really to blame and the science was as good as possible.

      *Can anyone seriously entertain the proposition that the money being thrown at this (with the expectation of rich dividends) comes from the Left? If you see a rich Left-winger, assuming that he hasn’t had a windfall, you can be certain that he is either lying about his political inclinations or that he is being supported (and used) by an enterprising Right-winger.

      30

  • #
    Tdef

    Consider also the true cost of high prices. Not only will all manufacturing jobs go forever, there is no tax relief for anyone as it is not a tax! Only public servants will survive. Even governments have to pay. Putting in banks of diesel will not help.

    Then think of the absurdity. Tasmania and South Australia using State taxes to replace natural gas power with diesel. Tiny Tasmania is spending $11 million a month on diesel power. How Green is that? SA’s Submarine corporation spent $30 million to buy their own Diesel power. We all are paying to close Hazelwood

    Like those VW/Audi advertisements to attract Green drivers to Diesel. Now all Diesel drivers are paying Green penalty taxes in London.

    262

    • #
      TdeF

      Still the Elites at their ABC do not have to worry. Their massive salaries, generous holidays and guaranteed indexed pensions are paid by coal and gas exports while they move to their own harbourside mansions in Sydney. Meanwhile they have no one to please but themselves and can show real solidarity with their poor commercial friends at Fairfax who have burned the company to the ground but want to keep their jobs.

      180

  • #
    Neville

    Not one Microbiologist in this audience thinks that climate change is the world’s number 1 threat. These people are all tertiary educated, intelligent people yet they don’t buy the extremist BS. Good for them. Here is the WUWT article and link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/08/awkward-moment-are-microbiologists-climate-denying-science-haters/
    “Awkward moment: Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?
    Anthony Watts / 2 hours ago

    “From the American Council on Science and Health comes this interesting but awkward moment in science communications.

    By Alex Berezow

    “Recently, I gave a seminar on “fake news” to professors and grad students at a large public university. Early in my talk, I polled the audience: “How many of you believe climate change is the world’s #1 threat?”

    Silence. Not a single person raised his or her hand.

    Was I speaking in front of a group of science deniers? The College Republicans? Some fringe libertarian club? No, it was a room full of microbiologists.

    How could so many incredibly intelligent people overwhelmingly reject what THE SCIENCE says about climate change? Well, they don’t. They just don’t see it as big of a threat to the world as other things. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them felt that antibiotic resistance and pandemic disease were the biggest global threats. One person thought geopolitical instability was the biggest concern.

    I told them that I believed poverty was the world’s biggest threat. The reason is poverty is the underlying condition that causes so much misery in the world. Consider that 1.3 billion people don’t have electricity. And then consider how the lack of that basic necessity — what the rest of us take completely for granted — hinders their ability to develop economically and to succeed, let alone to have access to adequate healthcare. If we fix poverty, we could stop easily preventable health problems, such as infectious disease and malnutrition.

    Was I booed out of the room? No, the audience understood why I believed what I did. But woe unto you who try to have a similar conversation with climate warriors.

    Woe Unto You, Bret Stephens

    Conservative columnist Bret Stephens, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, landed a new gig at the New York Times. His very first column, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” caused much weeping and gnashing of teeth. And probably the rending of garments. What did he say that caused so much outrage?

    In a nutshell, his thesis was that certainty often backfires. He used the Hillary Clinton campaign as an example; in his view, certainty of victory was one factor in her defeat. Next, Mr. Stephens drew an analogy with climate science, worrying that the certainty expressed by the most vocal proponents of major climate policy reforms are speaking with a sense of certainty that is not well-founded. He warned against taking imperfect models too seriously and the dangers of hyperbolic doom-mongering.

    It often irks me when political commentators write about science, usually because they haven’t the foggiest clue what they’re talking about. But Mr. Stephens’ article used reasonable and cautious language, and to my knowledge, he didn’t write anything that was factually incorrect. He simply concluded, as I myself have, that doomsday prophesying is wrong — and even if it was right, it convinces few people, anyway. (Do the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church change anyone’s mind?)

    Yet, the reaction was swift and entirely predictable. Vox, whose stated mission is to “explain the news,” called Mr. Stephens a “bullshitter.” GQ ran the headline, “Bret Stephens Is Why Liberals Have Every Right to Be Dicks.” And Wikipedia (whose founder is going to try to solve the problem of fake news) labeled him a “contrarian.”

    All that because Mr. Stephens warned against speaking hyperbolically. The concept of irony appears to be lost on his critics.

    Can Smart People Disagree About the Threat of Climate Change?

    What so many in the media (and apparently the climate science community) fail to understand is that people have different values and priorities. Foreign policy analysts are terrified of North Korea. Economists fear Brexit and a Eurozone collapse. Geologists, especially those in the Pacific Northwest, fear a huge earthquake. Experts across the spectrum perceive threats differently, usually magnifying those with which they are most familiar.

    That means smart people can accept a common core of facts (such as the reality of anthropogenic global warming) without agreeing on a policy response.

    Yet instead of being a place to debate a policy response for complex science issues, the media have chosen to be an extension of the militant Twitterverse. Even if you are just discussing courses of action, you are not allowed to deviate from climate orthodoxy lest you be labeled a science-denying heretic.

    Perhaps journalists should spend more time talking to microbiologists”.

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    What, if any, reason does industry have to stay in Australia except those that are involved in exporting LNG at (probably) the world’s cheapest priice of 1c per litre or exporting coal (which we are not allowed to burn more of at home)?

    The one “good” thing about the deindustrialisation of Australia, from the Government point of view, is that massive power failures will be forestalled as more electricity demand is removed from a shrinking grid due to the removal of industrial demand.

    111

    • #
      TdeF

      Also as coal and gas power plants close, the % of windmill power will increase. Job done. Soon we will only have windmill and solar, so no power at all at night and half the day while we export gas and coal to pay for the bicycles.

