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

Surely not: Climate revolt and another Australian PM?

It’s hard to believe Turnbull could fall for this one twice.

Dennis Shannahan warns us:

There is a revolt in the Coalition ranks and there are those prepared to say that Finkel is dead or worse.

More than 20 Coalition MPs spoke against the Finkel report last night, including Tony Abbott, all concerned that the priority is for cutting emissions and not electricity prices.

History repeats?

David Crowe on what he’s heard about the same liberal party room meeting:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott was a sharp critic of the clean energy target and made interjections throughout the ­discussions.

“He was the most sceptical about it — he said it wasn’t going to cut prices or provide certainty for consumers,” one Liberal said.

“He was probably the strongest critic throughout the whole ­meeting.”

One of the senior Liberal figures who took notes on the meeting said last night that about 32 people spoke and about one-third of them were not in favour of the Finkel proposal, while one-third supported the clean energy target and another third asked questions or had suggestions for changes. Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, who has held his marginal electorate against determined assaults from Labor, was one MP who argued fiercely for a policy outcome that focused on ­affordability.

People keep hoping bipartisanship will finally solve the climate question, but this is a neverending loop as long anyone is talking about using windmills to change the climate. How many reruns of the same pointless dilemma will we do before we find the Ship called Bipartisan is docked in a town where no one uses a solar panel to prevent droughts, cause rain, or “save Greenland” from being … green?

Commenter Sophocles asks: Whenever you’re told a reform is going to be `cheaper’ start demanding proof. Loudly. Numbers.

So lets gets real data. Let’s separate one state in Australia, run it on 42% renewables, and see what the price is…  Oh wait. Experiment done: spot the renewable mega success in South Australia: blackout costs $367m, normal electricity twice the price, reserve shortfalls coming in January

Time to write to your Liberal MP’s. Can someone get an email list ready so I can update the old one?

Links from The Australian.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (107 votes cast)
Surely not: Climate revolt and another Australian PM?, 9.9 out of 10 based on 107 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yb2uajad

282 comments to Surely not: Climate revolt and another Australian PM?

  • #
    Spetzer86

    Renewables will never be cheaper. It’s easy to demonstrate, but few will listen.

    483

    • #
      Curious George

      Oh no, all you have to do is to halve the price of sunshine and wind. Or halve the price of moonshine.

      162

    • #
      Mike

      Just ask Prof Finkel one question: If we ignore your report for ten years, say, and build new coal-fired power stations for our baseload, how much difference will that make to temperatures in the year 2100?

      Hint: The effect would be unmeasurably small.

      180

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        True, but Prof Finkel would do his “Sir Humphrey” impersonation, and take a week to say nothing, without ever using the word, “nothing”.

        100

      • #
        Bulldust

        I see the ABC is running an article saying coal CCS cannot work!

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-15/clean-coal-will-not-work-industry-insider/8618836

        I like how they have the mysterious “industry insider” as if that makes his comments any more credible. We know it can “work”, but equally know it is a pointless exercise. Basically you are doubling the cost of the energy and halving the coal resource, depending on how you want to look at it. Can it work, yes, but it is a stupid way to go.

        50

        • #

          Can it work, yes, but it is a stupid way to go.

          Can it work?

          Well, no, it can’t, not on the scale required it can’t.

          Won’t stop the greenies consistently saying it MUST be part of any new coal fired power plant though.

          And there’s no d@mned mystery about it. All you need to do is research.

          ‘Industry insider’. Huh! I’ve been explaining it for years now.

          Tony.

          100

      • #
        TedM

        Finkel was asked that question and answered honestly. “Nothing.”

        10

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      As we lurch into the new Little Ice Age, a 179 year solar cycle, it will be to some UK National Government politician’s advantage to say ‘Vote for me and save your granny from freezing to death in the power cuts. And by the way, the windmill and solar cell operators have been creating extra taxes based on fake science, assuming you are stupid enough to believe it’.

      He/she will then add ‘Remember, these are the people who said open up the immigration floodgates [snip] to get multiculturalism; equally stupid’.

      [snip by]ED

      110

  • #
    Watt

    ” One of the senior Liberal figures who took notes on the meeting said last night that about 32 people spoke and about one-third of them were not in favour of the Finkel proposal, while one-third supported The clean energy target and another third asked questions or had suggestions for changes. Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, who has held his marginal electorate against determined assaults from Labor, was one MP who argued fiercely for a policy outcome that focused on ­affordability. ”

    A 97% consensus then.

    301

  • #
    Ava

    Tony for Warringah could use some Tony from Oz right now to pop Finkel’s cloud

    301

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Isnt it funny how no matter who you “viote” for, you get the same agenda?

      200

    • #
      Egor the One

      Sack this sad excuse for a ‘Chief Scientist’.

      900,000 million for this BS 42% RET scam . But somehow our energy prices will fall ?

      We are being taken for idiots .

      The imbeciles and thieves flogging this nonsense deserve hard prison time .

