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

Finkel: Turn the whole country into South Australia by 2030 — 42% “renewable”

In one of the most massaged spin-doctor sales messages in Australian history, the Finkel Report is here to “take the politics out” and solve our energy instability and out-of-control prices. But it’s actually an aggressive green-left weather-control program where cost and stability are secondary to the unspoken but main aim which is to slow storms in 2100. If Finkel were really aiming for stability and price control he’d let the free market run, get the government out of our electricity grid and look at the evidence that shows that solar-panels and wind farms don’t, won’t and can’t work as global air-conditioners for us or our grandchildren.

Australians, read this line and weep:

“Modelling for the Review estimates that by 2030, 42 per cent of electricity demand will be met by renewable generation.”

This is where South Australia is currently at, but it has a lifeline to coal power in Victoria whenever it needs it. What happens when the whole National Grid needs a lifeline? Pull out your wallet…

How much does an undersea cable to New Zealand cost? It’s only 2,000km.

For the same price we might be able to afford a new ultra-supercritical coal plant and catch up with Indonesia instead.

Solving our energy stability is really easy and very cheap and if that was his aim, Finkel is not-even-trying. Government efforts to control the planetary climate have created the blackouts and driven cheap electricity providers out of business. Finkel’s “solution” is more of the same but in a different flavor. It’s all things to all people, “finally here” and we’ll all get free icecream, but please, nobody ask how much electricity would cost if the Government got out of the way. Nobody mention that wholesale coal-fired volts are 4c per kilowatt hour.

If you like your coal you can keep it (under the ground)

Technology Neutral. My Foot!

Importantly, the scheme would be technology neutral — that is, all forms of electricity generation would be eligible, including coal with carbon capture and storage or gas — provided they are below the emissions intensity threshold.

Finkel has nothing against coal, as long as people meet conditions that defy laws of chemistry. Supposedly coal fired stations must stuff a massive volume of a beneficial aerial fertilizer into small hot hole underground. New “carbon capture” coal plants would cost something like 60% more to build yet waste around 40% of all the energy they generate. Carbon capture is a secret code for “death to coal plants”, and not surprisingly, in real life, they crash and burn in financial fireballs.

What do you call “paying a lot more”? That’s your “reward”

Finkel-spin says that electricity will be cheaper than a hypothetical worst case scenario:

Consumers will be financially rewarded if they agree to manage their demand and share their resources such as solar panels and battery storage. Prices for all consumers, not just those who own solar panels or batteries, will be lower than they would otherwise be;

Welcome to your renewable future — managing demand means not having the air-con on when it’s really hot and you really need it. And what kind of prices are “lower than they otherwise would be”? Any kind. Theoretically any infinitely high price is still lower than it otherwise would be compared to an infinitely-plus-one-plan. It all depends on the modeling.

Judith Sloan is not impressed: “Malcolm Turnbull, I will bet you power bills don’t fall $90″

If you believe your annual electricity bill will fall by $90 every year for the next decade, you will believe anything.

This politically attractive forecast of falling electricity prices mirrors the equally ridiculous modelling result that emerged from the Warburton review of the renewable energy target released in 2015. We were asked to believe wholesale electricity prices would actually fall if the RET were retained in its then current form, with a target of 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. (This was adjusted to 33,000GWh.) That’s right — electricity prices were going to fall between 2015 and 2020.

But take a look at what has happened to wholesale electricity prices — and, with a lag, retail prices — in the context of the ongoing RET, an outcome comp­letely divergent from the one the modellers assured us would occur.

Wholesale electricity prices have soared from $50 a megawatt hour on average to about $150. Retail prices are being raised across a number of states by between 15 per cent and 30 per cent. A household facing an annual electricity bill of $2000 a year easily could be slugged another $400 to $600.

Fake News is everywhere — no sensible word left unspun

The Finkel Review supposedly puts “energy security and stability centre stage“. Ask any electrical engineer how to do that and they’ll tell you to increase spinning inertia — meaning coal, gas, nukes, and hydro — these, especially coal, are the cheap, easy masters of security and stability. Instead Finkel puts “emissions reductions” under everything and “stability” is just the secondary billion-dollar-ball-and-chain, dragged along in the hunt for the sacred weather controlling electron.

At the ABC the report is improbably “taking the politics out” by adopting a green left option that Australian voters have rejected.

If perchance, you don’t think we should be forced to buy expensive electricity in order to change the weather the ABC won’t call you “sensible”, “pragmatic” or “sane”, you’re “pro-coal”. In ABC-land politicians don’t criticize the report, instead pro-coal backbenchers “undermine it”.  It’s a nuance thing. Luckily the ABC are full of national energy-grid geniuses, so they can tell the difference.

Not surprisingly, there is rebellion in the ranks

– some Coalition backbenchers are warning that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could, once again, be confronted with open rebellion on climate policy.

 Yes, well. We’ve been there before. How many political careers shall we break on the carbon wheel?

The daft threat politicians convey,
Is that ‘carbon’ will cause a doomsday,
So expect for electric,
Whether warmist or skeptic,
All exorbitant increases pay.

–Ruairi

REFERENCE: Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market, all 212 fun pages.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (101 votes cast)
Finkel: Turn the whole country into South Australia by 2030 -- 42% "renewable", 9.8 out of 10 based on 101 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ycuo8hpb

221 comments to Finkel: Turn the whole country into South Australia by 2030 — 42% “renewable”

  • #
    TdeF

    Hazelwood at a retail price of 4c kw/hr was forced to close. It could not operate profitably while end users are paying 40c kw/hr.
    Poor people cannot afford electricity to heat their homes or cool in summer. It is too expensive.

    You would think from politicians like Frydenburg and Turnbull that the RET did not exist, adding a 9c kw/hr payment at the distribution level for nothing at all, 18c at retail. So half our payments are already carbon tax, the world’s highest. At wholesale $200 a ton for gas and $400 a tonne at retail. Gillard’s awful carbon tax was only $23 a tonne. Finkel cannot see it.

    Now Rat Finkel has suggested yet another carbon tax because anything which makes fossil fuel even more expensive is a carbon tax. The invisible RET is not a tax as it goes to third parties, not to the government. So it is not in any State or Federal budget. The money is not even handled by the government. The Renewables Energy Tax is one of the most pernicious and nasty imposts since King John’s tax which was the cause of Magna Carta. Money for nothing, to enrich strangers. Now the government wants another tax!

    So how much longer will Green Malcolm rule us with his one seat majority? Bring back Abbott. Climate Crap. Socialism posing as Environmentalism. Banker Malcolm and his Green friends must go. Meanwhile Malcolm has his second airport, his very fast train, his Gonski2, his NDIS, his policies copied from the Green handbook.

    Dump the RET and electricity would go down x4 overnight, Hazelwood would start up and we would have the energy security built by us and our fathers. We masochists cannot even afford to use the coal and gas we sell to the rest of the world as our biggest export. Bring back Abbott. We do not care if he eats an onion or winks on radio. He and Malcolm Roberts are the only ones making sense.

    902

    • #
      tom0mason

      Proof, if proof were needed, that the lunatics are indeed running the asylum!

      311

      • #
        Dennis

        Crazy, but cunning as …

        41

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          You can hear the new entry to our lexicon…..

          A new word to describe well and truly done over…..done in the eye, etc

          Starts with “F”….

          21

          • #
            toorightmate

            What word has 4 letters, starts with “f” and ends with “k”?
            fork
            Some of you folk really worry me – the way your mind works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            11

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              It was a new word, not the word everyone perhaps was thinking about …and it wasnt rude :-)

              10

    • #
      sophocles

      We’re paying 25.92c/unit (kWH) here in NZ. This was after breaking the generation side up into Enterprise Units (which could be sold off individually) and creating an electricity `Spot Market.’ The local elected power boards were turned into companies and sold off to each other and overseas companies. It was all to give NZ `cheaper power.’

      That’s after we were paying about 7c/kWH. So if you’re looking at 18c/kWHr then rejoice. It’s cheaper than 26c.

      Whenever you’re told a reform is going to be `cheaper’ start demanding proof. Loudly. Numbers.
      All scales always seem to be inverted at the proposal stage.

      It’s beyond time the proposers were held accountable, too. Il Duce was held fully accountable by his citizens before the end of the War.

      360

      • #
        David Maddison

        And yet the anti-industrialists hold NZ as an example of how wonderful an almost complete reliance on “renewables” is.

        Mind you, hydro is a properly designed and engineered system capable of producing continuous power and should not be categorised with defective windmill and solar power and predates it by a century or so.

        241

        • #
          TdeF

          NZ has many things which Australia does not, real mountains, huge falling water resources, a very small population, small area and narrow country. The Norway of the South, complete with Fjords, the same population as Norway but half the area. Only 4 million on the North Island and a tiny 1 million on the much larger South Island. The North island is only half the size of Victoria. All suit hydro perfectly, which is great for them as like the other new pacific rim volcanic islands they have no coal or oil. The narrowness does make distribution much cheaper with lower losses compared with the huge distances in Australia.

          You have to wonder about even the idea of a grid in Australia with electricity, with 80% of the people in a few big coastal cities and 1,000 km between them. The losses from say Melbourne to Cairns or even Melbourne to Perth over 4,000km would be huge, maybe 90%. Even Melbourne to Hobart is 600km. Turnbull also wants Tasmania as a giant water battery but they ran out of spare water years ago, especially when Malcolm’s friends prevented more dams. The highest point in Australia is just 2,200 metres, half that of Mt Cook in NZ. Hydro is no solution for most of Australia, the oldest continent on the planet at 4.4billion year. No wonder it is so flat. For many Australians walking up hill is a novelty.

          121

          • #
            TdeF

            On this grid concept, the thing which is allegedly failing. If you built a single cable to join the capitals, excluding Hobart and at least 1,000km between cities from Darwin to Cairns, down to Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, it would pick up 90% of our population. However it would be twice the width of America just to pick up 20 million people. That is also why high speed trains will not work. Huge distances. Still socialist politicians insist on bringing European high population density ideas to huge Australia. I really have trouble understanding Turnbull’s ideas until you remember his family was always British socialist Labor, from a tiny country where no point is more than 100km from the ocean.

            101

          • #
            Dave

            Absolutely correct

            “Turnbull also wants Tasmania as a giant water battery!”

            Tasmania the savior of Victoria by supplying hugely expensive RET certified electricity!

            Tasmania is now slowly running out of water through GREED!

            Malcolm is not concerned at all for Australia!
            A very sad state of affairs at the moment!

            41

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          NZ is so lucky to have its hydro, (poor dry Aus :( () So yep they (NZ govt and green extreemies) ruined it, 26c for all that ‘free’ energy powering hydros that were built 30 years ago and still run. Yup bankers run NZ and Aus all the way to doomsday.

          10

      • #
        gnome

        I’d be happy with 26 c/unit. At the moment it costs just under 30 plus an “availability charge” of $1.10 per day.

        I think that 18 cents above might just be the additional charge at retail level resulting from the RET. No-one just pays 18 cents per unit anymore.

        91

        • #
          Ross

          gnome

          I’m in NZ like sophocles. We pay $2.08/day connection fee ( or availability charge as you call it). So if anyone holds NZ up as an example –just laugh at them.

          120

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            OK. Good. If that’s the problem what’s your solution?

            I mean: what is the realistic, winnable solution.

            If the populace has been brain-washed and the Liberals and Labor are going to provide you with the same outcome no matter what, what is to be done?

            Here’s my strategy:

            1. Support a minor, truly conservative, party (mine is the National Party). Provide financial support if you can and with every cheque you send to it, write a note as to why you’ve sent the cheque (or Online contribution).

            2. Attack the Liberal sell-outs and the Labor green gullibles on every platform you can find. That means letters to the local/ regional newspapers, discussions with your friends and acquaintances, comments on blogs and discussion groups etc.

            3. Write to the Liberal/Labor MPs and Senators complaining about their policies and explaining why they are bad policies. Give them the details. (I make no apologies for plagiarizing the great work of TonyfromOz in this regard – thanks Tony).