      150

      • #
        TdeF

        Also note that even if coal and gas were FREE. You would still have to pay 9c kw/hr tax. This is not for power, it is not for the gas, it is not a tax, it does not go to the government and you get no benefit for paying it.

        Consider also that the massive payment is NOT to the gas or coal companies. They get nothing at all. We have the world’s highest electricity prices but they do not go to the producers. That is why gas and coal are fleeing the country.

        It is not even a payment for power. It is a punishment for buying gas or coal or diesel power and it goes to anyone who can demonstrate they have produced (not sold) any electricity at all which is not from fossil fuel.

        The Victorian Labor governemnt under John Brumby even prohibited the sale of $400Million of brown coal to India. Why? The Age newspaper ran a campaign to say that the 60% water would be removed which would make the coal blacker.

        Of course every journalist knows that the blacker something is, the more polluting. Too bad CO2 is invisible. Next they will be banning clouds. Greenpeace even banned Chlorine, an element of the periodic table again without which no life on earth would exist.

        110

    • #
      Rick Will

      Our #1 export is iron ore and still making good margins but not as good as the banks. Banks have a license to print money then charge the debt slaves for what it loans out. Manufacturing money is the best business in town. Costs but a little computer storage to produce and garner returns on astronomical proportions.

      Iron ore exporters essentially generate their own power but it will be linked to gas and oil prices.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Australia has no hope. We should adjust our expectations to be a second rate country with once great potential but now ruled by idiots along the lines of Argentina or Venezuela.

    101

    • #
      TdeF

      Venezuela is much admired by their ABC, the Hollywood set and socialists around the world. A rich country devastated by socialism and Cuba by communism. Castro and Chavez, heroes to the Democrats, Hollywood and Their ABC.

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    The only reason Australia has the superficial appearance of being an advanced Western Country despite the fact that a majority of individuals are net wealth consumers rather than net taxpayers, huge amounts of government waste and despite the destruction of our most essential power production grid (the fundamental basis of an advanced economy) is because we are living on vast amounts of BORROWED money and we presently have a massive borrowing capacity.

    91

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      We have this massive borrowing capacity because we have been demonstrating for a long time that we are willing to sell the house to buy the beer. This we do in the belief that after we have sold the house we will determine the rent we pay to live in the house.

      Sounds silly, but that’s how it is.

      90

  • #
    Mark M

    One year before damage?

    It will take three years before renewable energy becomes cheaper!

    “A leading energy analyst has forecast that within three years new renewable projects will prevent more hikes in power prices.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-03/electricity-bills-to-fall-thanks-to-renewable-energy:-forecaster/8494154

    Australia? You’re standing in it.

    90

  • #
    Mark M

    Battery makers worldwide are watching to see whether Australia’s most wind power-dependent state can keep the lights on by installing grid-scale batteries by December, which could help drive the growth of renewable energy across Australia and Asia.

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/australian-push-may-open-more-doors-for-batteries-on-power-grids-20170507-gvzuyw.html

    > No need to watch. We know what will happen …

    Alan Finkel in Cosmos [August 2016]:
    Imagine if you took all the lithium-ion batteries produced in 2014 for phones, laptops and cars and instead used them to provide backup for the global electricity supply.
    They’d keep the world running for just nine seconds!
    https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/scale-and-a-new-favourite-number

    Alan Finkel to the IAEA [September 2016]:
    For example, if we took all the lithium ion batteries we produced right across the world in 2014, how long do you think we could rely on them to satisfy global electricity demand?
    Forty-six seconds, ladies and gentlemen…
    http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/28-Sept-IAEA-FOR-DISTRIBUTION.pdf

    Can’t say they weren’t warned …

    90

    • #
      David Maddison

      I suspect Finkel will have changed his mind now. After all, he is now paid to give the opinion that the Government wants to hear.

      111

      • #
        TdeF

        That’s why you call in experts. Nothing more telling than Turnbull hiring Labor’s man, Gonski. So Green energy policies, Labor defence policies, gay marriage and republic advocate, hates the Royal family and England and death to Catholic schools. Turnbull is actually more left than Shorten who attended Xavier college.

        How Turnbull dared show up in New York is beyond logic. Anti war, anti Trump and anti Australia, he sulked in public after shirtfronting the US president, not Putin. And that was over Turnbull’s mad solution.

        What did we in Australia do to deserve such a rampant opportunist who has no intention of governing or any faith or pride in Australia. As an only child he inherited his vast wealth and keeps it overseas, where it is safe from his taxes. Even Andrew Bolt is suggesting he is worse than Shorten!

        70

  • #
    philthegeek

    “Demand Destruction”

    ScoMo the happy clapper as treasurer…….destruction guaranteed.

    40

  • #
    Peter C

    How bad do things have to get before we change course?

    Parliaments in South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Federal are still in denial about the value of renewable energy. ABC and Fairfax (except maybe the AFR) are still feeding us propaganda about CO2, Climate Change and Rewnewables.

    90

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      There is only one logical conclusion – it has been thoroughly planned and those who have done it, know ( and want ) it to happen.

      People cant be that ignorant by accident.

      Its just not possible.

      130

  • #
    David Maddison

    Jo, the comment numbering is broken again. My reply to Neville came out as a new comment.

    20

  • #
    Robber

    Demand destruction and job destruction.
    State by State wholesale electricity prices per AEMO data files in $/MWhr.
    2016
    NSW 51.60 Qld 59.99 SA 61.67 Tas 102.70 Vic 46.14
    2017 Apr (Note that Hazelwood closed at end of March)
    NSW 106.46 Qld 94.76 SA 119.69 Tas 131.25 Vic 108.20
    2017 May
    NSW 102.57 Qld 96.00 SA 127.07 Tas 113.27 Vic 108.72
    And that’s before the $82/MWhr paid to wind/solar/hydro generators added to retail prices (currently they provide about 15% of demand), so that adds another $12/MWhr, before adding in network and retail costs and profits. My latest bill is 32 cents/KWhr including daily supply charge.