      430

      • #
        sophocles

        With such an exhibition of collective stupidity, one develops a certain sympathy for the method of the French Revolutionaries …

        20

  • #

    Throws and throws of angel hair
    And ice-cream castles in the air
    And fairy canyons ev’rywhere
    I’ve looked at clowns(!) that way

    But now they only block the Sun
    They rain and snow on ev’ryone
    So many things I could have done
    But clowns got in my way

    I’ve looked at clowns from both sides now
    From win and lose, and still somehow
    It’s clowns’ illusions I recall
    I really don’t know clowns…at all

    470

    • #
      Matty

      Judy Collins does a mean Both Sides Now.

      50

    • #
      John Westman

      Harry, what a beautiful summary about the federal government we have today. Nothing can be more succinct.

      “Clowns” is a word that I have not taken much note of, but, as of today, it has gained a new import to me through song and through the machinations of government.

      Never fear as a person, if you are down and disappointed and think that you are a clown, always remember that there are bigger clowns than yourself, and there are plenty of them.

      As I am in the process of building a new house, I have came across the intrusions by the UN “sustainability” programmes, into my life. Needless to say there has been a huge jacking up of the costs of house building and huge constraints on what one can do.

      The state government does this through the BASIX programme.

      The government (state) imposes huge extra costs and then talks about housing affordability as if they are not responsible. Hypocrisy anyone?

      250

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I know someone who had the whole nonsense about house building and basx etc. Allthey did was plant some scruffy cheap plants to make it more “water efficient”, then later reef them out and plant proper evergreen plants like they wanted after….bit of a giggle….

        Sustainability poked in the eye, customer got what they wanted, govt numpties coudl then tick a useless box…win win….

        40

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        John, a primary purpose for many of those regulations is to provide employment for bureaucrats.

        20

  • #
    grahamd

    Finkle, Finkle little star- how screwed up about our power, you real are!
    And thank goodness the revolting government skeptics, I suspect they were not all back benchers either.

    250

  • #
    oldbrew

    It’s the same story wherever renewables are heavily backed by governments. Sooner or later the electricity grid becomes unstable and prices unaffordable to many people.

    When will politicians notice they can’t force such policies to work?

    330

  • #
    Yonniestone

    If yet another PM is to be felled by coup d’état this one will be for the right reasons, to publicly expose the flaws of green ideologies is too good an opportunity to miss for those sceptics in positions to make a real difference ie the positions we gave them by choice not privilege to represent our wishes not theirs so our country can grow in a positive not fearful manner.

    320

    • #
      DaveR

      Its truiely amazing how people forget that Turnbull only has a one seat majority in the House of Reprasentatives. All it takes is for less than a handfull of Liberal coalition MPs to resign the party and either join an existing conservative micro party or form a new one. Turnbull will need a new agreement to survive, and thatagreement will surely have something to do with this woeful Finkel report. The beginning of the end for Turnbull.

      370

      • #
        TdeF

        Remember

        FEBRUARY 11 2010
        “Turnbull crosses floor to vote with Labor

        Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has crossed the floor of Federal Parliament to vote in support of Labor’s emissions trading scheme.”

        There is no hope this additional nonsense will pass the senate and it is only one vote away from failing in the house.

        Turnbull is making Rudd look judicious and you would think Abbott was breaking party rules by simply speaking against massive additional costs on the poor in particular. Governments are supposed to act in the interests of their own people, not people overseas and against unsubstantiated and disputed threats.

        No one ever mentioned the RET. They talk about the ‘Target’ as if it was the purpose of the Act. It isn’t. A target and renaming was added a decade later. The RET is just a massive Carbon Tax, avoiding both the word Carbon and the word Tax.

        270

        • #
          TdeF

          My point is that Abbott does not have to leave Malcolm’s Liberals to stop this. He only has to break ranks, following the PM’s own precedent on exactly the same issue, a (Carbon) Emissions tax. Malcolm was not disciplined or sent to bed without supper or ejected from the party.

          200

          • #
            el gordo

            All good points TdeF.

            Political science is a hard game, predictions are too difficult, but in this fluid situation Tony Abbott holds the whip hand and a new PM before Xmas is conceivable. My guess, Turnbull has no choice but bin the Finkel Report or risk a coup and fall from grace.

            130

            • #
              TdeF

              A coup de grace then?

              70

              • #
                TdeF

                In case no one has noticed, Malcolm’s technique is to make sure he has no rivals, destroying them all one by one. Morrison, Frydenburg, Bishop,.. Everybody under the bus.

                Of course he knows he cannot win the next election. He just wants to be Prime Minister, no matter how much it costs us. Gonski 2.0. Snowy 2.0. Sydney Airport 2.0 A VFT. Really? Another Rudd. He has even admitted spending $1.75Million of his own money to get the job. (Is there a possibly illegal IOU?).

                However his lifetime career rival is happily sitting on the back bench counting the Newspolls and cannot be demoted further and being proven right time and time again. Meanwhile Malcolm flounders, following his dream of a Turnbull Green government, Greener than the Greens, more left than the Labor party who rejected him.

                Even his desperate efforts to prevent the preselection of Abbott to his own seat have failed, to remove a man who won his own seat with 60% and the Prime Ministers job in a landslide.