            4. Whenever you meet an MP or Senator or political staffer (I had a good session with one at a function over the weekend – I don’t think he thanked me!) make the point that you will be working against them while-ever they hold onto their economically, socially and environmentally destructive policies. Bucket Finkel at every turn. And Chubb and Sacket. Bucket the BOM and the CSIRO’s unintelligent climate “research”.

            5. Get a group of like minded people together and work at doing the above. Weekly or monthly coffee sessions (grumpy old people) are a good idea. Mine meets monthly (yes, it has a couple of lefties in it – but that’s useful for getting an idea of what and how the brainwashed think).

            6. Continue to make financial contributions to websites like joannenova.com, michaelsmithnews.com and maybe even pickering (to name a few) so that they stay viable and know they are appreciated.

            7. Keep up to date on the latest data and analysis. Attack the warmists at every opportunity. Bucket the ABC and the Fairfax press for their green/left bias.

            8. Buy “The Australian” newspaper or subscribe Online.

            9. Laugh at them.

            71

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Cripes! What happened there?

              That was supposed to be a response to mosomoso at 1.3 below, sitting below Ivan at 1.3.3.

              You’ll need to demonstrate your mental agility to get it in the right spot. Shouldn’t be a problem here given the superior beings that frequent the site!!

              40

          • #
            James

            In some months my total electricity bill has come to only 60 dollars per month. On average including monthly connection fee, I am playing 11c (USD) per kwhr. For petrol I pay 0.63 cent per litre (USD) on average. Affordable energy is very nice! The housing is affordable as well. My rental property cost $83000, and my current house cost $74500.

            You can see why I have no plans to move back to Australia.

            20

    • #

      I’ve gone an extra step in my thinking, a very uncomfortable step for a conservative. It’s just too hard to believe that these people are merely silly and misguided with their climate-tackling antics.

      From the media-approved ex-banker who suddenly materialises as your state or national leader, to the ludicrous white elephant infrastructure you never wanted which is made possible only by truly phenomenal levels of debt made possible by phenomenally loose credit…something is going on and it has to do with control.

      More and more, I’m entertaining the far-fetched (for me) notion that globalism is an organised force, and organised on a massive scale, so that most of the pivot-points of our civilisation are soft-controlled in ways that have nothing to do with human needs or common sense.

      The twentieth century collectivism is dead…long live the twenty first century collectivism?

      Feel free to call me a kook. I frequently call myself that. But I’m saying what’s on my mind.

      360

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        The sheep bleat “Climate change is real”. This makes less sense than yelling “Santa Claus is REAL. The Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny are REAL!”
        But what is real is the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations and the Deep State.
        The evidence that “something is going on and it has to do with control” is accumulating and an ever increasing rate.

        132

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Momoso,rod, I’d think you are spot on. No doubt some are rolling their eyes ” there goes OS again….”…. funny thing is, so far unfortunately I’ve been proven right with this stuff.

          From a Christian perspective, this is organized evil, make no mistake. The Devil has his legions of willing fools who are hoodwinked or bought by shiny trinkets or promises of earthly power…but the Devil is a pathological liar par excellence, so anyone who buys into the Elite and their nihilistic globalism, are those who should know better, pure and simple, but many of them are those who have happily literally sold their souls for a few glass beads and promise of rewards of revenge on their ( probably religious ) enemies…..

          51

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I should have mentioned that similarities exist between Pontious Pilate and many modern politicians….

            30

        • #

          The Gramsci-Alynsky supratist long march through
          the institutions is for real, heed not weasel words but
          watch what they do.’Freedom ‘ means 18c controls on free
          speech, ‘education’ means k-12 indoctrination in ‘values
          education,’ eg environmental sustainability’ permeating all
          curriculum areas at an internalized level, forget critical
          thinking.”Energy security’ means replacing efficient, cheap
          fossil fuel energy with intermittant, inefficient, costly
          renewables that make the grid unstable.

          Note how the words of the Finkel Report gloss over all real
          data in inconvenient reports like the Warburton Report,2013,
          and BAEconomics Report,see url below, that show an average
          cost of $3 billion annually for renewables via subsidies,
          notice that 3/4 of guvuhmint subsidies do not show up in
          guvuhmint accounts, swept under the carpet and paid for by con(ned)sumers.

          https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/06/looming-disaster-energy-security/

          80

      • #
        David Maddison

        The globalist elites such as Merkel and Macron and others who’s minds have been poisoned (and formerly Obama) are trying to destroy Western Civilisation in order to bring about a totalitarian world government, because only they know best.

        The two weapons being used to do it are (a) economic collapse bought about by expensive energy and (b) the importation into civilised Western countries of some of the world’s most uneducated, unassimilable and violent people. Both combined will lead to social chaos.

        We need to fight against both.

        271

        • #
          David Maddison

          “They” got rid of Tony Abbott because he was opposed to (a) and (b).

          Lord Monckton mentions point (a) here:

          https://youtu.be/NG0WcjGHkEw
          “Behind the left’s push to remove Tony Abbott”

          This is not paranoid conspiracy stuff, it’s very real.

          161

      • #
        ivan

        Mosomoso, just get a copy of Agenda 21 then read it and weep.

        What you are talking about is all set out there in detail. It started with the Club of Rome and the Frankfurt School and has been pushed along by the UN ever since.

        It will take very strong leadership, which we don’t have in the world today, to make changes that will benefit the people rather thank the parasite bankers and their ilk.

        51

      • #
        Steve Keppel-Jones

        I don’t think you’re a kook, mosomoso. I am reading “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” to try to understand what’s going on behind the scenes. It’s quite eye-opening. http://www.whale.to/b/allen_b1.html

        As Rod Stuart says, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Round Table Group, the Bilderbergers, the Frankfurt School, and the rest of the “Insiders” are controlling a lot more than most people think. None of this push to global socialism is an accident…

        00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    A 212 page report on anything likely follows the dictum: if you want to hide the truth, issue a flood of words long enough and convoluted enough that no one will want to read it. Those who do, won’t be able to follow its twists and turns of faulty logic and misdirection. It is the equivalent of watch this colorful shiny thing over here while your pocket, bank account, paying productive job, and your individual rights are drained to zero.

    If the politicians were honest, the report could be written in one page that is mostly blank: “We are going to rob you blind while preventing you any possible legal recourse to prevent it.”

    No, I didn’t read it. I am making my assessment from my six plus decades of watching politicians do their thing. Their behavior is far more predictable than that of the weather or the climate. It is a one way street from you to the politician to their special interest groups and policies.

    440

    • #
      CharlesM

      There should be a mandatory provision that every Government building, and the home of every elected representative MUST be in the very first zone to experience a power cut (load-shedding) and power may ONLY be restored once every other zone has already been restored.

      Until someone finds such a provision, I won’t be reading the report either.

      80

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Afternoon Lionell,
      That’s a pretty good summary. I’ve read far enough to be able to support your proposition. But the F has added some cartoons. I found the one on page 23 of 212 especially humorous for its exclusions. No capacity factor. No base load. And a “Total Installed capacity” of 47MW shown against a maximum summer demand of 33MW, so no problem…

      I might read some more. Perhaps.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      50

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Lionell you are on target. Obamacare was some 2000 pages long. Then every federal department/agency involved added their own interpretations and implementation plans and regulations increasing the original legislation by a factor of 10. Like a fungus its tendrils were woven throughout the entire federal and 50 state governments increasing it again by another factor of maybe 50. And impatient people complain that President Trump has not fully eliminated all if Obamacare yet.
      The same thing is going on with renewable energy-its legislation, regulations, rules, rebates, etc. are winding their way through every level of government and eventually negatively impacts every citizen. Strike a snake at its head and the rest will wither and die while screaming and rioting, etc..

      70

  • #
    Halken

    There is one option that should satisfy both camps. Nuclear emits no co2 and cost the same as coal. Finland and France enjoys some on the lowest prices of power in Europe. Avoid the one-off designs, but buy CANDUs or the South Chorea ones. Not perfect, not nuclear satisfy the greens need for co2 free power and society’s need for cheap power with a low environmental footprint.

    https://medium.com/@bobsoelaimaneffendi/nuclear-is-making-a-comeback-its-officially-a-nuclear-renaissance-5accb95193ed

    RE does not work on their own.
    http://euanmearns.com/can-texas-go-100-renewable/

    150

    • #
      Spetzer86

      If the French just weren’t getting ready to start shutting off their nuclear taps: http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-plants-down-due-to-quality-concerns/

      Wonder how many solar panels it takes to completely replace a nuclear reactor during Winter in Europe?

      120

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘There is one option that should satisfy both camps.’

      The nuclear option should be left out of the debate, neither side wants it because of the perceived dangers and start up costs. Lets stick to clean renewables over dirty coal, its the political revolution we have to have.

      732

      • #
        me@home

        And let’s not worry that your so-called clean so-called renewables don’t reduce CO2 emissions, do cause massive enviromental damage in China and elsewhere, do cause massive cost increases, do reduce employment and don’t deliver reliable power.

        100

        • #
          el gordo

          Yes, that is correct, but the pseudo Marxists would rather ignore those inconvenient truths.

          30

      • #
        ivan

        el gordo, you forgot the /sarc tag ;)

        20

    • #
      TdeF

      The Greens would stop it.

      Consider that you can have nuclear if you do not generate or dispose of radioactive waste,
      electricity from coal and gas if you do not generate CO2
      and hydro power if you do not build dams.
      You can have windmills if you do not ruin the landscape has not bothered the people against everything
      as the Green voters live in the cities and hate farmers too.

      Logic is not a strong suit in Green Adelaide.
      For all their suffering the people of Adelaide do not have the lowest CO2 in the world
      because 98% of man released natural CO2 comes from overseas.

      At least the Greens have closed the car factories,
      blown up power stations, strangled Whyalla, Port Pirie and Olympic Dam
      and put off the submarines for two decades.

      All for nothing.

      340

      • #

        Yes TdeF, the Greens still live, breathing out CO2 all for nothing. If the Greens would shut their mouths and stick their head in the sand the world might be better off.

        30

      • #
        greggg

        Yes, it is the people of Adelaide. Country people don’t vote for that cr*p.

        30

    • #
      el gordo

      Wow, I’ve got more red thumbs than Willard, must be twitterspherians.

      Just to set the record straight, the Klimatariat and their running dogs moved the goal posts when the hiatus could no longer be ignored.

      What is needed is a scientific paradigm shift on climate change, its the revolution we have to have, which would produce energy policy both sides of politics can accept.

      41

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    You need to pay Obama $400,000 plus expenses to come and tell you how to fix things. If he likes the money he will keep it — and offer to come back next year and say nothing again.

    181

    • #
      Griffo

      No thanks,you can keep Obama,here in Australia we have our own feel good political featherweights,far too many for my liking.

      100

    • #
      bobl

      And the rest, top tier hotel motorade, armed security, and a trip to the nearest golf links while a natural disaster is unfolding… I’m sure you will have to arrange the natural disaster too.
      /sarc

      40

  • #
    Pauly

    I read the “report”. It looks and reads more like a PowerPoint presentation. Lots of blank space with the key words and messages repeated frequently throughout.

    While there were references to reducing the retail cost to consumers, the report appears to favour modelling as its basis of analysis, yet there was very little economic modelling presented. For example, while there were colourful graphs showing the percentage change in generating mix, there was no complementary graph showing the amount of excess generation capacity that would need to be installed – nor the potential infrastructure cost to support this renewable vision.

    Similarly, despite a sop for consumers, at no point did the report show the potential changes to wholesale electricity costs, or the potential retail electricity costs that were likely to eventuate as the generation mix progressed to its ultimate stage.

    And despite a chief scientist producing this report, at no point could I find an explanation of his modelling methodology, any assumptions made, and of course, no actual results comparing different potential generation mixes. Given that it was a government report, I wasn’t expecting to see any actual data or things as prosaic as citations to actual sources of electricity costs from real world examples.

    It appears to be another case of “trust me, I’m a scientist “. Even better, this is from the Chief Scientist, who has no peers!

    410

    • #
      sophocles

      Does it model the wind?

      100

    • #
      David Maddison

      There is an option for the 212 page report, the 16 page snapshot or the 8 page consolidated recommendations representing the dumb, dumber and dumbest versions of the report.