    Our electricity prices have become uncompetitive internationally, and governments are doing nothing. Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel is due to report sometime this year on reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity supplies, but unless he has the fortitude to recommend abolishing the RET, nothing will change.

    And gas shows a similar story. Vic prices Q1 2016 $4.31/gigajoule, Q1 2017 $9.11/gigajoule, data from Australian Energy Regulator. (what do they regulate??)

    Keep your eyes on Victoria in the next few days, as AEMO continues to forecast tight conditions (LOR2). While fossil fuel capacity is about 8,000 MW, over next 7 days AEMO is showing capacity available of 4720 MW tomorrow, dropping to 4251 MW on Thursday. Earlier in May according to Aneroid, Vic was producing 5500 MW from gas and coal, so possibly some plant is down for maintenance, and then there is the forecast strike at Yallourn next week that the State Government has said it will stop. Not happy, Premier Dan “CFMEU” Andrews.

    90

    • #
      David Maddison

      I bet Finkel’s “solution” will preclude thermal generation (coal, gas, nuclear) and include batteries or pumped hydro storage plus DRED technology, the ability for the power provider to remotely turn off your high power appliances such as air cons on pool pumps to shed load.

      There is no way he’ll be telling the Government anything they don’t want to hear or goes against the establishment Globull Warming Fallacy.

      110

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      I note that some of the wind farms in SA and Vic are “producing” minus 1%, that is they are taking power from the grid.

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Jo, new comments are not even appearing as the last comment on the list.

    20

    • #
      PeterS

      Broken yet again. We desperately need a new forum package – one that also allows us to edit or delete our own posts like virtually every other forum I’ve seen.

      10

  • #
    Mark

    We have guaranteed at least a decade of power chaos. Power stations are decommissioned without being replaced. It takes multiple years to build a coal fired station. Hazelwood was privatised with no requirement to replace it(that I could see)Now, it is gone with no replacement except more hot air of promised green energy. It is going to get worse before the unwashed wake up to the scam.

    70

    • #
      Robber

      With the current RET in place that mandates 23.5% of power by 2020 must be supplied by “renewables” versus current 15% (of which 6% is hydro) there is no way anyone will build another fossil power station. So in the next three years, all that is in the pipeline are more wind/solar investments to take their share of supply from current 9% to 18%. Hence some governments are now panicking with emergency gas turbines and diesel generators and possible batteries to backup unreliable wind/solar.

      60

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I recall saying 2 years ago telling people to put solar on their roofs before this started to really bite….

        Just need to develop a work around to get solar panels to output power once the house is off the grid…

        10

        • #
          TdeF

          If you want 100% windmills, just close the coal power stations. That is the explicit intent of the RET. The Green’s hatred of CO2 is amazing, self hate. They have no idea CO2 is as important to them as Oxygen and water. Three atoms, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon are the basis of all life on earth. The Greens want to ban one. One word describes them, but I would end up in moderation.

          60

        • #
          Bobl

          That just means a different inverter that is capable of impending. Batteries would be good for night times or even better an electric start generator with auto start on inverter fail.

          00

  • #
    tom0mason

    It all started so many years ago.
    The 1970s, when the UN could only dream of advanced technology offering such tools of freedom…
    Freedom for them to rule that is …
    http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074804eo.pdf

    50

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    “Demand Destruction”.

    A very neat summary. And so few understand it.

    30

  • #
    Neville

    Therese May now has the largest lead in polling history. But she also has the dumbest Labor opposition for over a century and led by the dumbest Labor leader ever. Here’s the Bolter’s link and article. Personally I’ll be surprised if this massive lead holds on election day. Who knows, I’ve been wrong before?

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/record-lead-for-british-conservatives/news-story/ffabd22def78d8b463d4f98f95d8a219

    “RECORD LEAD FOR BRITISH CONSERVATIVES
    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    May 9, 2017 8:46am

    Attention Liberals. In Britain, Prime Minister Therese May showed leadership and shifted the Conservatives to the Right.

    Now, a month before the election, she has the biggest poll lead ever recorded:

    British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party has opened up a 22-point lead over the opposition Labour Party ahead of a June 8 national election, an ICM opinion poll for the Guardian newspaper showed on Monday.

    The survey put the Conservatives on 49 percent, up two points from the previous ICM/Guardian poll last week, with Labour down one point at 27 percent. The Conservative lead is the biggest on record for any British election survey conducted by ICM, the pollster said.

    Labor will be destroyed.

    And when a conservative party stands for its values, there is little need for anyone to turn to parties more extreme:

    The … anti-European Union UK Independence Party fell two points to 6 percent”.

    40

    • #
      PeterS

      I really wonder if the Liberal Party today actually wants to win the next election. Turnbull and the others actually appear to do their best to hand over the government over to the ALP at the next election by treating the public as fools. Then again I suppose the public being foolishly asleep is the reason the Libs are behaving the way they are. It’s a vicious cycle and so they will very likely lose the next election by a landslide. If people were awake as the Americans and British were and still are we should be seeing polls over here giving the newer minor parties even much higher support and the two main parties much lower with the ALP close to single digits and the Greens extinct. Oh well perhaps things will change over the net two years. One can only hope.

      60

      • #
        Peter C

        Liberal Party cannot win with Turnbull as leader.

        One Nation, Liberal Democrats, Family First/Cory Bernady’s Conservatives, Katter Party, Shooters and Fishers and a few other our only hope now.

        They can not form a government but they might hold enough Senate votes to block the worst of the Labor/Greens programs

        30

        • #
          PeterS

          They cannot form government because most of the voters are still asleep and won’t allow them to do so. Instead they will sleep walk to the booths like brain dead zombies and vote for either LNP or ALP. Then they start whining the very next day that the government they elected is as bad if not worse than the previous one. We all know the common definition of insanity.