                Malcolm’s real problem is that the people who think he is doing a great job will never vote for him. Now he wants his emissions tax after all. No.

                421

              • #
                David Maddison

                TdeF – sorry – accidental Red Thumb, should have been Green. Working off my iPhone.

                00

            • #
              toorightmate

              el gordo,
              Unfortunately, at the moment political science is more exact than climate science.

              40

          • #
            gnome

            Oh sure. All Abbott has to do is vote with Labor. That will work out in our best interests, won’t it?

            40

            • #
              TdeF

              It depends on what Labor does. Malcolm’s Liberals are to the left of Labor and if Labor vote against new higher electricity charges, why not? When the Liberal party starts acting like the Liberal party, people will vote for it again.

              130

              • #
                TdeF

                Consider that Labor and the One Green agrees with the new Emissions tax with bipartisan support in both houses. It is after all straight from their own policies, like everything else you get from Turnbull. Big spending, more taxes, down with carbon dioxide. When was the last time the Liberals and National party actually had a policy of their own?

                120

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘It depends on what Labor does.’

                They will stay the course, because they have nothing to lose, this from the Guardian.

                ‘With the energy fight expected to drag on for many weeks as the government finalises its response to the Finkel review, this week’s Guardian Essential poll has Labor still ahead of the Coalition in the national political contest on the two party preferred measure, 52% to 48%.’

                With a 3% margin of error the majors are neck to neck coming around the final turn, there is nothing between these two.

                If Tony scuttles the Finkel Report then we can safely say the Party has lurched to the right and the MSM will go ballistic.

                60

              • #

                You know, I’m coming round to Turnbull losing the next election so hideously.

                What that does is then put Labor in charge of attempting to implement this bad plan of Finkel’s, because there’s just no way known they can actually do it.

                What happens then is that Labor, and The Greens, who’ll be obliterated in the inevitable backlash, well, they will all get the blame for taking Australia into electrical poverty.

                When either Melbourne or Sydney go black, even for a short time, it’s then, and only then that the people will look for a scapegoat, and Labor will get the ultimate blame as someone, whoever, attempts to explain why it happened.

                Just watch the looks on their faces when that happens. If you thought you had seen panic on someone’s face, just wait for that one.

                It’s all such a pity really, because it should never have got to this.

                Tony.

                401

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Agreed Tony, but sometimes you have to let the kiddies play with fire to learn they shouldn’t…..

                I wonder sometimes if the general population has always been this stupid, or whether “smartphone syndrome” has kicked in – people think they are are way smarter than they really are becasue they have access to so much information. Cant wait to see the mobile network go down due to power cuts and you will find out who really is smart ( hint – it will be those people with backup gennies or hacked solar )

                50

              • #
                TdeF

                “With a 3% margin of error the majors are neck to neck coming around the final turn, there is nothing between these two.” Agreed, 48 to 52 could be 51 to 49. However equally it could also be 45 to 55, which is more like it, the biggest thrashing in Coalition history and the Labor champion who wrecked the Liberals would be the same Malcolm Turnbull.

                100

              • #
                Analitik

                I so hope that South Australia soon suffers a catastrophic grid failure that can’t be so quickly recovered from due to Victoria not having the spare capacity to jump start their grid again. Then the true picture of the future we face if renewables support and penetration continues will be starkly highlighted by the misery, economic calamity and likely loss of life.

                Unfortunately, I think the pain has to be devastating before the masses are convinced that the “experts” like Alan Finkel, The Grattan Institute, NREL, The Climate Council, all those university think tanks, etc really don’t have a clue about the complex interactions of an electrical grid. Our network and system engineers are simply doing too good a job in masking the inadequacies of intermittent renewable generation so they just can’t appreciate the tidal wave that is approaching.

                150

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘You know, I’m coming round to Turnbull losing the next election so hideously.’

                I can’t see that happening, the next election is a long way off and Abbott is waiting in the wings. If Turnbull becomes unpopular with the electorate the Party may change leaders, but that won’t necessarily be enough to get them over the line.

                Is there a charismatic MP in the Liberal Party?

                20

              • #
                TdeF

                charismatic
                adjective
                1. exercising a compelling charm which inspires devotion in others.
                “he was a charismatic figure with great appeal to the public”
                synonyms: charming, fascinating, full of personality, strong in character

                So why doesn’t Abbott qualify? The hatchet job done by their ABC notwithstanding. He achieved so much after his landslide victory and we have not seen a single thing since. Strong in character? None stronger. Plus three degrees, one in economics. Better than the two ultra rich dandies who have graced the job and one Union stooge. He might even get some laws through with Hansen, Xenophon, Hinch.

                First, repeal the Renewable Electricity Act (2000) and save the country. If investors think wind and solar are so profitable and cheap, let them use their own money.

                90

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Max Weber defined charismatic authority (German: Charismatische Herrschaft) as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him”.

                wiki

                Talking to a green zealot over lunch, he said the most vile things about Abbott which I know to be untrue. Sitting on the backbench has allowed Tony more time with his family and the opportunity for spiritual reflection.

                Personally I think he is ready for a comeback, but I would prefer he took off that lukewarm coat and become an outspoken critic of human induced global warming. That would be truly heroic.