      Guess which one the politicians will gloss over (but not read or understand), not that it will stop them voting on it?

      172

    • #

      Pauly, I am glad he is called “Chief Scientist”, like Chief of the so-called “Climate Scientists” who have demonstrated they have no understanding of technology, and not Chief Engineer (he is not a registered engineer ) like great engineers in the past such as Bradfield (in NSW) and of course Brunnell in UK.

      20

  • #
    John Smith

    Maybe I’ve read too much history.
    For me this stuff always evokes the Medieval Church.
    “Yes we priests live in luxury because we are the messengers of heaven, and our message for the common folk is that misery and poverty is your path to grace.”

    290

  • #
    tom0mason

    My prediction –
    Sales of personal generators will necessarily skyrocket.

    310

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But only for personal use, I am afraid. You are not allowed to connect them to the grid, and you can’t even throw a cable over the fence to share your power with your neighbour, or they share theirs, with you. That is why a centrally controlled grid was developed in the first place.

      This current brain-burp from your chef-scientist looks like a giant step back to the future, when giant wombats ruled supreme.

      If you want to know what the future will be like. Look at a satellite photo of the Korean Peninsular and surrounding countries, when it is their night-time.

      From where I sit, it looks like the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

      280

      • #
        bobl

        What the government don’t know can’t hurt them, Isn’t underground cabling wonderful.

        60

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Wait until the first death on a hospital operating table due to a power cut…..things will change.

        However – the globalists are prepared for the coming unrest – why do you think police forces look like paramilitary outfits now?

        Notice how many schools now can function as internment facilities with shiny new 6′ fences….funded by the govt….

        20

    • #
      ivan

      Maybe it ie time for someone to develop a small portable steam turbine that can be fueled with a wide range of fuel – at least that wouldn’t have the noise a diesel or petrol generator would have to advertise its presence and being multi fuel allows the cheapest to be used.

      10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        It seems to me that a departure from a reciprocating machine for this purpose would be desirable.
        However a PEM fuel cell such as this one or a GE Homegen 7000 would avoid re-inventing the wheel.
        Although GE had a commercial product about 20 years ago it seems to have disappeared.

        10

  • #
    nightspore

    Fascinating. Another sign that these people have raised the drawbridge to reality for good.

    180

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yep…and the globalists believe we will be forced to change if necessary…by force…have no doubt….all to protect thier mythical Gaia….

      20

  • #
    grahamd

    Yes, not surprisingly, there is rebellion in the ranks of the conservative voter.
    Those revolting back benchers must be a more astute and better informed, than the revolting leadership we have, so bring on that revolt. As for carbon capture, the CO2 hypothesis has failed, we are now back to greening the planet, so let it go,go,go!

    200

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      “My liege, the peasants are revolting”
      “I know, I know”

      60

      • #
        Glen Michel

        As ever the peasants remain bog ignorant. Look at life as a Rat-wheel where we look up in awe and admiration of these geniuses like Finkel- chief scientist who like most experts exhibit classic Dunning- Kruger type behaviour. I like this site because people are realistic ,intelligent and self informed.Mostly.

        110

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I had a science teacher, who said the most important words that anybody can ask of science is, “Why?”; “How?”; “What?”; and “When?”

          I had an English teacher, who showed the brilliance of Kipling: “I have six loyal serving men, they serve me good and true. There names are “What”, and “Why”, and “How”, and “Where”, and “When”, and “Who”.

          Those six words were drilled into us in both Literature, and Science. Our teachers asked us to explain our thoughts, in those terms. The same at University. And when I entered paid employment, I had to address each of the six questions in each and every report I wrote, even if only to say that it was irrelevant.

          I tried to explain this to some twenty-somethings, a while ago. They pulled me up over the Kipling quotation, because it was sexist, and therefore irrelevant.

          That was the point where I realised that we were all doomed.

          Society and modern civilisation cannot endure unless we have people in charge who are actually encouraged, and have the skills to think outside of the smug, self centered, self congratulating, and self serving meme du jour, that passes itself off, and congratulates itself, as intellectual thought.

          170

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Finkel: Turn the whole country into South Australia Venezuela by 2030, is Finkel our Lysenko?

    220

  • #
    Ruairi

    The daft threat politicians convey,
    Is that ‘carbon’ will cause a doomsday,
    So expect for electric,
    Whether warmist or skeptic,
    All exorbitant increases pay.

    190

  • #
    Gordon

    Why renewable? Han’t Musk finished with his battery system yet? :0

    70

  • #
    James Murphy

    “…Consumers will be financially rewarded if they agree to manage their demand and share their resources such as solar panels and battery storage…”

    I don’t have roof space for a useful array of solar panels (possibly room for solar hot water, but that’s not a simple installation either), and I might be crazy, but I am not crazy enough to pay twice (or more) to use mains power to charge a Tesla powerwall fireball>.

    What am I supposed to do? Actually, as I don’t currently live in my property, what are my poor tenants supposed to do?

    How are the hundreds of thousands of other people who cannot install any form of intermittent indulgence generator going to be able to tread the path of righteous Green salvation?

    100

    • #
      Another Ian

      James

      Before you go solar hot water try googling something like “solarhart leakage”

      In our experience “theoretically sound but practically imperfect”

      70

      • #
        James Murphy

        I grew up with solar got water in the 1980s (possibly a solarhart), supposedly with a stainless steel tank, which survived for just over a decade, if I recall. An extremely tight bank balance lead to a few remedial TIG welds, and other ‘bush mechanic’ fixes to keep it going, which worked surprisingly well – until the wall thickness degraded past the point of no return for such fixes. As a new tank of any type was, at the time, completely beyond sanity in terms of price, the system was abandoned in favour of instant gas.

        As for my plans for solar hot water, it is much more of an idle fancy than a solid plan. I got a quote once, about 8 years ago, and it just didn’t seem to be worth the effort, given the very difficult access to the roof, and, indeed, the price.

        60

      • #
        yarpos

        not the only kind of solar hot water Ian, its a simple technology that actually does work. The sort of scope where renewables are useful in.

        20

        • #
          Griffo

          Solar hot water systems work OK in lower latitude areas like Alice Springs,I’m not sure solar is worth the bother somewhere like Sydney or Melbourne. A lot of solar hot water units are designed and built in Adelaide,it might work there without the silly subsidies provided by silly politicians.

          30

    • #

      I’ve been thinking about putting my office room on a solar circuit so that if there is a blackout (common in the bush) I will still have lighting, electronics, netphone etc. Solar hot water isn’t out of the question. Hard to justify the cost and extra hardware, but I’m a bit of a fan of alternatives. It’s why I keep a gravity feed to just one internal tap from a dedicated rainwater tank. Why depend completely on grids and pumps when you can spread your bets a bit?

      The point is that these “renewables”, while not really renewable since they involve substantial maintenance/replacement costs, can be handy for some people and situations.

      What’s astounding is the delusion that such old ideas as wind and solar are somehow new, and that what can only occupy a niche is suddenly fit for mainstreaming. Or maybe, in line with what I’ve said above in this thread, maybe we’re dealing with mass manipulation rather than mass delusion.

      Many who would dismiss this notion of mass manipulation as potty are nonetheless willing to believe that Elon the Muzik Man can power their state with big batteries…or take them to Mars. They heard it on the Carrie and Waleed Show!

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        What’s astounding is the delusion that such old ideas as wind and solar are somehow new, and that what can only occupy a niche is suddenly fit for mainstreaming.

        There were, and still are, a lot of reasons why discrete wind generators and solar panels were tried in the past, and rejected in favour of having centralised supply.

        People who do not understand history, are doomed to repeat it.

        120

  • #
    David Maddison

    Why do they call windmills “new technology”?

    They are old technology and were abandoned over 200 years ago as soon as reliable steam engines were developed.

    They still have the same inherent defects today (intermittency and low energy density) that lead to them being abandoned first time around.

    202

  • #
    David Maddison

    One wonders how people like Fink can sleep at night.

    He had the chance to reverse the tremendous economic damage being done to Australia by the expensive unreliables.

    He failed and as a result Australia faces economic ruin.

    222

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      One word: “complacency”

      Definition: Tranquil pleasure, self satisfaction, esp. when uncritical or unwarranted

      The Government Chief Scientist is the governments pre-eminent scientist, almost by definition. How can he therefore be wrong?

      Critical evaluation of all of the facts without bias and aforethought are therefore not for him, because he knows, based on all of the literature that he has chosen to review, that his opinion is the correct one. Obviously any research that goes against that opinion must be flawed and can therefore be rejected.

      90

    • #
      ghl

      DM
      You are seeing this report as a plan for Australia’s future. It is not. It is a P.R. device to extend a gravy train for a few more years and a few more projects. When the public uproar becomes deafening, the pollies will commission a report that allows that perhaps the real benefits were not as great as foreseen. we have already seen reports of “less wind than forecast” and “more clouds etc”

      30

  • #
    RobK

    As the coal industry atrophies (as it surely must) under either the RET or the CET the source of funding to subsidize renewballs will cease. Of course the price will go up. To get any kind of utility out of the utility it will need a lot of storage, of course the price will go up. The service life of renewballs is less than half of coal fired power stations, of course the price will go up. A distributed smart grid is way more complex than a centralized one, of course the price is going to go up. Finkel recommended a security panel be established in addition to the plethora of boards and regulators, all requiring more funding for more reporting and regulation, of course the price will go up.
    Oh, of course, renewballs are free so we save 4c/kWh but add how much? How much when the government doesn’t or can’t arrange to chip in the 30% rebate on capital and the 6c/kWh in feed-in. What is the expected real cost? This will end in tears.

    110

    • #
      RobK

      A side note: 4-5c/kWh is the wholesale price for coal fired electricity. It is the sum of fuel, capital and operating cost. The fuel component is only a portion of that.

      40

      • #

        RobK mentions this: (my bolding here)

        A side note: 4-5c/kWh is the wholesale price for coal fired electricity. It is the sum of fuel, capital and operating cost. The fuel component is only a portion of that.

        Let me show you something here.

        These new HELE coal fired power plants are eeeeenormously expensive, well, so we are told anyway.

        They can construct them in China for the equivalent of $1.2 Billion Australian. There’s no way possible they can construct them that cheap here in Australia, for all the obvious reasons. However, we can see what they might cost in an already Developed Country where they are building them in Germany, and the cost there is the equivalent of $4 Billion.

        Now, for all those same reasons I already mentioned it would be even higher here in Australia, and I’ve seen quotes up around $5 Billion.

        See, way too expensive, totally unthinkable.

        Okay then, let’s break that down, and here, be fully aware that this is just for construction cost alone.

        That construction cost has to spread out across the life of the plant itself, and is recovered as (part of) the cost per unit of electricity generated and sold at wholesale to the retailers who then onsell it.

        So then, let’s even use that quoted cost of a totally out of the question $5 Billion.

        The HELE plant would have two units, each running a 1200MW generator, hence a Nameplate of 2400MW. It will run at a lifetime Capacity Factor of 75%, and here I’ll even go on the low side because in China, after ten years, some of them are still averaging 90% Plus. It will have a life span of 50 years.

        So we have 2400 (MW) X 24 (hours in a day) X 365.25 (days in a year) X 0.75 (Capacity Factor of 75%) X 50 (lifespan in years) for a result expressed in MWH.

        Total generated power – 788,940,000MWH

        Total cost – $5 Billion

        Cost of power per unit (KWH) – 0.633 cents per KWH

        Okay then, let’s look at the thought bubble proposal for a new offshore wind plant in Victoria recently reported at the ABC. It will (supposedly) generate 18% of Victoria’s power, yeah, based around a Nameplate, and around the same as Hazelwood’s Nameplate, so they assume it would supply the same percentage power, so that means a Nameplate of 1500MW, and a proposed cost of, wait for it, only $8 Billion, a snap eh, and trust me, this is just a thought bubble, as it has little chance of being constructed, but hey we can still do the Maths eh!

        It will have a lifespan of 25 years, again let’s go with best case here, and a Capacity Factor of 35%, and again I’ll even go on the best case here as well.