          00

          • #
            Ted O'Brien

            We were true to form as world leaders in electoral matters when we elected our “Trump” in 2013.

            Trouble is he turned out to be an awful dud. That will make it harder to sell minor parties to our electorate.

            If the Liberals are to win the next election they must campaign on the restoration of cheap energy. For this they must abolish the RET without delay. It’s nonsense to say the senate won’t let them. Nobody has tried.

            00

  • #
    pat

    8 May: Breitbart: James Delingpole: And So It Begins, Trump’s Great Climate Purge…
    Finally the Trump administration is starting to get serious about taking on the Green Blob.
    EPA administrator Scott Pruitt – perhaps stung by criticisms that he was turning into a squish – today reaffirmed, in an interview with CNBC, that he is not a believer in catastrophic man-made global warming.
    “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet…”
    This new boldness coincides with a purge of warmist scientific advisers at both the EPA and the Interior Department…READ ON
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/08/delingpole-and-so-it-begins-trumps-great-climate-purge/

    8 May: ForeignPolicyMag: In Closed-Door Climate Showdown, It’s Jared and Ivanka vs. Bannon and Pruitt
    With Trump threatening to pull the United States out of the Paris accord, moderates and ideologues are at loggerheads.
    By Robbie Gramer, Dan De Luce
    But the debate has almost nothing to do with climate change.
    With Trump due to take a decision as soon as Tuesday, former officials, policy experts, and congressional aides familiar with the White House deliberations describe a haphazard process dominated by political and ideological considerations…

    “The words ‘climate change’ were hardly even uttered,” a former senior official familiar with the discussions told Foreign Policy. “I really just wanted there to be a rational policy process but … there was no policy process at all.”
    Under former President Barack Obama, the United States helped craft the Paris climate conference, a landmark international accord designed to curb carbon emissions that are the main cause of climate change…
    On the other side of the argument: White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, both of whom reject climate change science…
    The absence of substance and expertise in the discussions has left some civil servants discouraged and despondent, several sources briefed on the meeting said…

    Amid signs in recent months the administration would choose to keep the United States in the accord, Democrats in Congress and environmental organizations had sought to keep a low-profile on the issue, fearful that given the president’s unpredictable and impulsive nature, any comment could be interpreted as an affront and influence his decision on the issue.
    “Our silence was very deliberate,” said one senior Democratic congressional aide. “It was a conscious decision.”
    But that calculation has changed in recent days…

    One of the president’s staunch supporters, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R.-N.D.), wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Monday that he had changed his mind about remaining in the agreement and urged the president not to withdraw.
    Cramer said he and several other Republican lawmakers believe “the smart strategy is to try to work out a more beneficial deal for the U.S. under the Paris agreement rather than walk away.”…
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/08/in-closed-door-climate-showdown-its-jared-and-ivanka-vs-bannon-and-pruitt-climate-change-trump-paris-agreement/

    10

  • #
    pat

    7 May: WSJ: Kevin Cramer: Remake the Paris Climate Deal to Promote American Energy
    A place at the table would let Trump counter Chinese predation and European unrealism
    I endorsed Mr. Trump last April because I believed in his America First agenda, and I advised him on energy policies during the campaign.
    I was wary of Paris and used to favor pulling out, but I’ve changed my mind for two reasons. First, in future climate talks the U.S. will…(BEHIND PAYWALL)
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/remake-the-paris-deal-to-promote-americas-energy-interests-1494187641

    mind you, it was hardly this week’s news!

    24 Mar: InsideClimateNews: Trump Adviser Urges President to Stay in Paris Climate Agreement, but Scrap Pledges
    Rep. Kevin Cramer argues the U.S. should stay at the global negotiating table, but walk back all its commitments to cut carbon emissions from fossil fuels…
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24032017/trump-adviser-kevin-cramer-paris-climate-change-agreement

    Wikipedia: Robert Cramer does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. Cramer acknowledges that climate change is occurring, but questions the degree to which humans contribute to it, and opposes regulations to address the issue. Cramer nevertheless has said that he would support a small carbon tax if the revenue went to research and development on clean fuel…
    In May 2016, Donald Trump asked Cramer to draft his campaign’s energy policy. He wrote Trump’s energy plan, which focuses heavily on promoting fossil fuels and weakening environmental regulation. The plan also vows to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and repeal U.S. regulations aims at controlling the carbon emissions which cause climate change….

    10

  • #
    pat

    6 May: Hollywood Reporter: Mia Galuppo: Al Gore Calls Media Coverage of Climate Change a “Nature Hike Through the Book of Revelation”
    The former vice president spoke before an advance screening of his latest documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.’
    “Every night on the news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation,” Al Gore said Saturday night when asked his opinion of how the news media reports on climate change. “And I’ll wait for the newscasters to connect the dots,” he continued, adding that they rarely do…
    At the Fandango-sponsored event (at the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles), actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt moderated the conversation with the former vice president of the United States, asking about “fake news” and its place in the denialist narrative about climate change.
    “We have a challenge in the U.S., where climate in the news in concerned,” said Gore. “First: The line between news and entertainment has become a very porous line.” He added: “Second reason is that there is a pretty powerful and wealthy special interest of carbon polluters that have spent billions of dollars over the past three decades putting out false information.”