                60

              • #
                TdeF

                He called Climate Change crap. The only politician to do so. He called Climate Science socialism posing as environmentalism. Again the only one. He repealed the Carbon Tax against enormous opposition. He is no lukewarmer.

                However he was hamstrung by a totally blocked senate and was very lucky to get the repeals of the mining tax and carbon tax through before Jaqui Lambie went feral. Again he cannot work from the opposition, so he saw how he could get the carbon dioxide savings without taxes, with Direct Action which Turnbull has closed, preferring the Greens scheme. That is politics and he has a masters from Oxford in the subject.

                When he gets control, he can remove the RET, by far the biggest carbon tax in the world. He would probably get support from the Senate independents. The rewards would be instant and Australia wide. All the hidden subsidies to Pt Pirie, Whyalla, Alcoa would stop. Plus paying solar owners for lunch time solar no one wants. After paying tens of billions of dollars for nothing at all, the ordinary people of Australia could balance their budgets again and the factories could start up.

                He would be a hero, as he already is to the many people he has rescued as a lifesaver and the team he leads fighting bushfires and the people who donate to his pollie pedal fundraisers. He would get a rousing cheer from Trump too as he removed Australia from the Paris ripoff.

                Then he could repeal 18C and disband the HRC, trash the Finkel report and stop the mad Turnbull schemes dead. You would hear the cheering and he could rescue the fortunes of the real Liberals. We would get our referendum on gay marriage, ending that insanity. Then cheer as he puts the ABC on the mat, forcing them to adhere rigidly to their charter or be sold.

                100

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                TdeF:

                Great idea but sadly won’t happen. Turnbull will split the Liberal Party and let Labor in. They will do their worst, as usual, and try to destroy Australia. Be prepared for a depression in Australia.

                50

              • #
                TdeF

                Greame the third, if Abbott wanted to split the Liberals, he could have done so long ago. He is playing a waiting game while as the Newspolls mount up, Turnbull’s legitimacy evaporates. His conspiracy against the most popular Liberal leader in decades is exposed and his interest in the legacy of Menzies and Howard is zero. Turnbull’s legacy is Labor. His dream was to throw out Labor and create a new Green/Turnbull government, destorying the Nationals he hates and the Labor party which rejected him. As the most ineffectual PM since the Rudd and Gillard, Turnbull has failed to make any mark on Australia.

                As suggested, with even this senate, Abbott could revolutionize Australia in a short time. Remove the RET, 18C, cancel the US/Manus deal, get Adani moving, open Hazelwood, stop the subsidies, stop the feed in tariff, stop Gonski, stop the VFT and Badgery’s creek and Snowy 2. Remove the HRC. Break up the ABC or force them to decentralize, service Australia and obey their charter. All this could be done in weeks to loud cheering from much of Australia. Stop the left changing our constitution. Have the referendum he promised.

                Then you get elections like Queensland. Even Victoria. South Australia. Most importantly, call out Climate Change as Crap, from the rootops and get out of the parasitic Paris deal. Join forces with the US to deal with the crises from North Korea to the China sea to the Phillipines and look after our well being and defence and trade. Do the job Federal governments are supposed to do, defence and trade, not social engineering and borrowing billions to give away to the UN.

                90

              • #

                Plus paying solar owners for lunch time solar no one wants.

                Lunch time solar.

                Love that phrase.

                Thanks TdeF. I’m afraid that will be henceforth appropriated.

                Tony.

                60

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘….stop the VFT …’

                So when the three consortiums put in their plans at the end of the year, Tony Abbott would send them packing?

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Abbott could revolutionize Australia in a short time.’

                He could, but most unlikely, whereas Donald is a charismatic leader and intends bringing about a revolution in people’s thinking.

                Tony is a constrained career politician and wants his old job back, which suggests he may have to compromise on climate change.

                At the moment our side has no firm idea of what is happening with climate, but we do know they have over hyped the sensitivity of CO2. So I think it might be politically prudent to listen to the advice of Judith Curry and Bjorn Lomborg, and put his lukewarm coat back on for the time being.

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                A charismatic leader cannot emerge from this political swamp.

                https://www.liberal.org.au/our-team

                20

          • #
            Manfred

            Who knows, maybe the US will whip him into real-World shape, after his latest spouting?

            10

    • #

      You’re right. A shake-up is only worthwhile if it means taking on Big Green and kicking it where it hurts.

      The MSM and ABC will bray hysterically round the clock, which is why the new leader needs to attack them as relentlessly as he is attacked. This might not come off, but the Fairfax cuts are a good indication that the Posh Left is more loud than strong.

      I promise to help with all the ridicule of Big Smug I can muster. (When I visit family in the city they are now too embarrassed to turn on the ABC in my presence. The luvvie media are far more sensitive to ridicule than to right-wing protests and indignation, which they see more as tribute. Don’t thump ‘em. Skewer the bludgers. Heap ridicule on those giggly man-boys and smirking harpies. Laugh when they are earnest and sit stone-faced when they try to amuse. But when you’re on your own simply turn ‘em and leave ‘em off, like I do.)