        So we have 1500 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.35 X 25 and the end result is 115,053,750MWH

        The end cost per unit of generated power is 6.95 cents per KWH

        Now, while this is just for the recovery of the construction cost alone, note that this cost for wind is 11 times that of the HELE coal fired plant.

        Note when referring back to what RobK mentioned, it is still more expensive (just the construction cost alone) than the all up cost for coal fired power.

        Renewables cheaper than coal fired power.

        Yeah, right!

        Tony.

        342

        • #
          RobK

          You’re quite right Tony, the point I was making was that coal is incredibly cheap. Say round your capital cost up to 1cent(including a bit of finance),say profit, maintenance and sundry 1cent, then it’s 2-3c/kWh for fuel. It’s probably less. The maintenance on most renewballs would be more.

          30

          • #
            RobK

            Price of coal in Australia at Newcastle is around $100/tonne for (12000btu/lb).http://www.indexmundi.com/Commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60
            ….now to find some conversions.

            20

            • #

              RobK,

              the point you need to look at here is that most of those large scale coal fired power plants here in Oz are built at the site of the coal mine itself, and the owner of the plant is also the owner of the mine, so they are using their own coal.

              They only pay for the actual mining of the coal itself, and they either mine the coal and sell it, or in this case, mine the coal and use it.

              Tony.

              72

              • #
                RobK

                Yes, but that only makes it cheaper still.
                12000 btu/lb=28000kJ/kg which divided by 3600 seconds equals about 7.8 kWh/kg. Multiply by say,0.33 efficiency equals about 2.6 kWh/kg.
                So, say 2600kWh for $100= just under 4c.

                20

              • #
                RobK

                As you say the cost to own use is probably closer to half that and the efficiency is likely a bit better than 0.33, a new one definitely would be.

                30

        • #
          peter

          Tony,

          You say “Now, while this is just for the recovery of the construction cost alone, note that this cost for wind is 11 times that of the HELE coal fired plant.”

          How do you arrive at “11″? The HELE is $5billion for 2400MW and the offshore wind is $8 billion for 1500MW
          Peter

          11

          • #

            peter,

            see why it’s so difficult to explain something like this.

            What you need to realise here is the actual total power being generated, and not just the Nameplate.

            The Wind example I gave was 115,053,750MWH for its lifetime, and the end cost per unit of generated power is 6.95 cents per KWH.

            The HELE example I gave was 788,940,000MWH for its lifetime, and the end cost per unit of generated power is 0.633 cents per KWH

            11 times the cost.

            The cost is recovered from the end sale of each unit of generated power.

            Tony.

            82

            • #
              peter

              Thanks, it’s really quite staggering the cost differential. Unfortunately Finkel has set the CET so low that only coal plants with CCS would be eligible, but of course, the huge cost and technical problems with CCS ensures that non one would be loony enough to build one.

              40

              • #

                You couldn’t build one anyway.

                The full engineering aspects make it impossible to achieve on the scale required.

                That’s just another of the things that the greenies have not bothered to check, but they still factor in the cost of it when comparing wind to ….. NEW coal fired power. They have every trick in the book to make coal appear more expensive than renewables.

                Tony.

                142

        • #
          ivan

          Tony, you are being nasty ;)

          While a lot of us engineers understand what you are talking about I doubt that many others do.

          To try and get politicians, marketing wonks, MBAs and greens to look at it is an impossibility – it would make their heads explode (which might not be a bad thing). Unfortunately, they are the people that need convincing and that is NOT going to happen unless they are directly involved in total loss of power for several weeks.

          10

    • #
      James

      So called smart meters are only good for grid management, if there is major rewiring of individual circuits. The main reason utilities installed smart meters was to allow for remote disconnect of non payers. Much easier than having to send out a linesman to cut the power off, and with the cost so high these days, people get cut off more often.

      30

  • #
    Hat Rack

    Sorry, I’ve forgotten. Can someone please explain to me, again, how will more subsidised part-time solar, and more subsidised unreliable wind power, reduce electricity prices?

    150

    • #
      yarpos

      Because blind faith and mantra chanting. VIC energy minister D’ambrosio trots that out on a regular basis, that renewables drive prices down. You would think its been amply demonstrated on a global basis that it does the reverse , yet they continue to blurt it out authoritatively.

      100

    • #
      Asp

      Australia’s economy will collapse to the point where AUD 1.00 per kWh will be a trivial amount in global terms, maybe?

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Pixie dust. It keeps the Nargles away, it reduces electricity bills, and is good for treating bunions.

      60

  • #
    RobK

    A coal fired power station has storage in the form of a large stockpile ready to feed the boiler. We plan to replace that with batteries which would take up a larger volume. The price is going to go up, the reliability down.

    150

  • #
    Another Ian

    Around this area

    ” Pat Frank
    June 12, 2017 at 10:46 am

    It’s very clear that the nation most vulnerable to climate change is the United States.

    Huge removal of wealth? (check)
    Destruction of farms? (check)
    Ruination of cities? (check)
    Increasingly violent social turmoil? (check)
    Primary focus of climate-related hostility? (check)
    Politicians especially addled by climate change heat? (check and check again)

    One could go on.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/12/which-nation-is-most-vulnerable-to-climate-change/#comment-2525845

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    We need to get back to the science of climate change as suggested by senator Malcolm Roberts.

    ‘The problem with this is that it creates a problem which doesn’t exist and then it provides a solution that is not going to save any money,’ he said.

    ‘We would like to see all climate policies removed and we want to see policies based on empirical scientific evidence.’

    211

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is not going to happen in a hurry.

      Too many political careers have been tethered to this scam/meme/idea/whatever for the politicians to suddenly do an about-face.

      The change in opinion will start when some of the rusted-on worriers start discussing and exploring Senator Roberts’ views. It will be a slow and graceful about face, barring an election, but it will happen. It will happen, because it must, if Australia is not to become a third-world country.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        The Trump Effect should be useful for Malcolm Roberts, once the msm discover he has Donald’s script in his back pocket. The situation is quite fluid, if Michael Gove (UK Environment Minister) starts sprouting politically incorrect things, it could be all over bar the shouting.

        It really comes down to the media exposing the lack of due diligence in all of this, then the rusted ons will come onboard and plead ignorance.

        10

  • #
    Trevor

    How many political careers shall we break on the carbon wheel?
    One more I hope

    90

    • #
      James Murphy

      “How many political careers shall we break on the carbon wheel?”

      As many as it takes, and then a few more for good measure.

      110

  • #
    Egor the One

    So the Foinkel Fiasco is all about a 42% and increased intermittent toy energy con …more windmills, with we ,the little people forced to pay for this perpetual scam !…….big surprise.

    What did anybody expect from a TurnBull lackey and gloBull warmer appointee?

    I would like to know, how many in government and bureaucratic appointees have a financial interest in such junk intermittents as windmills.

    There has to be real reasons why it is so difficult to get rid of this obvious scam, which is being masqueraded as a do good save the planet deal of which we in Australia are some of the very few net payers.

    I cannot report on last night’s Q&BS, as I find it too sickening to watch such a collection of deceitful propagandists and gloBull Warmer PitchForkers in full BS mode.
    I tried to watch some of it to see what the imbecile hard lefties are up to, but after only a few seconds, my TV became in danger of being destroyed by me in outrage.

    In the end there is no need to watch, as any could guess the kind of garbage and medievalism being flogged as science !

    We, in Australia must prepare for an increased rip off.

    120

  • #
    Robdel

    The sooner we head for perpetual blackouts and higher electricity prices, the faster will the people “get it”. There is nothing so persuasive as impoverishment and darkness to concentrate the mind of the populace.

    140

  • #
    Margaret Smith

    Entertainingly written with useful info. We have our own problems here in the UK but are watching the amazing stupidity of your politians which is where we may well be going. Would Tony Abbott back again help? Is there anyone else?

    150

  • #
    Neville

    Jo gives a good summary of the Finkel Report and what a mess it is. And Labor now tells us they will further damage the OZ economy and force up electricity prices even higher once they are elected.

    But the bottom line is that we will waste even more billions $ for no measurable change to temp by 2040 and beyond. Don’t forget that the NON OECD countries will increase THEIR co2 emissions by 51% by 2040. See link below. A Shorten Labor govt would be so clueless that they would be prepared to ignore very simple maths and science to push their stupid agenda. OH and at the same time Labor would happily export coal and gas to any country in the world.

    These people are crazy, yet the polls seem to show that enough Aussie voters will vote for them at the next election.
    Here is the 2016 EIA report forecasting emissions by 2040. Will these people ever wake up?

    https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/emissions.pdf

    90

  • #
    David Maddison

    How to argue against Fink recommendations?

    How far back do we go?

    Do we need to argue that there is no anthropogenic global warming and the recommendations are invalid?

    Do we say that the recommendations are simply more of the same?

    Do we say we need to remove the carbon tax (REC)?

    What is the best approach?

    83

  • #
    gnome

    I’m not sure the Finkel thing is all bad. If unreliables are forced to provide their own backup there won’t be any more built, especially if the “carbon emissions” of their backups are taken into account in determining their subsidy levels.

    In an ideal world it would be the circuit breaker we need. Of course that would mean trusting the pollies to enforce reality, and that’s taking a little too much on trust.

    71

    • #
      el gordo

      Politicians never fail to disappoint.

      50

    • #
      RobK

      The deal works something like this:
      Coal emits about 760g CO2/kWh, gas about 400g CO2/kWh and the emission threshold to be set at 700g CO2/kWh. The retailer has to source certificates for anything over the threshold, so both gas and renewballs get a leg up whilst coal is around. When coal is actually dead, will the threshold change? Finkel expects gas to be 3% at some stage so there’s a lot of storage that will not happen unless the threshold is lowered. It is a brave plan that relies on undeveloped technologies if the cost is to be anything like what we are used to.

      10

      • #
        toorightmate

        The “scientific” debate continues based on CO2 being a control knob for climate.
        The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.

        110

  • #
    Alfred (Melbourne)

    “Alan Finkel, chancellor of Monash University and a former chief technology officer of Better Place Australia, said the company had been caught in a technological bind.”

    How Better Place (electric cars 2013) got lost

    This “technological bind” was obvious from the start – and Tesla has exactly the same problem today. Finkel and his posturing cost Israeli investors a cool $US850m back then. He is going to cost the Australian economy that sum with a few zeros tacked to the end before he gets exposed for the scam-artist that he is.

    160

  • #
    philthegeek

    If nothing else, Finkel has brought the self wedging elements of of the LNP out of the wood work for entertainment purposes.

    Funny, the right of politics just cant seem to keep their mouths shut at the moment…when they could achieve so much more of their agenda if they did.

    30

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘….when they could achieve so much more of their agenda if they did.’

      Could you flesh that out a bit?

      30

      • #
        philthegeek

        Could you flesh that out a bit?

        See my below @ 30.1.1 :)

        And its a not so oblique reference to DLD and his propensity to tweet at odd moments.

        Looking at things from DLD’s perspective (shudder) it seems to me that if he just knew when to STFU and stopped being so reactive then he;s be having an easier time of it getting people to focus on his “policy” agenda than his apparent misdemeanours.

        The same for the Govt here. If certain people didn’t feel they have to comment all the time (pushing their individual ambitions??) they could at least project like there is some sort of unity in the Lib/Nats.

        And PHON?? FFS…they have talked themselves into ALL kinds of bother.

        Their base voters, the committed ones seem to be putting up with things. But its not the base they need to win over, and simply keeping those somewhat onside aint going to improve their situation.

        “conservatives” doing themselves all kinds of self harm at the moment.

        10

  • #
    philthegeek

    http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/12/trump-terminating-russia-special-counsel-robert-mueller.html

    Ok, this almost HAS to be “fake”. Seriously…no one could be that silly.

    11

    • #
      gnome

      Yes – it is a fake news site. (Look at the other stories they have recently run.)

      However, the “investigation” into the “Russia scandal” (Politicususa own usage) is so discredited now that even Comey has admitted there’s nothing there, that dismissing the investigator would be accepted by most citizens. The US mainstream media will go on trying to kick up a fuss regardless, but why should their President go on wasting his time and resources on an investigation into nothing?

      US mainstream media is becoming as badly discredited as Comey, Lynch and the Hillary-instigated “Russia scandal”.