    Gordon-Levitt asked Gore where he gets his own news. “I like to triangulate,” said Gore, adding his go-tos are The New York Times, The Guardian and The Wall Street Journal, adding, “I’ll read some red-state sites, as well.”…
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/al-gore-calls-media-coverage-climate-change-a-nature-hike-book-revelation-1000884

    8 May: EurActiv: James Crisp: Trillions of euros of energy efficiency investment up for grabs
    This week’s special report will examine private and public sources of capital for energy efficient renovation, look at the role of EU policymakers and some of the benefits driving efficiency investment.
    Investment gap but who pays?…

    Trillions of euros
    Danish Pension Fund PKA has set a target of investing €3.5 billion, 10% of their €35 billion capital, into efficiency and renewables by 2020.
    PKA is chairing the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, a forum for collaboration on climate change between investors. IIGCC members represent €18 trillion in potential investment.
    EURACTIV understands PKA is pushing for other funds to match their 10% target, which could unlock 1.8 trillion of additional funding for energy efficiency investment.
    But institutional investors traditionally back larger projects, such as infrastructure. Renovating individual buildings would be too small an investment…READ ON
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/trillions-of-euros-of-energy-efficiency-investment-up-for-grabs/

    10

  • #
    pat

    8 May: Guardian: World Bank: let climate-threatened Pacific islanders migrate to Australia or NZ
    World Bank argues structured migration program would prevent forced migration in future generations
    by Ben Doherty and Eleanor Ainge Roy
    The policy paper, Pacific Possible (LINK), suggests as one climate change adaptation measure, open access migration from Tuvalu and Kiribati – for work and permanent settlement – to Australia and New Zealand…
    The World Bank paper argues a structured migration program instituted now would prevent a more harried, forced migration in future generations.
    “The worsening impacts of climate change have provided a new moral imperative for providing open access,” the report says…
    Seventeen people from the Pacific – including 11 from Tuvalu and five from Kiribati – have already made refugee claims in New Zealand, citing climate change as part of their basis of claim. None have been successful (four have yet to be determined and 13 have been rejected) because the refugees convention does not recognise climate change as grounds for protection…READ ON
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/08/australia-and-nz-should-allow-open-migration-for-pacific-islanders-threatened-by-climate-says-report

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    The dual strategies of implementing expensive, inefficient and unreliable power generation plus the importation of violent, uneducated, unassimilable people into Western countries is specifically designed to bring about the end of Western Civilisation.

    40

  • #
    alwaysBskeptical

    Does anyone know, how long does it take chinese workers to build a HELE coal-fired power station ?

    30

    • #
      David Maddison

      CHINA 2 x 1000MW HELE units, 22 months construction and testing, US$950 million or $478 per kW.

      http://cornerstonemag.net/tag/china-efficient-power-plants/

      This would not be doable in Australia due to union thugs, eco-marxists and ignorant politicians plus the carbon tax designed to run coal out of business.

      60

      • #
        David Maddison

        And those 2 x 1000MW units might well be burning Aussie coal producing much cheaper electricity than we have.

        50

        • #
          David Maddison

          If common sense ever prevails and we need some HELE units built fast the government could just use emergency powers and pay a Chinese company with its own Chinese workers to come here and build them. The Army could be used to protect the site and workers from eco-Marxists and union thugs 24/7 during the construction phase and into the operations phase until the protests died down.

          20

        • #
          Yonniestone

          There was a TV ad on SBS that appeared to be the Australian coal industry talking up USC power plants being 40-50% more efficient than the original designs, had my hopes up until realising those USC plants were being built in China, approx 25% of our coal goes to China while we gradually close down our power grid capacity inflicting legislation’s that prevent any use of our abundant resources, anyone know why our economy is tanking?

          50

      • #
        Dennis

        To say nothing about the long list of government compliance requirements of red and green tape lawyer’s worst nightmare.

        20

  • #
    John Watt

    A polite query for our beloved ABC,
    Your Four Corners report was spot on with its assessment of the power dilemma we have set up for ourselves.
    However you helped sow the seeds of this nation-demolishing situation by failing to present both sides of the climate driver debate. For at least 10 years there has been credible (Australian) science defining the effects of atmospheric CO2 on temperature as minimal. However your reportage chose to ignore these facts and continued to stress the climate panic approach which puts its faith in speculation based on the extrapolation of the results of faulty computer modelling.
    As a broadcaster relying on public funding you had an obligation to present both sides of the debate. Surely you have no outside pressure to force you to adopt a “coal is evil” bias? Why did you contribute to this power dilemma by failing to follow-up on credible Australian science?

    91

    • #
      TdeF

      Climate Change is socialist politics. It is the policy of everyone at the ABC and you are not allowed question the people who are employed there. They answer to no one. They are bound by no charter. They will have jobs forever. That was the deal, apparently.

      41

      • #
        TdeF

        Tony Abbott made a few mistakes he can correct. A putsch in Canberra is long overdue. As Billy Connolly would say,
        Malcolm is as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.

        1. repeal the RET. Now. Save the country.
        2. remove 18C. Entirely.
        3. Cut the ABC/SBS funding savagely or just sell it. The whole reason for a 1970s ethnic broadcaster is utterly mad now with satellites and the internet.
        4 removing ["safe schools" sex ed] in primary school
        5 have the referendum on Gay marriage.

        Plus
        6 Lower taxes
        7 Stop the mad submarine business. Useless things. Invest in R&D on drones, water, air, land. No soldiers or sailors or airmen in machines.
        8 launch satellites and stop the socialist backbone NBN now. Burying fibre optic in the ground makes no sense.
        9 Sell the CSIRO. Public service research? Laughable.
        10 Improve our defences against missile attack. We have none.
        11 Cancel the F35 contract.
        12 Balance the budget.

        10

  • #
    TdeF

    Tony Abbott made a few mistakes he can correct. A putsch in Canberra is long overdue. As Billy Connolly would say,
    Malcolm is as welcome as a f*rt in a spacesuit.

    1. repeal the RET. Now. Save the country.
    2. remove 18C. Entirely.
    3. Cut the ABC/SBS funding savagely or just sell it. The whole reason for a 1970s ethnic broadcaster is utterly mad now with satellites and the internet.
    4 removing l*sbian classes for seven year olds
    5 have the referendum on Gay marriage.