      Or do we just resign ourselves to creepy globalism disguised as “sustainable development”? Should we just go down to Goldman or Deutsche and ask them to give us our Liberal PM’s from the ranks of their past employees or our Labor PM’s from the ranks of their future lobbyists?

      170

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    More than 20 Coalition MPs spoke against the Finkel report last night, including Tony Abbott, all concerned that the priority is for cutting emissions and not electricity prices.

    I think this is another one that no one was supposed to notice. It’s refreshing that the problems is finally getting recognized.

    Good for those MPs who can see the real issue and have the nerve to speak out. :-)

    390

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Roy a proposed a simple hypothesis – that both sides of politics are heavily controlled by the same people so the same outcome occurs no matter who is in the PMs role.

      So far, the hypothesis seems to hold and also very happy to be proven wrong. Same applies to the UK and the USA it seems. ( Still early days for Trump though.)

      So far, it seems on core activities like trashing our economy, despite the multitude of facts and proof acvailable to both sides of politics, there is a religious-like zealotry to persecute the green ( Gaia ) agenda.

      90

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘….there is a religious-like zealotry to prosecute the green ( Gaia ) agenda.’

        In reality most people have been cowered into accepting something they don’t understand and politicians are no different.

        Turnbull once remarked that there are no factions in the Liberal Party and everyone (in the know) laughed out loud. He undoubtedly has been swayed by the catastrophists, whereas Tony Abbott is essentially a Lukewarmer and only marginally different from the PM on energy policy.

        21

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Sorry…where I was going with that is that the king makers ( gloablists ) have dictated that the green agenda be moved forward reagrdless of who is in power – this is why Malcolm/Shorten/Gillard etc will *always* move the green killing of our economy forward without fail….

          The other critical bit of info is that there really is no difference between libs and labor – both sides are owned by the globalists – in reality we have a one party state ( communism ).

          50

          • #
            mobihci

            no doubt there are some that have the world governance on their mind when pushing for deals, but I think that the majority of world leaders are like Turnbull. they are way too selfish to have any sort of conviction, other than to enhancing their own ego, and only care about the 97% thing. if they believe that there is the perception of consensus on something, even if they fully know there is none and/or it is wrong, they will side with it.

            Turnbull thinks the way forward for him is to bow to the media, the actors etc. the left in general. for a politician it is difficult to go against the media and their ‘our beliefs are what 97% of other people believe’. each time there has been a poltician with the guts to present goals that are not endorsed by the left, the media set out to destroy them.

            the silent majority are, more often than not, NOT part of the 97% consensus, or believers of it as can be seen by the general failure of left governments to be elected around the world and eg the popularity of both turnbull and shorten, but the silent majority are out of options. now it is just left or more left of left.

            11

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Maybe so Steve. I’ve had similar thoughts. But it has to start somewhere and it’s a lot more profitable to light even one small candle than to curse the darkness. That’s all Jo has been doing for so long and it looks like slowly paying off.

        So see where it goes. If it changes anything then that’s good. And if not then since you didn’t expect anything you won’t be disappointed.

        20

  • #

    While “one-third supported the clean energy target”, then we’re forever going to be in this pro-renewable energy mode. Until voters get rid of the pro-renewable crowd from the government of the day, then it’s just more of the same.

    240

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I would think that most of those in favour of renewables have no idea what electricity prices are, nor have thought at all about the inevitable consequences. They will change their minds when they realise that the public don’t like higher and higher bills.

      151

  • #
    James Bradley

    Call me cynical, but Turnbull seems to have rushed back into the Paris Pathology and all things Climate Change at the same time Turnbull is trying to look the ‘good sort’ and mounting a bid for global support for the World Female Soccer Cup and attendant media campaign for all things glam and sporty.

    The tried and true political standby – bread and circuses…

    220

  • #
    WB

    Nothing from Cory B so I’m un-joining today!
    What a waste of time there.
    Tony is the only one with true conviction.
    Unfortunately he has too many character flaws to lead again.
    Not looking good in short term for Au consumers.
    AGL go for it the Au public deserve you.

    110

    • #
      alwaysBskeptical

      WB, I did not like your comment about Tony. You must have formed your opinion from the leftist media who set out to destroy him. People who know him would like to see him back.
      What does Cory have to say about the global warming BS ? Waiting to hear what he has to say about Finkel’s report.

      51

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Abbott has had his time. Far preferable to Turnbull, but compromised. Pyne Bishop etc plus too many piss poor liberals running the show and not much chance for upheaval. Bernardi , I hope, will go out on a ledge and call out this nonsense. Cannot trust the entrenched.

        30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Around this area

    “The oldest commercial wind power facility in Canada has been shut down and faces demolition after 23 years of transforming brisk southern Alberta breezes into electricity — and its owner says building a replacement depends on the next moves of the provincial NDP government.”

    More at

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/13/wind-power-fails-in-canada-a-23-year-life-span-not-likely-to-be-replaced/

    190

    • #
      David Maddison

      The sight of those windmills destroys the beautiful vista. Windmills are as ugly as the random power they produce.

      I hope the video of their demolition is posted on YouTube.