      70

      • #
        philthegeek

        Seriously gnome, do you actually have shares in a cool aid company?

        Whether there is anything to the “Russia scandal” or not, DLD has ensured that has been overtaken by events.

        Its now about obstruction of justice which is a separate matter.

        You see, in politics its often not the fwark up that gets you…its the cover up. :)

        Thought this was a report about a comedy sketch.

        http://www.smh.com.au/world/donald-trump-throws-himself-a-tv-lovefest-20170612-gwptve.html

        Turns out its real. WTF has happened to the USA? This in NK….ok i can see that. In the US??? :(

        11

  • #
    Alfred (Melbourne)

    Here is the sort of drivel that we get from Australian newspapers. The journalists don’t seem to know the difference between kWh and Wh – or perhaps between 20 cents and $20. I am not quite sure what they mean in this propaganda piece:

    “Based on SolarQuotes’ solar battery comparison table, the Ampetus, a $2300, 3kWh battery has the lowest cost per warranted kWh of all the batteries currently on the market, at 19c. Tesla’s Powerwall 2 is a close second at 23c per warranted kWh.”

    Tesla’s Powerwall 2 will drop power bill to $0, says Melbourne man

    I suspect that “warranted” means “nominal” – an interesting use of the English language.

    Obviously, this smart guy lives in a place where it is always sunny – and where the coal-fired power stations provide backup around the clock all year round.

    Whatever “saving” he is making is on the back of the poor and renters who have to pay an inflated price for electricity.

    70

    • #
      RobK

      The cost of owning the battery over it’s life of charge and discharge before it needs replacing is what is meant. It’s a guesstimate at typical usage and doesn’t count the electricity to charge it (you get your solar for free).

      20

    • #
      Curious George

      The numbers don’t make sense. At 19c per kWh, a 3 kWh battery should cost 57c. How that inflates to $2,300 is beyond me.

      20

      • #
        RobK

        George,
        Try it like this:
        The battery costs $2300. It can charge and discharge around 4000 times then it’s stuffed. It’s storage capacity is 3kWh so …That’s $2300/12000=about19c

        20

        • #
          RobK

          $2300/12000kWh=about 19c/kWh for every kWh you take from the battery over it’s useful life. No account is taken of the cost to keep charging it, that’s separate ontop.

          40

          • #
            bobl

            Lets sanity check that.
            http://www.off-grid-europe.com/7-pzs-420l-24v-10080w-traction-battery lists a 13KWh traction battery for 1220 pounds at current exchange rate thats 2051 AUD you can recharge that 2000 times at 50% DoD the lifetime capacity is 13×0.5×2000 = 13000 kWh 2051/13000=15.7c per kWh and this is plain old lead acid tech.

            If I calculate it like you did without accounting for DoD then its 7.85c per kWh.

            Or I could use this one battery
            http://www.aussiebatteries.com.au/batteries/deep-cycle-agm/EP-280ah-1
            24V 280AH or 6.8 KWh
            Does 1250 cycles at 30% DoD and costs $319 so 6.8 x 0.3 x 1250 = 2550 kWh
            319/2550 = 12.5c per kWh.

            Just goes to show that lithium tech ain’t all it is cracked up to be. Because that 3KW lithium battery is discharged to 80% there is nothing in reserve, this single lead acid AGM battery is 6.8KWh and so in an emergency can easily draw double your usual of 2.3kWh to 60% discharge. Being an AGM battery it will survive that just fine. $319 or $2300 hmm, choices, choices.

            20

            • #
              RobK

              Yes, deep cycle Pb cells are cheaper. They take up a bit more room and are heavier(none of which is particularly relevant for stationary applications.

              00

  • #
    Turtle

    On Q&A last night Finley told us not to focus on the details of the plan and to instead focus on the result. What a scammer.

    It’s like we invested in dud stocks and the guy we bought them from keeps promising a fortune around the corner. A Ponzi scheme, in short.

    90

    • #
      Curious George

      It is a true and tried approach. When Nancy Pelosi was pushing Obamacare though the Congress, she commanded: “Don’t read it. Just sign it.” Now she has a Nancy Pelosi Drive in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park.

      20

      • #
        Another Ian

        I just got an email with some interesting posters re US election etc.

        The caption of one reads

        “When you are down in the dumps and think you have real problems, just remember

        Somewhere in the world there is a Mr Pelosi”

        30

  • #

    42% Renewables by 2030!

    Yeah right!

    Just these last 7 days.

    Average power consumption for all Australia East of the WA border – 25,000MW

    Average Base Load (absolute minimum requirement) – 18,000MW

    Wind power average power delivery – 570MW

    So then, here we have a seven day period where wind power supplies 2.3% of actual power demand.

    2.3%

    Okay then, there will be the odd occasion when it might supply perhaps as high as 15%, considering the current total Nameplate for wind is 4400MW. (not that wind will ever supply that maximum, not even for one minute, let alone constantly)

    Just what do you do when you have consistently long periods of time when wind power is supplying such a tiny fraction ….. OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

    Who gets shut down, and don’t think it will just be a few homes in certain residential areas, because at such a tiny fraction, this is wholesale cities and probably even a State.

    What do you do when something like that happens?

    You can’t coax the wind to blow. It’s just so variable that even quoting a seven day average of 570MW is misleading.

    Electrical power is required ABSOLUTELY, not just asking some homes to reduce their consumption, considering that the Residential Sector consumes (around) a third of all electricity consumption, so a few blacked out homes is nothing

    Take the current Wind power Nameplate of 4400MW, and multiply that by a factor of seven to ten and that’s what an impact of 42% renewables would look like, and then you’ll get extended periods where even that huge total will only be delivering 15% of WHAT IS REQUIRED. (the current 2.3% multiplied by that factor of a seven times increase)

    You can pay whatever you want, but if there is no power, then that cost thing means absolutely nothing.

    And if you seriously think that they can actually construct that many wind plants in the next 11 years, then you really are dreamin’. They would need to be in the pipeline right now, and they aren’t.

    Tony.

    352

  • #
    Faye Busch

    Look, when are we going to put a STOP to this coercion, lies and spin. It is criminal that the people who are supposed to look after their citizens are deliberately hurting them FOR NO LEGITIMATE REASON.
    Roget’s Thesaurus expands the criminality being laid on us:
    “COERCION”, intimidation, scare tactics, duress, naked force, rule of might, pressure.
    There is empirical evidence to prove their sinister, manipulated, phony schemes don’t work SO why are they pushing them? Well, what better way to have global rule than by global climate catastrophe.
    As in 2009, we will fight Turnbull with thousands of emails to all parliamentarians to stop this from passing into legislation. Then bye bye Turnbull FOREVER this time!

    120

  • #
    Robber

    We really need to try and write a children’s book that hopefully our politicians will understand (with pictures to be added, of course).

    Once upon a time, some pollies decided to build lots of windmills to provide free power for everyone in Australia.
    Each windmill has a big turbine on top of the tower with huge blades that spin in the wind.
    When the wind blows hard (but not too hard) each turbine can produce 3 megawatts (that’s 3 million watts) of power, enough to light 300,000 globes, or run 3,000 microwaves. That’s enough power for about 3,000 people.
    Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

    In Australia we use about 21,000 megawatts of power on average, so that means we would need 7,000 windmills.
    But wait, the wind doesn’t always blow strongly, in fact on average it only blows at one third of that strength. So we really need 21,000 windmills.

    Now just imagine, if we put all those windmills in a line, each 300 metres away from the next one, because they are very big, they would stretch for 6,300 kilometres.
    That’s equal to the distance from Sydney to Perth, plus the distance from Melbourne to Darwin.
    Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have our very own Southern Cross criss-crossing our continent from east to west and north to south, providing free power for all?

    What’s that, you have some questions?
    – How much would 21,000 windmills cost? Well, about $6 million each, or about $126 billion in total. But don’t you worry about that, our wonderful Australian government collects over $400 billion each year, so over the next 10 years this would just require some small additions to borrowings.

    – And what happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Um, I think it’s time to turn the lights out and go to bed.

    PS. For brighter children and some pollies, you might have to explain that on windless days you do need to keep in reserve existing coal and gas fired stations, equal to 100% of peak demand. Alternatively, at peak wind there is surplus production, so you could spend even more $ billions to install huge batteries and/or lots of pumped hydro. But that’s another unwritten story.

    Feel free to amend and expand this story (free solar anyone?), and hopefully someone can create some pretty pictures.

    150

    • #
      David Maddison

      Excellent Robber. I think that is the only way we can make politicians and the sheeple understand. I think you need to precede the story with the hockey stick and how all the CO2 = global warming mythology got started.

      This format would make a very good explanation that even politicians could understand.

      Do we have any JoNovans that can do children’s book style illustrations?

      82

      • #
        Robber

        Thanks David. I don’t think the global warming scare readily lends itself to a children’s story – more like a horror story with forecasts of floods, droughts, hurricanes, famines, and lots of heat. But then the good people came along and stopped burning evil fossil fuels and they all lived happily ever after.

        50

    • #
      Hivemind

      There is something wrong with your numbers. Powering 3,000 microwaves isn’t enough to power 3,000 homes. Consider winter… I’m running 4 fan heaters (4 KW), 6 lights (48 W) and 5 computers (1.5 KW). This evening, I will be cooking dinner with 1 hotplate (1 KW) and an oven (1.5 KW). This doesn’t even include power to heat the hot water because I have solar water heating; most homes don’t.

      Total power would be 8 KW, meaning we can only power 375 homes. I have long suspected that the figures promoted by the greenie politicians for houses supported by each windfarm were way off. Now that I look at the numbers, I am sure of it.

      90

      • #
        Robber

        Thanks Hivemind. That was 3000 people, not homes, and with windmills running at maximum capacity.
        With 21,000 MW for about 21 million people (excl WA/NT) that works out at each windmill supporting about 1000 people, so comes back to round about your number of 375 homes.

        20

    • #
    • #
      Another Ian

      Robber

      “– And what happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Um, I think it’s time to turn the lights out and go to bed.”

      “As sure as babies follow blackouts” – has this been included in the model?

      20

  • #
    Hivemind

    “…manage their demand and share their resources…”

    That’s code for not heat and cool their houses. Did El Fink model how many old people will die in unheated houses?

    The Canberra Greens already have a policy that new housing estates won’t be allowed to connect to gas, and since they control the balance of power, they are sure to get their way. What this means is that these houses will only have electricity for heating. So when the wind power stops in winter, there will be no heat.

    80

    • #
      James

      Can you still get LPG cylinders in Canberra? How about home heating oil delivery, is that still available in Australia? I do not know why you would want to live in Canberra anyway!

      00

  • #
    Robber

    Solar and wind is taking over the world. We hear it all the time.
    Only it is wrong.

    From Bjørn Lomborg:
    Today, solar and wind makes up just 0.6% of global energy. In a quarter century, in 2040 – even if everyone including Trump lives up to their Paris promises – solar and wind will produce less than 3% of global energy.

    141

  • #
    pat

    a must-read:

    12 Jun: AmericanThinker: After Paris: A Green Disaster in the Making in Germany
    By Alex Alexiev
    As for the Paris Agreement itself, after a decent interval to allow for the requisite elites’ huffing and puffing while denying the inevitable, it will be quietly abandoned, much as the Kyoto Protocol was after the U.S. refused to be part of it.

    Of vastly greater political significance are the inevitable shocks the E.U. faces after Paris as the huge penalties for poor policy choices made come due in the near future – and none more so than in the new putative leader of the free world, Germany. For largely unnoticed and unreported in the U.S., with one notable exception, Germany under Merkel has made catastrophic mistakes that require urgent and costly repairs. One stands out as particularly daunting: the wholesale effort to switch Germany to renewable energy, known as the energy transition, or Energiewende…READ ALL
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/after_paris_a_green_disaster_in_the_making_in_germany.html

    130

  • #
    Lance

    At the moment, all that can be done is to pray for Australia to come to her senses.
    Else, watch the nation commit economic suicide as is apparently the case.

    On a brighter note, what say an amendment to current policy be promulgated in the interest of the “precautionary principle”?