    Plus
    6 Lower taxes
    7 Stop the mad submarine business. Useless things. Invest in R&D on drones, water, air, land. No soldiers or sailors or airmen in machines.
    8 launch satellites and stop the socialist backbone NBN now. Burying fibre optic in the ground makes no sense.
    9 Sell the CSIRO. Public service research? Laughable.
    10 Improve our defences against missile attack. We have none.
    11 Cancel the F35 contract.
    12 Balance the budget

    81

    • #
      David Maddison

      I agree with most points TdeF but I think we should have nuclear subs not diesel ones. The French nuclear sub from which ours is being redesigned into a diesel sub costs less than we will be paying for the diesel. Or we could get a US Virginia class, also for less. I have posted the figures before.

      I am not sure about the F35 yet, but it is true that any single combat system that tries to do everything ends up doing nothing very well. Time will tell. Trump is forcing the price down.

      10

      • #
        Robber

        I understand that subs can now be tracked by satellites and drones, so longer of strategic value. Cancel the subs.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Agreed. Submarines are so yesterday, unless nuclear armed. WW2 in the Atlantic showed how vulnerable submarines were to aircraft and by extension, drones. Battleships lasted 20 minutes.

          Unlike conventional aircraft, drones can stay in the air for a day or more. Then you have satellites which can pick up the heat signature and acoustic detectors. Most importantly, Australia is no tiny island and 37,000 km around so there is no possibility of a rapid response to an invasion fleet. Battleships and submarines are the stuff of last century. The air and space is the new battleground. I can think of better uses for $30Bn. Who can’t?

          10

          • #
            TdeF

            The best aircraft we ever bought was the F111, bought to be able to bomb Jakarta. A combination of incredible ground level speed, terrain following radar and huge size made it unstoppable. It was the weapon of choice for Reagan in Libya. Retired now, but impressive rapid response short range fighters are not tactically the same thing.

            00

            • #
              Ted O'Brien

              Can’t let that go. What I saw in the F111 was the greatest white elephant in history. How many crews did it kill?

              I was aware of only two missions that the F111s flew. In Vietnam Nam a squadron of 24 flew out one rainy night. 18 came back. The VC had no means of shooting them down. The other mission was against defenseless Gaddafi in Libya, and again one didn’t return.

              00

          • #
            tom0mason

            TdeF,

            Drone capacity and endurance is evolving all the time.
            The best drones currently stay aloft for greater than 6 days, some military UVAs can be up for “five days or over 120 hours with 1,000lb payload.”
            http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featurethe-top-10-longest-range-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uavs/

            Space based recoverable vehicles can be up for years — http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusafs-x-37b-orbital-test-vehicle-4-returns-to-earth-5806838

            10

            • #
              tom0mason

              Also of note is Israel’s efforts with drones, from back in 2014 comes

              Northrop Grumman UAV series, which includes the U.S. Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk , set a new record for mission hours flown in one week. The operational platforms, logged 665 hours flying operational and exercise missions during the week ending Feb. 23.

              http://i-hls.com/archives/32609

              00

  • #
    el gordo

    Head honcho CSIRO Larry Marshall believes the climate is changing, even though temperatures have been on a plateau for 20 years.

    ‘Trying to allay suspicion about his motives, Dr. Marshall took pains to make clear that he accepted the basic findings of climate research. The climate “absolutely is changing,” he declared before a committee of the Australian Senate. “It is changing, and we have to do something about it.”

    Oz NYT

    60

    • #
      David Maddison

      Sad.

      70

    • #
      TdeF

      So how is the CSIRO going to solve this one? On only a $1,000 million budget. Perhaps they can donate their budget to buying more windmills? Oops. That would only pay for 2 months of the RET.

      As for “absolutely is changing”. What facetious nonsense, fake sincerity. Then of course we in Australia are solely responsible and of course we must do something about it. We can only hope he is joking.

      20

  • #
    pat

    8 May: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: EU countries have brought in $1bn of coal subsidies since Paris
    In the shift to renewables, several member states are paying coal generators to be available for back-up power
    Six member states have introduced support totaling €875 million a year ($960m) since 2015, according to a report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI). That is in spite of signing up to the Paris climate deal, which signalled a shift away from fossil fuels.
    The bulk of this is schemes to keep old coal plants online, ostensibly needed as back-up generation for times when variable wind and solar power cannot meet demand. Germany and Poland are among countries planning further such “capacity mechanisms”.
    This is a “false justification”, report co-author Shelagh Whitley told Climate Home, based on flawed demand predictions and a bias towards fossil energy supplies over measures to flex usage…READ ON
    (This article was updated to clarify the proposed European Commission rules for capacity payments)
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/08/eu-countries-brought-1bn-coal-subsidies-since-paris/

    ***EXTREMIST Macron, who dared not campaign on CAGW, is now a climate action man! lol:

    8 May: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Emmanuel Macron vows climate action as French president
    ***Centrist candidate supports a coal phase-out by 2022, carbon price rise and trade sanctions on polluting countries, but needs a parliamentary mandate to deliver
    At home, Macron’s climate policies include phasing out coal power and doubling renewable capacity by 2022, and raising the carbon price to €100 a tonne by 2030.
    He has also proposed using trade sanctions at an EU level against countries that do not respect the bloc’s environmental standards. That could put pressure on the Trump administration to conform with climate objectives and the UK to avoid weakening environmental protections during Brexit negotiations…

    “Macron’s victory should not be called a victory for climate in France yet,” said Lucile Dufour, from Climate Action Network France, at a briefing on the sidelines of interim climate talks in Bonn.
    “Macron did not make the energy transition a key topic during his campaign”…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/08/emmanuel-macron-vows-climate-action-french-president/

    10

  • #
    pat

    such faith:

    Last updated at 20:12 on May 8, 2017: CarbonPulse: Macron’s France seen bolstering EU carbon market, global climate action
    The election of Emmanuel Macron as France’s president could secure the future of the EU carbon market for now while bolstering international cooperation on climate action, observers said on Monday.

    that didn’t last long:

    Last updated at 20:24 on May 8, 2017: CarbonPulse: EU Market: Macron win fails to lift carbon as EUAs drop 3.5%
    European carbon prices sank on Monday to give back the previous two sessions’ gains as the election of a French pro-EU president wasn’t enough to offset weakness across the wider energy complex.