      Explosive cutting charges at the base of the towers is the way to go but I can’t decide if I’d prefer to see them all go down at once or sequentially like dominoes.

      I hope they don’t forget to remove the concrete bases.

      264

    • #
      David Maddison

      We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government

      Oh, I thought they were trying to produce electricity, not get “incentives” from the taxpayer…

      162

      • #
        David Maddison

        That was meant to be:

        We’re anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government

        Oh, I thought they were trying to produce electricity, not get “incentives” from the taxpayer…

        92

    • #
      David Maddison

      I was trying to find the actual date that this subsidy farm stopped producing but couldn’t.

      It’s quite possible that it stopped working in 2012, after only 18 years of operation, when one of the windmills collapsed.

      At that time they were stated to be due for refurbishment anyway. Perhaps the new owners decided refurbishment was not worthwhile.

      http://www.fortmacleodgazette.com/2012/cowley-ridge-wind-farm-shut-down/nggallery/newest-albums/dance-recital-may-2017/slideshow

      62

      • #
        shortie of greenbank

        There is probably more money (i.e. incentives) in New Wind Farms rather than Recycling old farms under the sustainability ideology…. funny that.

        80

    • #
      Dennis

      Answer: If the government (taxpayers) would be prepared to pay more in subsidies to cover the cost of removal and replacement of wind turbines, and continue operating subsidies, the business could continue for another twenty something years.

      Without subsidies the business is not viable.

      100

    • #
      R2Dtoo

      Being a prairie boy, I have followed this wind field through time. Now, 23 years later, it still can’t turn a profit, and it can’t be replaced unless it is subsidized (again) by tax payers. So much for “cheap” wind power. Let it fall. Then return the land to its natural state. This eyesore is located in one of the most beautiful places in Canada. We don’t need wind power – it is a failed technology in a modern world. It is the equivalent of going back to horses for farming and bicycles for transportation in rural areas.

      60

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    On those savings

    ” Sheri
    June 13, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    My power company is preaching conservation again. Last time I conserved, they raised by monthly costs and any savings from conservation were eaten up by the monthly fees. No matter how much conservation and cost savings via any method are preached, they never, ever materialize.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/13/wind-power-fails-in-canada-a-23-year-life-span-not-likely-to-be-replaced/#comment-2526877

    130

  • #
    sophocles

    and you can read the PR from the other side here: from TransAlta the new owner. They’re only doing it for the recycling, they say, of over “a million pounds of metal” or a bit less than 50,000 tonnes, not all of it steel.

    They seem very much aware of the advantages of subsidy farming and illegal manipulation of power prices, as recorded in this Wikipedia article.

    TransAlta is very interested in repowering this site. Unfortunately, right now, it’s not economically feasible,” Wayne Oliver, operations supervisor for TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod, said in an interview.

    Trudeau had better hurry up with a fresh batch of subsidies, TransAlta is waiting.

    70

    • #
      sophocles

      TransAlta’s acquisition of the wind farm was through a hostile takeover of Canadian Hydro Developers Inc, a competitor. At present, according to the article, TransAlta are

      anxiously waiting to see what incentives might come from our new government. . . . Alberta is an open market and the wholesale price when it’s windy is quite low, so there’s just not the return on investment in today’s situation. So, if there is an incentive, we’d jump all over that.

      Sure. Of course. Who wouldn’t?

      60

  • #
  • #
    alwaysBskeptical

    Professor Gordon Hughes (Edinburgh University) warns that using wind power to cut emissions costs 10 times the price of gas fired power stations.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/gordon-hughes-why-is-wind-power-so-expensive/

    110

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      On the other hand, if you go to a reliable source such as the US Energy Agency, wind power is cheaper:
      https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

      Or another reliable source, such as the International Energy Agency, which tells us that the costs are about the same:
      http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf

      In conclusion, you would only go to the GWPF if you were keen on being misinformed.

      226

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Wind power is inherently unreliable – regardless of cost, its a bona fide WOFTAM.

        150

      • #
        Analitik

        It’s great how they ignore all the subsidies when making upcompiling those figures.

        160

      • #
        Glen Michel

        There folks lies the inherent deficiency in the left/ socialist mind; devoid of reality and reason.

        90

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Craig:

        So why do the RETAIL costs of electricity go UP as the level of renewables rises c.f. Denmark, Germany, South Australia, the UK etc?

        110

      • #
        toorightmate

        Craig,
        Capacity factor kills and buries your bright green argument.
        Subsidies pale into insignificance compared with 25% capacity factor (Oz average YTD).

        80

      • #
        Rick Will

        Wind energy is cheaper on the basis that every watt they produce has some value and it does not require any other capital to supply the system when the wind is not blowing. No modern economy can operate on the vagaries of the wind. Wind turbines do not reduce the need for capital on fossil fuel generators because they must be there to provide power when the wind does not blow.

        At this time, evening AEST on 14th June, the 4400MW of installed wind capacity in Australia is producing 400MW. So the other 4000MW of capacity is idle and useless. The good OLD RELIABLE Fossil fuel generators are providing 23000MW – 60 times more than the wind.