    “Renewable energy suppliers shall hold harmless all ratepayers and stockholders whenever they fail to deliver contracted power deliveries”?
    In other words, they “eat the cost of being wrong”. Sounds rational to me.

    In the alternative, “all elected officials who make these empty promises shall forfeit the remainder of their terms, all benefits, and be liable for damages at law” if this cluster fk crashes and burns.

    As one might surmise, the question here is how to protect the populace from the idiocy of their elected officials and the rapacious denouement of the economy in a meaningful way. Absent that, pitchforks, torches, and civil unrest may well be in the offing. Just a guess. History is replete with popular judgment after interminable abominations upon the people.

    130

  • #
    pat

    11 Jun: ZeroHedge: Tyler Durden: It’s Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode
    As Bloomberg (LINK) writes, and as Elon Musk knows all too well, the results confirm that “clean-energy vehicles aren’t attractive enough to compete without some form of taxpayer-backed subsidy.”
    The Denmark case study is emblematic of where the tech/cost curve for clean energy vehicles currently stands, and why for “green” pioneers the continued generosity of governments around the globe is of absolutely critical importance, and also why Trump’s recent withdrawal from the Paris Climate Treaty is nothing short of a business model death threat…

    Then, in the fall of 2015, everything changed: that’s when the government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen announced the progressive phasing out of tax breaks on electric cars, citing budget constraints and the desire to level the playing field…
    Nobody was hurt more than Tesla: in 2015 Tesla sold a total of 2,738 cars in Denmark. In 2016 the number dropped by 94% to just 176 units…
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-11/its-confirmed-without-government-subsidies-tesla-sales-implode

    sadly, if you link to the Bloomberg article, u will find Denmark is backtracking on ending the subsidies:

    2 Jun: Bloomberg: Peter Levring: Denmark Is Killing Tesla (and Other Electric Cars)
    Drop in sales suggests market isn’t yet competitive
    The electric car has dropped out of favor in the country that pioneered renewable energy.
    Sales in Denmark of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (ECV), which include plug-in hybrids, plunged 60.5 percent in the first quarter of the year, compared with the first three months of 2016, according to latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA)…

    In the fall of 2015, the Liberal-led government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen announced the progressive phasing out of tax breaks on electric cars, citing budget constraints and the desire to level the playing field.
    Tesla, whose sales were skyrocketing at the time, lobbied against the move, with Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk warning during a visit to Copenhagen that sales would be hit.
    The new tax regime “completely killed the market,” Laerke Flader, head of the Danish Electric Car Alliance, said in a recent interview. “Price really matters.”…

    But on April 18, having taken note of the drop in sales, the government decided to change the rules…

    Flader said electric car dealers have rolled back their sales drive as a result.
    The electric car industry “doesn’t want to invest in a market that may not be there next year. They’d rather invest where conditions are better and predictable long-term,” Flader said…
    Flader, however, anticipates a rebound in sales as soon as dealerships are allowed to advertise tax-free prices again.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-02/denmark-is-killing-tesla-and-other-electric-cars

    60

    • #
      ivan

      They had electric cars before Ford produced the model T. After the T appeared electric cars were no more.

      Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      20

      • #
        toorightmate

        Does anyone know why the Dutch stopped using windmills?

        20

        • #
          ivan

          Reliability, you really need to be able to rely on the pumps working when needed to keep your below sea-level land from flooding. Wind isn’t that reliable so they changed to a better power source when steam became available.

          00

  • #
    Neville

    Just for accuracy here are US EIA govt co2 emissions from 1973 to 2016. Incredible that US emissions are only marginally higher than 1973. 1973 total was 4.7 bn tonnes and 2016 total was 5.3 bn tonnes or 1.1 times higher now than 43 years ago. And 2017 is trending lower again according to the data.
    1990 was about 5 bn Ts, so just 0.3 bn Ts lower than 2016 and 2016 just 1.06 more than 1990 emissions. Here’s the link. Certainly the US ( or OZ) hasn’t got anything to apologise for and we are being fed a load BS.

    https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf

    70

  • #
    pat

    politicians, FakeNewsMSM & their CAGW cronies in academia and the so-called “renewable” energy sector should be made to stop saying “climate change” and to revert to their original MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING meme.

    allowing them to get away with this sleight of hand was a mistake on the part of CAGW sceptics though, to be fair, sceptics were/are rarely provided with opportunities to put their case directly to the public that the earth isn’t exactly warming as predicted by the phony models:

    12 Jun: Weather Channel: Brian Donegan: It May Be June, But Snow is Falling Early This Week in Parts of the West
    ***Temperatures will be 10 to 20 degrees colder than average to begin this week, which means it may be cold enough for slushy accumulations of snow in the northern Rockies through Tuesday, especially at night…

    ***Highs will be up to 40 degrees cooler than they were late last week in parts of the northern Rockies, so if you have plans to camp early this week, be prepared for cool and wet weather…
    https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/june-snow-northwest-cascades-northern-rockies

    50

  • #
    pat

    even according to this progressive left think tank, only

    ***Twenty eight per cent said they would be prepared to pay more tax to cut greenhouse gas emissions, up from 26 per cent in 2016.

    12 Jun: SMH: Peter Martin: Too much tax? Most Australians happy with what they pay
    The seventh annual Per Capita tax survey finds big support for continuing the temporary deficit repair levy on high earners (66 per cent) and little support for tax cuts for large corporations (17 per cent)…

    The annual survey of 1400 Australians conducted by the Melbourne-based “independent progressive” think tank is the only comprehensive survey of attitudes to tax in Australia…

    Asked whether they would personally be prepared to pay more tax in order to better fund health and aged care services, 58 per cent said yes, down from 63 per cent in 2016. Almost half (47 per cent) said they would be prepared to pay more tax to fund better educational institutions.

    ***Twenty eight per cent said they would be prepared to pay more tax to cut greenhouse gas emissions, up from 26 per cent in 2016.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/per-capita-tax-survey-no-revolt-australians-happy-with-what-they-pay-20170612-gwph15.html

    PDF: 36 pages: Per Capita Tax Survey 2017
    By Emma Dawson with Warwick Smith
    About the authors:
    Emma Dawson is the Executive Director of Per Capita. Formerly, she was a senior advisor on Digital Inclusion at Telstra, Executive Director of the Institute for a Broadband Enabled Society at the University of Melbourne, and a senior policy advisor in the Rudd and Gillard governments. Emma has published over 50 articles and opinion pieces on a wide range of public policy issues, which have appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the Guardian, The Australian, and a number of online publications.
    Emma holds a BA with First Class Honours from LaTrobe University and an MA with Distinction from Monash. She sits on the boards of the Prader-Willi Research Foundation Australia and Arts Access Victoria…

    Warwick Smith works in Per Capita’s Centre for Applied Policy for Positive Ageing (CAPPA) and in our Progressive
    Economics program…
    Warwick has previously worked as a research economist, consultant and freelance writer. His particular areas of
    expertise and interest include the economics of ageing populations, environmental economics, taxation economics and the history and philosophy of economics. Warwick also has a background in evolutionary and conservation biology…

    Acknowledgements:
    The authors acknowledge The Australia Institute for again including the Tax Survey in its Omnibus Survey, with particular thanks to Ebony Bennett and Tom Swann for their assistance. They are grateful to Rod Glover and Allison Orr for their thoughtful comments on the survey design and presentation.
    Above all, Per Capita and the authors are deeply indebted to David Morawetz and the Social Justice Fund for their generous support of the Survey since its inception in 2010.
    http://percapita.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2017-Tax-Survey_Final-1.pdf

    10

  • #
    bobl

    Jo, you missed the biggest economic problem with it. The Finkel plan makes grid electricity MORE EXPENSIVE THAN DIESEL GENERATION. This disaster means that consumers can run on their generators and use the grid for occasional backup and SAVE MONEY. This is called substitution, substitution has killed (pretty much stone dead) vinyl records, cassette tape, 8 track, analog tv, land-line telephones, fax, gas lighting, gas ovens, and a million other things. If a major portion of consumers commit to substitution the grids business model goes under, if grid electricity becomes more expensive than self generation (and it’s verging on that now) then the electricity companies have nothing to sell. Coal electricity delivers a product that is cheaper for consumers and which they can’t afford to buy themselves, but grid scale renewable and gas tech is more expensive than domestic generation tech. Domestic options actually include gas fired options eg http://world.honda.com/power/cogenerator/ so coal power remains the ONLY way to compete. Business scale cogeneration has been around for decades but until Finkel was not economic VS wholesale coal fired electricity.

    Jo please update your article, this is too important to miss.

    I have written to my member and Senator Roberts, this is a disaster in the making of epic proportions, we are actually undermining not coal power, but the grid itself.

    170

    • #
      Konrad

      “The Finkel plan makes grid electricity MORE EXPENSIVE THAN DIESEL GENERATION.”

      This is a very important point. I have many times pointed out the convergence between the price of boot-leg ethanol and the price of powering your home or car with taxed energy. But with the Finkel-Turnleft plan for more solar and wind, citizens aren’t going to wait for convergence because they are going to want reliability that wind and solar cannot provide. Generator sales in the UK are booming because of the reliability problem.

      I have a friend off grid with a rural property that is already paying less per KWh than I am in Sydney for grid power. He has a modern diesel generator that charges a battery bank, with a small amount of solar PV input. Because he doesn’t pay the road tax on his diesel, and he charges batteries at the most efficient operation range for the generator, it’s below 15c per KWh. On the grid, I pay over 20c per KWh.

      The Finkel-Turnleft plan is based on the assumption that demand for electricity is largely inelastic. It ignores the fact that supply can be very flexible and can avoid the taxation needed to prop up Alex Turnbull’s Infigen “investments”.

      But for economic survival, industry needs residential consumers connected to the grid to benefit from economies of scale. The Finkel-Turnleft plan is an economic force driving residential consumers from the grid. Quite simply the Finkel-Turnleft plan is a recipe for the destruction of Australia.

      20

      • #
        bobl

        Konrad, isn’t that what I just said?

        30

        • #
          Konrad

          Why, yes!
          Now if you could please stop furiously agreeing with me, I might stop furiously agreeing with you.
          The Finkel-Turnleft plan is a complete disaster. We both know this.

          However, to become a force for good, you need to abandon the WUWT lukewarmers creed. Repeat after me: “Adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will not reduce our atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability, nor its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet.”

          Don’t understand what that means?
          Didn’t carry out the empirical experiments I gave clear instruction on?

          Then you are just a lukewarmer, not part of the solution, but part of the problem. Just like the clowns at WUWT (excepting Richard Verney).
          It’s not “how much warming will CO2 increases cause?”, but can we even measure “how much cooling CO2 increases will cause?”
          Do you have any concept of how wrong the basic AGW conjecture is? Do you have any cheese at all, he asked expecting the answer “no”?

          50

          • #
            Bobl

            Baby steps. I don’t think whether CO2 can diffuse (absorb and reradiate) IR is particularly relevant to the debate as it stands. For the record I think a greater number of radiating molecules means the earth must cool faster (all things being equal). On the other hand the radiation to the ground does have potential to warm, so what do we get, a cooler stratosphere and a warmer surface. The natural reaction to that will be more convection. On balance I think the effects are just about zero plus or minus 0.5Deg. per doubling. Nothing to worry about. Having determined that the climate effect is SFA we must move onto the politics. They don’t care about the reality, to them it’s all about the moral preening. The solution to that is to show the damage to real people living today of the expensive and unreliable energy driven by this moral preening.

            The science is already discredited, it’s the politics, the religion, that people need to be deprogrammed from. That starts with showing the destructiveness of the renewable energy policies to the nation, to people, their jobs, their livelihoods.

            00

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Excellent blog Joe, you have summarised the situation perfectly. However getting our politicians to understand the futility of renewables is just not happening. For the life of me I cannot understand why! I am ready to march in the streets if necessary if we could organise such an event to make ourselves heard.
    Regards GeoffW

    110

  • #
    Dennis

    The Australian

    PM Postpones Climate Debate

    12:30PMRACHEL BAXENDALE
    PoliticsNow: Coalition party room meeting will reconvene at 4:15pm to discuss Finkel report on energy and climate policy.