    20

  • #
    pat

    couple of laughs:

    8 May: CarbonPulse: Brussels held an 8-week consultation on its controversial aviation ETS plan and only four Germans responded
    Four German citizens were the only respondents to an eight-week public consultation held by the European Commission over its divisive proposal to extend the limited coverage of the EU aviation ETS, and all four opposed the idea.

    6 May: Reuters: French Bordeaux vineyards could lose half of harvest due to frost
    Wines from the Cognac, Bergerac, and Lot-et-Garonne regions had also been affected, Bernard Farges, head of the Syndicat des vins Bordeaux et Bordeaux Supérieur, told Reuters…
    Including lost earnings at wine industry subcontrators, the total damage is estimated at one to two billion euros ($1.1- $2.2 billion), with wine production set to fall by about 350 million bottles…
    Growers have resorted to using candles, heaters and even the down-draught from helicopters to try to save crops.
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1820CW

    20

  • #
  • #
    pat

    8 May: Bloomberg: Ex-Military Brass Back Tillerson, Mattis in Climate Fight
    by Joe Ryan & Jennifer A. Dlouhy
    The 17 veterans argue that climate change poses a critical national security risk and say the U.S. must remain engaged in the international effort to fight it, according to letters sent Monday to Tillerson and Mattis. Among the signatories are three four-star veterans, including former Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command Admiral Sam J. Locklear…

    ***The meeting of top administration officials has now been postponed from Tuesday because of a conflict with Tillerson’s schedule, according to a person familiar with the matter…

    Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Apple Inc., Facebook Inc. and dozens of other top U.S. technology, manufacturing and consumer goods companies took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times Monday in support of the agreement…
    https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/2017/05/08/ex-military-brass-back-tillerson-mattis-in-climate-change-fight

    8 May: Financial Times: Andrew Ward: BP and Kosmos strike gas again off Senegal
    Find comes five months after UK group invested $1bn in alliance with US explorer
    BP has announced another large gas discovery off the coast of Senegal by its US partner Kosmos Energy, highlighting the west African country’s emergence as an important part of the UK group’s efforts to replenish its reserves…

    Kosmos said results from its Yakaar-1 well indicated the presence of about 15 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas, adding to a similar discovery last year in a well 40km away called Teranga-1…

    The success will increase confidence behind predictions from Kosmos that the area could hold up to 50Tcf of gas — comparable to some of the biggest offshore gas developments of recent years in Australia and Egypt…

    (LOL) The Kosmos partnership also highlights increasing investment by the world’s largest energy groups in natural gas because of its relatively low emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants when burnt compared with coal and oil.
    BP and peers, including Royal Dutch Shell, have been gradually increasing the share of gas in their portfolios relative to oil and the trend is expected to continue as global efforts to tackle climate change and air pollution gather pace.
    ..
    Kosmos shares were up nearly 15 per cent in late morning New York trading, while BP’s closed 1 per cent higher in London.
    https://www.ft.com/content/091c4a94-33e4-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3

    00

  • #
    pat

    8 May: Washington Times: Stephen Dinan: Black chamber of commerce tells Trump to ditch Paris climate deal
    Would “undermine” the American economy
    Chamber President Harry C. Alford, in an open letter dated Friday, said the Paris deal is “skewed” against the U.S. and will impose trillions of dollars of regulatory costs on American businesses, while allowing competitors in China and India to increase their own greenhouse gas emissions…
    Mr. Alford told him to end the debate and withdraw.
    “On behalf of the millions of African Americans who have a stake in the businesses represented by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, I respectfully call on you today to keep yet another critical promise to the American people: Withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement,” he wrote…
    The letter is a striking break with Mr. Obama, the country’s first black president — though Mr. Alford broke with the Obama administration over other environmental policies in the past.
    The chamber has been an advocate for plentiful and secure U.S. energy.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/8/dump-paris-climate-deal-black-chamber-commerce-tel/

    9 May: ShanghaiDaily: Color of money:what’s green, what’s not?
    By Leng Cheng
    For one thing, it is still not very clear how some long-term green projects will make money, especially when most banks and other investors prefer shorter-term products amid profit pressures.
    “At the end of the day, a green bond is a financial product,” said Yasumasa Shimizu, chief executive officer of Shanghai-based consulting firm Sustainable Technology of Ecology. “Investors won’t look too closely at how green it is, but they will assess its value as an investment and its return on profit in 10 years or 20 years.”
    The average yield of a five-year green bond is about 4.2 percent, up to 0.4 percentage points lower than other bond products of the same duration, according to a joint report by the Climate Bond Initiative and the China Central Depository and Clearing Co.
    “Some projects have exaggerated their true outlook for financial returns because they are guaranteed by local or provincial governments for political reasons,” Shimizu said…

    Chiu said green assets are more suitable for long-term investors, like insurance companies and pension funds. But in the Chinese market, investors aren’t likely to consider the value of social returns.
    The central bank and the National Development and Reform Commission, which oversee the issue of green bonds, are striving to cultivate market appetite for such debt. The incentives include interest subsidies, lower-cost loans, the establishment of national green development funds and the promotion of emissions trading.
    Will it work?
    “Policies don’t make a meal if investors won’t come to the table,” Chiu said. “There needs to be an appetite for green assets.”
    Still, money is expected to swirl around the sector for years as new instruments are designed to promote the green initiative…
    http://www.shanghaidaily.com/business/benchmark/Color-of-moneywhats-green-whats-not/shdaily.shtml

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    Chinese investment in Oz wind farm tip of the iceberg.