        The only value that wind turbines bring is a very slight reduction in fuel costs for the fossil fuel generators. That is offset by higher maintenance cost due to unstable operating conditions; the crazy situation where the intermittents get priority dispatch.

        Anyhow Finkel has effectively killed further investment in intermittents in Australia by requiring firm linkage to dispatchable generation that can guarantee supply when the wind is not blowing. That will more than double their cost and the subsidies required to make them viable will create riots when they hit the pockets of the poor.

        When you are running your household off the grid cheaper than the wholesale price of coal fuelled generation you can brag about the low cost of intermittent generation. Otherwise you are just sprinkling fairy dust that only works in some fantasy world.

        130

      • #
        yarpos

        By all lean on those reliable sources, and refuse to look at observable reality.

        50

      • #
        sophocles

        You are welcome to freeze your butt off relying on wind power, Craig. I’m not prepared to.

        The last two days (24hrs per day) the wind has been non-existent where I am.

        Tomorrow and the rest of the weekend look to be as windless as yesterday and today were. Temperatures have
        been about 14 degrees C peak, late afternoon and dropping to nearly sub zero overnight.

        Where is the power going to come from?

        That is observable reality. I’ve observed it, and it’s real.

        40

  • #
    Ruairi

    The voters would need to be rid,
    Of do-gooders who mess up the grid,
    Bringing overpriced power,
    Per Kilowatt hour,
    By renewables, Heaven forbid.

    300

  • #
    TdeF

    Always it is the use of language which is so deceitful. ‘Cut’ ‘Emissions’ ‘Renewables’ ‘Targets’ ‘Carbon’ ‘Savings’ ‘Reform’ ‘Offshore’ ‘conservation’.
    So positive, so desirable. So much people want and words they want to hear.

    Not ‘Increase’ ‘Taxes’ ‘replacement’ ‘close’ ‘job losses’ ‘blackouts’ ‘subsidies’ ‘blight’ ‘noise’ ‘ugly’ ‘unreliable’ ‘hopelessly inadequate’ or even ‘carbon dioxide

    The simple science truth is that there is no climate crisis at all. It is all made up as should be pretty obvious to anyone who looks out the window or goes to the beach or has lived through the last thirty years of alleged Climate Crisis. What crisis?

    Carbon Dioxide is essential, natural, harmless, invisible and highly desirable. The sky is not falling.

    Try telling that to Malcolm, our own despicable Me and his minions.

    200

  • #
  • #
    • #

      Only two years old too.

      This is the Steele Flats Wind Plant, with a Nameplate of 75MW, and the cost was $US138 Million.

      From one of the media releases at the opening from one of the land owners whose property some of the turbines are on:

      The family gave the go-ahead and watched as construction crews built the wind farm in a matter of months last year. They and other landowners with turbines are being compensated by NextEra Energy, which cuts a check every three months and adds royalties based on how much electricity the turbines produce.

      So, they pay money each Quarter to the landowners, and a royalty on top of that.

      Note from john’s original link to the article where the turbine collapsed, that right at the bottom, they say that this wind farm plant can generate enough power for 19,000 homes.

      Who would have thought they would say that? (/sarc)

      So at a 30% Capacity Factor, that’s an equivalent power delivery of an average of 22MW, (even less now one of them has fallen down) and only $138 Million.

      And the money they shell out to the landowners, and the royalties they pay to them also for the power generated. Where does that come from? Why, it’s added to the end cost per unit of power generated and the electricity consumer pays for that. And this is common practice for all wind farms plants.

      Tony.

      231

  • #
    Egor the One

    How about a Royal Commission into who are the financial beneficiaries of all these tax payer funded, save the world gloBull warmer and RET projects ?

    Let’s see the long list of these thieving mongrels !

    110

    • #
      Dennis

      And add to the investigation how many of them have quietly invested in fossil fuel reserves around the world, insurance for future energy market participation when so called renewables run out of profitability, and subsidies, and penalties undermining fossil fuel power stations.

      60

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      What makes you think it would be a long list?
      More likely a list of 3 or fewer (if you get to the heart of it, not just read the business name).

      20

  • #
    Mark

    I am not sure, from the Liberal perspective, what is wrong with the old formula of the Liberals being the enablers of economic growth and prosperity, with Labor taking the wreck-and-redistribute role.
    Why is the Liberal party so concerned to have regulatory stability it will adopt large slabs of the ALP role? We no longer have the world’s policeman, Obama, shoving climate change down everyone’s throat. This period presents a golden opportunity for a reset. Industry needs to be more vocal too, so the message comes home loud and clear.
    It’s time! Time for the Liberals and industry to mount a full-throated campaign against the AGW meme.

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      My best answer refers to Senator Bob Brown, former leader of the Greens, addressing his last National Press Club luncheon a few years ago.

      He told the audience about his dream of a world with no borders governed by a world parliament.

      Last year Labor Deputy Tanya Plibersek commented that she is opposed to borders (sovereign nations).

      The United Nations based headquarters for major political change agendas has recruited supporters all around the world.