    70

    • #
      David Maddison

      What’s to discuss? Just bin it!

      102

      • #
        Dennis

        Along with its author and his sponsor.

        60

        • #
          el gordo

          Much amusement, the debate in the party room ran out of time.

          ‘The key message from Turnbull’s answer was to keep coal alive as an option — if not in the clean energy target itself then by some other policy action. There was no point in going out on a limb before a party room meeting where Abbott will turn up with a saw.’

          30

  • #
    pat

    hmmmm!

    12 Jun: CBC: Laura Glowacki: Climate change researchers cancel expedition because of climate change
    Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen diverted from science mission, continues search and rescue work
    A team of scientists had to abandon an expedition through Hudson Bay because of hazardous ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland caused by climate change…
    Their trip began May 25 in Quebec City, but due to bad ice conditions off the coast of Newfoundland, the icebreaker was diverted from its course to help ferries and fishing boats navigate the Strait of Belle Isle, said David Barber, a climate change scientist at the University of Manitoba and leader of the Hudson Bay expedition called BaySys…

    Thick, dense ice had travelled to the area down from the High Arctic, said Barber, which caused unsuspecting boats to become stuck and even take on water.
    “The requirements for search and rescue trumped the requirements for science,” said Barber. “The search and rescue calls were coming in quite fast and furious.”…

    ‘Very severe ice conditions’
    According to the Canadian Coast Guard, the conditions were unlike anything ever seen before in the area.
    “It was just extreme ice conditions that required everything that we’ve got in order to make sure we were able to provide the services,” said Julie Gascon, the coast guard’s assistant commissioner for the central and Arctic region.
    Strong northeastern winds started packing in ice in late April and never stopped, said Gascon. The result was sea ice conditions treacherous for even an icebreaker to navigate.
    “We never had any issues in the past of this nature,” she said. “Very severe ice conditions.”…

    “This is the first time we’ve actually seen ice from the High Arctic,” said Barber, who has studied the impacts of climate change on sea ice for decades…
    “It’s very much a climate-change driven phenomenon,” said Barber. “When you reduce the extent of the ice and reduce the thickness of it, it becomes more mobile.”…

    “Typically there would be very little or no ice left in either of these areas at this time of year, let alone the thick ice pack we are currently seeing off the northeast coast of Newfoundland,” a spokesperson for the federal department said in an email.
    Barber said the experience off Newfoundland’s coast provides a valuable lesson about climate change to the Canadian government.
    “What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay there. It comes south,” he said. “We’re simply ill-prepared.”

    Barber hopes to resume the Quebec City to Churchill journey next year, while other scientists still plan on boarding the Amundsen for the second leg of the expedition, Churchill to Iqaluit, July 6.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/climate-change-study-1.4157216

    MSM are, naturally, on board:

    Climate change forces cancellation of Arctic climate change study
    Miami Herald – ‎4 hours ago‎
    “Considering the severe ice conditions and the increasing demand for Search And Rescue operations (SAR) and ice escort, we decided to cancel the BaySys mission,” said Dr. David Barber, the expedition’s chief scientist and scientific lead.

    40

  • #
    RoHa

    “How much does an undersea cable to New Zealand cost? It’s only 2,000km.”

    PNG, Timor, and Indonesia are closer. Can’t we get electricity from them?

    30

  • #
    bobl

    Well not PNG so we could have the Clinton foundation build us a nice HELE station in PNG after all they are our go-to guys for PNG.

    40

  • #
    PeterS

    Never before have I seen a Liberal Party PM go this far to destroy our economy by following Labor/Green policies. It remains to be seen how far down the plug hole we go before enough Australians wake up and act accordingly and convincingly. If not then we can kiss goodbye to our supers, our pensions, our jobs and and future. One can only imagine what would happen then. Civil war would be very likely. I sincerely hope Australians are smart enough and quick enough to wake up and get off this road to ruin quick smart. If they are then we should see both major parties wiped off the political map. It’s the only way to get the message across. There is absolutely no other option if we are to avoid economic suicide.

    161

  • #
    pat

    the not-so-smart meter farce continues:

    10 Jun: UK Telegraph: Jillian Ambrose: Utility companies ‘face £700m cost’ for delay in fitting smart meters
    The latest delay to the multi-billion-pound Government-mandated scheme means even higher costs due to the tougher roll-out targets, at the same time as the expected crackdown on energy bills from the new Government begins to bite.
    Senior energy industry sources have voiced concern that the double blow could result in deep cuts to earnings which threaten much-needed investment in the retail energy market and could put dividends at risk.

    One senior executive said the smart meter delay could add an extra £700m in costs across the sector while the Conservative Party’s election campaign pledge to cut £100 from 17 million energy bills wipes hundreds of millions of pounds from earnings…

    The Capita-owned company was initially expected to deliver the smart meter network in late 2015 at a cost of £220m. After a series of bungled deadlines, the final system may only go live later this year at a total cost of almost £900m…

    The DCC’s latest stumbling block emerged in November last year when the final system update failed to include pre-pay energy meters, which are used by around 19 million people. The DCC promised to fix the problem by this spring, but energy companies have said they are still waiting and have been told to expect the update before the end of July.

    In the meantime, energy companies could face fines from the industry regulator if they do not roll out enough devices to their customers.

    This pressure has led to an explosion of first generation meters into homes which is far larger than expected. Many of these devices will need to be replaced at an estimated cost of £500m to be fully compliant with the new system…

    At the same time the growing threat of cyber attacks has meant greater expense to ensure the safety of the project.
    Suppliers had begun warning energy customers that the cost of the roll-out is playing a part in raising the cost of electricity and could hit bills, even before the Government’s threat to intervene in the market…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/10/utility-companies-face-700m-cost-delay-fitting-smart-meters/

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Can anyone confirm the extent of ownership of “renewables” schemes by unions and their investment/super funds?

    83

    • #
      Robber

      David, the Finkel report page 83 Fig 3.4 shows the major owners of generation facilities by % by State, but doesn’t list ownership of renewables as part of that mix.
      The Aneroid website lists the names and capacities of all wind generators, but not their ownership.
      A quick search of the biggest wind generators in each state:
      NSW: Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd. operates as a renewable power company that develops and operates wind farms. It focuses on producing renewable power for New South Wales homes. The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Sydney, Australia. Gullen Range Wind Farm Pty Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of Xinjiang GoldWind Science & Technology Co., Ltd.
      SA: Trustpower Australia Holdings Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Trustpower Limited, a publicly owned company, operating in Australia and New Zealand. We own and operate primarily renewable energy assets, including 39 hydro stations, (36 in NZ and 3 in Aus) and 8 wind farms – 4 in Australia, including Snowtown Stages 1 and 2 in SA and Blaney and Crookwell 1 wind farms in NSW.
      Vic: Macarthur Wind Farm. Power company AGL Energy sold its 50% take in a Victorian wind farm to investment-management firm H.R.L. Morrison & Co for $532 million ($US368 million). AGL will continue to maintain and operate the wind farm on behalf of H.R.L. Morrison & Co. and the other joint venture partner, Malakoff Corp. Berhad (5264.KU) of Malaysia.
      Tas: Musselroe Wind Farm is owned and operated by Hydro Tasmania.

      70

      • #
        ivan

        So they are setup as shell companies to protect the owners when the crunch comes – typical green banking practice.

        30

  • #
  • #
    pat

    from cached version:

    12 Jun: E&E News: Hannah Hess: Pruitt rebuffs G-7 on climate
    The Trump administration bucked Group of Seven allies today, refusing to endorse climate action in a statement on environmental priorities.
    Ministers representing Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union reaffirmed their “strong commitment to the swift and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement” as part of a 63-point communiqué (LINK) developed during a two-day meeting in Italy.

    U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who reportedly departed the meeting early, refused to sign sections related to climate change, multilateral development banks and support for implementation of climate finance pledges.

    Pruitt joined his counterparts in committing to a 2030 agenda for sustainable development, sustainable finance, resource efficiency and marine litter.
    A footnote in the 15-page document states the U.S. decision reflects President Trump’s June 1 announcement of his intent to withdraw and immediately cease implementation of the Paris accord and associated financial commitments…

    Pruitt attended the first few hours of the summit yesterday but left to attend a Cabinet meeting in Washington…
    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/12/stories/1060055898

    12 Jun: Bloomberg: EPA’s Pruitt Blamed Obama for Paris Deal at G-7 Climate Summit
    Pruitt had list of complaints, Germany’s Hendricks says
    by Brian Parkin & Chiara Albanese
    In a catalog of complaints, the EPA chief blasted Obama for failing to sign off with Congress for $3 billion in financing for the international Green Climate fund, German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said in an interview. She cited bilateral talks with Pruitt at a two-day Group of Seven climate summit held in Bologna, Italy on Sunday and Monday, which both officials left early.

    The EPA chief’s “line of argument was purely domestic,” Hendricks said by phone Monday from Berlin. Pruitt said “bluntly” that the accord is not in U.S. interests, she said. Hendricks said she responded to his comments on Congress by arguing that Germany must seek parliamentary approval for annual payments to the Green Fund…

    Having helped forge the Paris treaty text in 2015 that now has attracted about 200 signatory nations, Hendricks said she felt a ***“personal affront to her honor” from Trump’s assertion that the accord was created to harm the U.S.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-12/epa-head-blamed-obama-for-paris-deal-at-g-7-climate-summit

    40

  • #
    pat

    12 Jun: Reuters: U.S, G7 partners remain at odds on climate at environment meeting
    by Stephen Jewkes
    Differences between the United States and other leading economies over climate change remain wide and are not likely to narrow, environment ministers from G7 countries said on Sunday…
    “Positions over the Paris accord are far apart … and will remain that way,” Italian Environment Minister Gian Luca Galletti said on the sidelines of the meeting…

    German Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said all seven countries had agreed on the need to take action but disappointment had been expressed at the U.S. decision to leave the Paris Accord.
    “There will be a final comuniqué tomorrow that will differentiate opinions,” she said, without providing details…

    Italy’s Galletti said the United States was looking to take the climate change debate forward on a voluntary basis while Paris was a multilateral accord requiring monitoring, deadlines and transparency.
    “That’s a substantial difference,” he said…
    “We cannot allow one nation to derail what 190 other nations are ***happy to do,” (United Nations executive director for the environment Erik Solheim) said.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-environment-idUSKBN1920N8

    20

  • #
    pat

    READ ALL…for Barbara Hendricks:

    11 Jun: NoTricksZone: P. Gosselin: Trump Correct To Reject…Founder Of German Environmental Movement Calls Paris Accord A Bad Deal!
    One of the founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement and a former renewable energies executive has publicly announced that President Donald Trump’s rejection of the Paris Accord is the right thing to do.

    At his climate science critical website, Die kalte Sonne, Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt says the USA has de facto “begun the exit out of the Paris Climate Accord“, or CLEXIT, and that among world leaders at least Donald Trump comprehends that natural factors are at play in climate.

    Moreover, Vahrenholt notes that upon really reading the Paris Accord for the first time, it is only now that the media have become surprised that it is not even a binding agreement, but instead one that only involves intentions by the rich countries to transfer cash to developing nations to the tune of $100 billion annually beginning in 2020.

    He wonders why “neither Obama nor Merkel, Juncker or Macron have found it necessary so far to explain to their citizens the agreement burdens their own citizens to the benefit of no. 1 emitters China, and India“…

    Vahrenholt describes an agreement that is totally in favor of China, a country that plans to construct 368 coal power plants by 2020 while India plans to build 370. In his view the Paris Accord is a free ride for China…READ ALL
    http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/11/trump-correct-to-reject-founder-of-german-environmental-movement-calls-paris-accord-a-bad-deal/#sthash.XQKTnsuL.dpbs

    50

  • #
    pat

    8 Jun: Daily Signal: Michael Bastasch: Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’
    In an interview (LINK) with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.
    “If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said…

    “Science already has a red team: peer review,” David Titley, a climate scientist and retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, told The Washington Post.
    “This just feels to me … like another way to skirt the tried and true scientific process that has worked for years in our field and many others,” said Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Georgia who called the idea a “gimmick.”…

    “My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be—the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”

    “In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.”…

    Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says peer review has become politicized, where “gatekeeping” plays a role in who gets published and who doesn’t. Skeptics usually get the wrong end of that deal…
    “I can understand why political organizations would object—because their deeply held beliefs may be shown to be in error and thus set a foundation to undo their attempts to set rules for the ‘hoi polloi,’” Christy said.