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-05/09/content_29258617.htm

    00

  • #
    Peter C

    Finally the Trump administration is starting to get serious about taking on the Green Blob.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/08/delingpole-and-so-it-begins-trumps-great-climate-purge/

    More news coming tomorrow apparently. I hope that James is correct.

    20

  • #
    pat

    9 May: TheConversation: Ben Henley: Global warming could accelerate towards 1.5℃ if the Pacific gets cranky
    Authors: Ben Henley, Research Fellow in Climate and Water Resources, University of Melbourne and Andrew King, Climate Extremes Research Fellow, University of Melbourne
    Contributor: Malte Meinshausen, A/Prof., School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
    Disclosure statement:
    Ben Henley receives funding from an ARC Linkage Project and is an associate investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
    Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
    Malte Meinshausen receives funding from an ARC Future Fellowship.

    In a paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters (LINK), we use climate model simulations to quantify how fast global average temperatures will reach 1.5℃ above the pre-industrial average – one of the crucial benchmarks of the Paris Climate Agreement…
    The Paris deal calls for governments to pursue the aim of keeping global warming below 1.5℃. But our results suggest that we could hit that level before the end of the next decade if the Pacific Ocean moves into a state we have nicknamed the “cranky uncle” for its effects on global temperatures…

    The implications of swiftly rising global temperature are many and varied. Our group and other scientists have quantified the changing likelihood of extreme events such as heatwaves, coral bleaching, droughts and floods.

    For the next few decades we have to accept that we are likely to see more extreme events as the effect of continued rising global temperatures takes its toll.
    We can’t hide from our cranky uncle, but we can limit climate change and its impacts…
    http://theconversation.com/global-warming-could-accelerate-towards-1-5-if-the-pacific-gets-cranky-77175

    even Guardian/Readfearn are sceptical!

    9 May: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Planet could breach 1.5C warming limit within 10 years, but be aware of caveats
    A new study shows how a switch in a major climate system could accelerate global temperatures to a 1.5C limit, but some scientists are challenging the assumptions
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/may/09/planet-could-breach-15c-warming-limit-within-10-years-but-be-aware-of-caveats

    ABC runs with it for now:

    9 May: ABC PM: Expert suggests climate warming phase could be under way in Pacific Ocean
    An Australian climate researcher is warning that a change may be under way in the Pacific Ocean that leads to a surge in global temperatures.
    If confirmed, models predict temperatures could hit the Paris agreement’s aimed maximum as early as 2024.
    Climate experts are urging governments to take swift action to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    Featured:
    Dr Ben Henley, research fellow, University of Melbourne
    Dr Terry O’Kane, principal research scientist, CSIRO Climate Science Centre
    Olivia Kember, Acting CEO, The Climate Institute

    10

    • #
      TdeF

      You would think the ‘climate scientists’ had a model which perfectly fitted the past. Then they would use this proven model to predict the future. Unfortunately, none of that is true. These predictions are the same as the ones thirty years ago. The only problem such ‘climate scientists’ have is with the facts which in three decades have never matched predictions. Somehow that does not faze anyone as they make more predictions, all urging swift government action. Does anyone really believe this stuff anymore?

      00

  • #
    pat

    4 May: Australian: Matthew Spencer: Wind farm company sued over bushfire caused by electrocuted crow
    The owners of a wind farm near Canberra are being sued for sparking a catastrophic bushfire in January, in what is believed to be the first class action of its type in Australia.
    Victorian firm Maddens Lawyers filed the class action against Infigen Energy Ltd in the NSW Supreme Court after a crow electrocuted by a transmission line carrying power from the company’s Woodlawn wind farm sparked the fire, which burned 3400ha and caused up to $20 million damage.
    The statement of claim, filed on behalf of lead plaintiffs Fred Kuhn and Liz Stewart of Mount Fairy, east of Canberra, alleges Infigen was aware of the risk a bird strike on its high-voltage ­infrastructure could cause a fire…READ ALL
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/wind-farm-company-sued-over-bushfire-caused-by-electrocuted-crow/news-story/cf8edb2df871fa4e4bfcf917bd6d727a

    ‘Out of control’ Galway fire threatens Ireland’s largest wind farm
    Irish Times – ‎6 hours ago‎

    Fire fighters tackle blaze that threatens Ireland’s largest wind farm
    Irish Independent – ‎3 hours ago‎

    8 May: reNews: Blaze eases at Galway giant
    UPDATE: Crews push fire back from 69-turbine mega-farm
    The fire that threatened part of SSE and Coillte’s under-construction 169MW Galway wind park in Ireland has been pushed back.
    SSE said fire crews and Coillte fought the blaze overnight forcing it some 300 metres away from turbines…
    Two-thirds of the 69 turbines are currently erected at the site…
    http://renews.biz/106976/fire-threatens-galway-giant/

    10

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Destroying an economy is very easy. All you have to do is have a government that insists on everyone having to get permission to act from itself. This slows and stops the engine that makes the economy function: the mind of man.

    The economy won’t stop instantly but it will slow down to blow the level of sustainability. The reason being that ANY transaction that occurs in an economy is dependent upon a large network of prior transactions being completed successfully. Everyone will be waiting on the prior transaction being approved by the government. Eventually, nothing happens.

    Since man must act to survive, a black market arises and transactions are paid for by barter. Since the government demands all to get their permission to act, the black transactions are made illegal and everyone involved becomes a criminal. Interestingly, this was the goal of government from the get go. By everyone becoming a criminal, the government sets itself up to be bribed to look the other way.

    The government now has the power to collect the productive wealth of the nation without scintilla of productive effort. This drains the life blood of the economy as surely as a vampire drains the blood of his victim.

    The next stage is collapse of both the government and the economy. See Venezuela for instructive detail.

    As was once said (approximately) “a people willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both”.

    20

  • #

    CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

    In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/co2-cant-cause-the-warming-alarmists-claim-it-does/

    01