    “Claiming that the truth has already been determined regarding ‘climate change,’ and thus red teams are not needed, is an argument made by someone who has not examined the theory,” he said.
    http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/08/trumps-epa-chief-backs-approach-to-science-that-could-upend-the-global-warming-consensus/

    40

  • #
    pat

    11 Jun: UK Independent: Rachel Roberts: Cabinet reshuffle: Michael Gove returns to Cabinet as Environment Secretary
    Mr Gove’s appointment is likely to cause concern to environmentalists as his voting record reveals he has generally voted against measures to prevent climate change through a reduction in carbon emissions…
    As Education Secretary, Mr Gove attempted to remove climate change from the geography national curriculum but was forced into a climbdown following an intervention from then Climate and Energy Secretary Ed Davy, a Liberal Democrat…

    Tom Burke, from the think tank e3g, told the BBC: “The environment is something young voters really care about.
    “If the Tories really want to reconnect with the youth surge, this is about the worst option they could have chosen.”…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-gove-cabinet-reshuffle-environment-secretary-latest-a7785036.html

    lol.

    12 Jun: UK Indepdent: Jon Sharman: Theresa May asked if Rupert Murdoch told her to give Michael Gove a Cabinet job, in letter from Labour’s deputy leader
    Tom Watson tells PM ‘it might be tempting to allow yourself to be influenced by powerful media proprietors’ after election disaster
    In a letter to Theresa May, deputy Labour leader Tom Watson said it had been ***”suggested” to him that Mr Murdoch, owner of The Times and The Sun, had lobbied the PM for Mr Gove’s return to front-bench politics…
    Mr Watson’s letter says: “Given your failure to secure a parliamentary majority and the consequent weakness of your position, it might be tempting to allow yourself to be influenced by powerful media proprietors who can shape the way your government is covered…

    Following his departure as Justice Secretary Mr Gove returned to work at The Times as a columnist. He secured the UK press’ first interview with President Donald Trump.
    Mr Murdoch also owns Fox News, the conservative-leaning US TV channel.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-rupert-murdoch-michael-gove-cabinet-job-tom-watson-labour-deputy-leader-letter-sun-times-a7785631.html

    10

  • #
    Robber

    Meanwhile, despite all the wind that Dr Finkel has generated, in the real world, wind in SA is currently delivering a staggering 20 MW while in Victoria wind is keeping someone’s lights on from 2 MW delivered.
    Fortunately SA still has Pelican Point gas delivering 470 MW, Osborne gas 180 MW, and Torrens and others bringing fossil energy up to 1100 MW versus total demand of 1450 MW, with that power cord from Vic supplying the rest. Current wholesale spot price per AEMO for SA 11.2 cents/KWhr, about their monthly average.

    70

    • #
      toorightmate

      Aaaahhhh, but tomorrow will be better.
      Both Jay Weatherdill and Alan Finkel have said so.
      Who would have thought that an electrical engineer could possibly be as dumb as Mike Rann and Jay Weatherdill?

      50

  • #

    Just to remind readers that, to verify current power (east of WA) stats, the AEMO dashboard is a great resource. It shows what is Generated, from where, and what is Demanded. Without those interstate connectors, the whole grid but particularly SA, would be up the creek. And VIC, sans Hazelwood, no longer seems to have much surplus Generation – funny, that.

    http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#nem-dispatch-overview

    10

  • #
    Neville

    Another accurate update from Bjorn Lomborg via Andrew Bolt. NOTE that by 2040 less than 3% of world TOTAL energy will be generated by useless, fra-dulent S&W energy.
    But how many more trillions $ will be wasted on their fantasy to achieve nothing at all? Any other group of con merchants trying to promote this level of corrupt-on and fra-d would be charged. Look what happened to Bernie Madoff, who was found guilty of setting up the biggest PONZI scheme in history.
    His scheme was a paltry 6 bn $ while this easy to understand fra-d adds up to ENDLESS TRILLIONS $ worldwide. And it is promoted by every government on the planet. Any 5 year old can easily do the sums and understand it and yet some people still seem to believe it.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/windy-power/news-story/54ab3fd8cad0da068cd40da62ceebd54
    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    June 13, 2017 10:19am

    Bjorn Lomborg once again asks the inconvenient question.

    What is the gain for this insane pain?

    Solar and wind is taking over the world. We hear it all the time.

    Only it is wrong.

    Today, solar and wind makes up just 0.6% of global energy. In a quarter century, in 2040 – even if everyone including Trump lives up to their Paris promises – solar and wind will produce less than 3% of global energy.

    These stats comes from the latest global energy overview from the most respected institution, the International Energy Agency (the OECD for energy) in its World Energy Outlook 2016.

    Reader Kirk is right:

    The question, as always: why are we spending billions of dollars on technologies that even the most generous estimates suggest will be negligible contributors to world energy? And what will the reduction in global temperatures be for that spend?

    These are the questions our politicians never answer.

    31

  • #
    Angry

    Blackouts next summer? They have the solution!

    The sum total of political failure—and now a con!

    The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is sounding out the nation’s most energy intensive businesses about a plan for them to switch off during extreme heatwaves this summer.

    The scenario: Tap-tap. “Testing, testing. Good morning workers, I see all 1250 of you made it to work today and on time. I always say, there’s nothing like a hefty mortgage to get you out of bed in the morning, eh what? I have good news and bad news for you today. The weather forecast is for hot, it is summer of course. That means under the government’s good stewardship the plant will shut down for the day—and perhaps several more days if global warming keeps the temperature high. Therefore, you can all go home and relax. The bad news is you won’t be paid because nothing will be produced—we think that’s fair! Thank you and have a good day!”

    http://morningmail.org/blackouts-next-summer-solution/#more-61809

    91

  • #
    Angry

    Turnbull will pull Abbott into line—really?

    A furtive Finkel fumbles frequently founding folly for fools.

    Shadow environment minister Mark Butler says that if Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t pull Tony Abbott and other conservative MPs “into line” on climate policy, chief scientist Alan Finkel’s energy review will achieve nothing.

    There wouldn’t be too many informed people with faith in the ability of Alan Finkel. Finkel appears to be more on tune with Labor which loves regulations. Finkel’s waste of time and money will no doubt be shoved up our noses in some form despite it’s many snags that litter the path like IEDs just waiting to cause collateral damage to the battler’s wallet. And, as for Malcolm pushing Abbott into anything foreign to his beliefs—tell his he’s dreaming love!

    On Q&A last night Dr Finkel set the tone when he stressed that the report was “interested in outcomes, not detail.” We all know the devil is in the detail.

    Finkel was asked if his report was for a clean energy target (CET) —a price on carbon, he avoided the question by saying “the CET was a combination of incentives to new generators and costs to highly polluting generators.

    “It’s designed as an incentive mechanism,” he said.

    “You’re putting an incentive on low emissions and you can interpret it however you wish. I’m quite serious.”

    http://morningmail.org/turnbull-will-pull-abbott-line-really/#more-61796

    71

    • #
      el gordo

      The Federal Liberal Party is equally divided into three groupings on this issue: For Finkel, against and undecided. Malcolm could easily lose his leadership over this, here is the latest from the SMH.

      ‘The debate over climate change is a proxy, in some sections of the Coalition, for concerns about Mr Turnbull’s leadership just as it was back in 2009 when he was replaced by Mr Abbott.

      ‘At various times in the meeting, Coalition MPs questioned the 42 per cent renewable energy target projected by Finkel, Australia’s commitment to the Paris climate targets and the estimated $90 reduction in power bills under a CET versus business as usual.’

      50

  • #
    Brian Austen

    The root cause of this fiasco is the NEM itself. Under the ideologically driven privatisation policy of John Howard, well operating state based power systems were abandoned and a market was created. The problem is that in Australia a market based power network can’t work as we have seen; the national government simply cannot keep its hands off..

    It’s absurd that power prices, and availability in Tasmania is dictated by what happens in South Australia, Victoria and else. This is a really dumb idea.

    60

  • #
    Bruce

    Thank you Jo, it appears that we live in a post truth era, complete with extreme mental gymnastics.

    41

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    A hint as to where a “Chief Scientist” that knows nothing of the meaning of the process we call “science”.

    21

  • #
    Gerry, England

    Diesel generators all round it sounds like.

    20

  • #
    Matty

    ” That science should face crises in the early 21st century is inevitable. Power corrupts, and science today is the Catholic Church around the start of the 16th century: used to having its own way and dealing with heretics by excommunication, not argument. –David Gelernter, Science Matters, 12 June 2017

    That’s a beaut., (c/o the GWPF.)

    20

  • #
    Angry

    WHY TURNBULL’S GREEN PLAN IS DESTROYING THE LIBERALS

    The Turnbull Government is destroying itself by touting the Finkel report with its renewable energy target of a ludicrous 42 per cent. The Liberal party room must water it down – if not block it.

    MORE………

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/why-turnbulls-green-plan-is-destroying-the-liberals/news-story/c65761f60640168b138b856334e4fb37

    20

  • #
    Angry

    FINKEL REPORT’S FUNNY FIGURES

    The Turnbull Government is pushing the Finkel report as a miracle that would give us lots more renewable energy – an amazing 42 per cent of our electricity – by 2030 without higher power prices or more blackouts.

    MORE…..

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/finkel-reports-funny-figures/news-story/204fbe1332d3b02f23897a4d1bd85925

    20

  • #
    Angry

    A little off topic, but global warming related………

    DELINGPOLE: Ship of Fools III – Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/13/delingpole-ship-of-fools-iii-global-warming-study-cancelled-because-of-unprecedented-ice/

    20

  • #
    Egor the One

    Da Foinkel Fiasco = 42% RET and great big new taxes and power price rises.
    Well what a Big surprise, what else did anybody expect from this gloBull warmer appointee and real science sellout ?

    Sack the Foinkel clown, and show TurnBull and his gloBull warmer front bench cronies the exit door !

    20

  • #
    Ms Smith

    Wow, Malcolm Turnbull, save a MEASLY $90 a year on my power bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For what pain to me!

    10

  • #
    Bushkid

    I read a report recently, can’t recall where, that a Canadian experiment in “carbon” (actually CO2) capture and storage had proved that it was extremely costly and inefficient, and used such a large amount of the generated electrify to operate the CCS aspect of the plant as to be ludicrous.

    Every time I hear our ignorant politicians and particularly the ABC commentators (they’re not journalists by any means) rabbiting on about “carbon capture and storage” I get very angry and shout at the radio. This does no good of course, but it does make me feel momentarily better. The better thing to do would be to relocate that report and send it to our highly steamed and pressed politicians and (I just laughed at my own silliness) to the ABC, especially to Red Fran Kelly who seems to think this is a bright idea.

    00

    • #

      Bushkid,

      IIRC, that was an experiment at a Canadian coal fired power plant, and it was only for one of the Units there.

      They used a new 150MW generator, and the end output was 100MW, so straight up, a loss of 35%.

      They captured (only captured mind you) around 60% of the CO2 being emitted. They sold some of the CO2 to a commercial user of the gas, and the remainder (almost on a half and half basis) was, umm, just released back into the Atmosphere, which sort of makes the whole process look a little useless really.

      The unit was only able to operate on a sporadic basis, because it was fraught with problems from day one. Eventually, the whole thing fell over, but not after the Government had sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into it.

      It seems that they should have just burned the money, eh!

      Tony.

      00

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I think it is this debacle that you recall from three years ago Tony.

        00

        • #

          Thanks Rod, that’s it.

          It wasn’t as good as that article made out, as the oil field thing also fell over, and they had to find another user.

          That old 110MW unit was ancient and due for taking out of service, and they just used that brown field site to experiment with a new 150MW unit, plus all the infrastructure for the CCS, only minus the S.

          It cost a fortune, did not work anywhere near expectations, and then fell over.

          Tony.

          00