      Remember how former Labor Prime Minister Rudd worked so hard to secure a senior UN position (Secretary General), that former Labor Prime Minister Gillard works for a UN based education fund (chairs the board), that former Labour NZ Prime Minister Helen Clarke holds a senior UN position, former Australian Attorney General Gareth Evans is with the UN IMF and was sighted “assisting” the government of Greece at the height of the financial crisis there, and others.

      Former 1950s era Labor Attorney General Evatt (a solicitor) gave an opinion to the UN that all member nations should be encouraged to sig many treaties with the UN to be held in reserve for application if needed to get around the laws of nations, and voters.

      71

      • #
        Len

        There are managing change seminars being conducted at Universities shortly.

        40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Yes. In other words, the UN is a parasitic organism that ultimately kills its host….so in many ways, it will be thankfully self limiting, but not before it causes a lot of damage.

        And besides, with an unaccounatble organization run by Leftists, what could possibly go wrong…..

        Treaties could well be the new enabling laws…..just 80 years later….

        71

        • #
          Dennis

          I have never believed that the socialist new world order would ever succeed. To think that the world could be split into four divisions or sectors but governed by a single world parliament located in the northern hemisphere is simply ridiculous, human nature, different cultures and ethnic groups, tribalism, ambitions and greed considered.

          To believe that [snip] could merge with Christianity, or the other religions, is impossible to accept. That China or Russia, Indonesia, India the US and many others would agree to world government is too.

          However, very clearly the damage and cost so far of leftist ambition to control the world is extremely worrying.

          Including crony capitalism fellow travellers.

          That politicians in democratic countries could behave as we have experienced leaves me cold.

          US President Trump is a breath of fresh air following the Obama period.

          Meanwhile Australians have only dumb and dumber to choose from.

          [snip by]ED

          40

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Depending on what you read, I believe the plan is to create another global war, so that people are so shell shocked, they will in their numbness willingly combine with ( whats left..) of other cultures/religions to avoid another conflagration.

            The reality as I see it ( and empirically seems to be supported via world events ) that another war will indeed be engineered to occur. Look around you – see which cultures are angry at each other, the pump is primed, and should some prominient religious place be *ahem* desytroyed, I suspect it would all just kick off and the globalists would happily fan the flames providing the tech and machinery to finish the job.

            The important point is this ( Mods – this is actually rather important – pls dont delete ) the end result would be major elements of most societies and cultures would be gutted, and those who remain could be easily co-erced into forming a new hybrid society and religion. The NWO woudl then be complete – a new govt and new religion, with a man who will rise ( the Bibla calls this man the Anti Christ ) as its leader.

            Seems far fetched? not really – who’d have thought we’d have a global police state with uncontrolled govt snooping, 17 years ago?

            20

      • #
        Watt

        Is the UN attractive to superannuated Oz & NZ pollies as there are no Life Peerages or EU Commission sinecures for them to aspire to ?

        50

      • #
        alwaysBskeptical

        Lots of reasons to steer clear of th UN.

        50

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I suspect we wont be able to – world govts keep funding it and aspire to run it.

          When foolishness is institutionalized, the inmates do run the asylum.

          Psalm 2

          Why do the nations conspire[a] and the peoples plot in vain?

          The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,

          “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.”

          The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.

          He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,

          “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.”

          I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father.

          Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.

          You will break them with a rod of iron[b]; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

          Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.

          Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling.”

          30

  • #
    pat

    heard the first interview with Kelly (Fran: with the world moving towards zero emissions blah blah); not bothering to listen to Frydenberg:

    AUDIO: 8mins43secs: 14 Jun: ABC Breakfast: Backbench revolt casts doubt over Clean Energy Target
    More than 20 MPs spoke out against the plan — which favours renewables over coal — during a lengthy special meeting of the Coalition party room.
    Craig Kelly, the chair of the backbench Energy and Environment Committee, says a low emissions target would have….(WHAT? NOTHING THERE.)
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/backbench-revolt-casts-doubt-over-clean-energy-target/8615970

    AUDIO: 11mins48secs: 14 Jun: ABC Breakfast: Will Australia adopt a Clean Energy Target?
    It’s the Minister for the Environment and Energy’s job to convince the coalition MPs to accept a Clean Energy Target.
    Josh Frydenburg joins RN to discuss the future of the Clean Energy Target.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/will-australia-adopt-a-clean-energy-target/8616104

    from Breakfast homepage, today, Fran also had:

    NAB keen to value ‘natural capital’
    Native Title Act change will make way for Adani
    3 anti-Trump segments
    a segment about surging UK Labour party popularity

    plus who knows what other theirABC propaganda in the general segments.

    60

  • #
    Egor the One

    The gloBull warming scam is about to go into overdrive . 900,000 million,here-we-go !

    30

  • #
    Ross

    O/T but our friend Malcolm would be interested in some real facts about Tesla manufacturing etc.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-13/heres-real-reason-tesla-makes-no-money

    Then again maybe the Finkel report and Tesla PR have something in common.

    60

  • #
    pat

    having trouble trying to prove Trump wrong:

    13 Jun: Reuters: Climate fund criticized by Trump has slow, complex start
    By Heekyong Yang, Jane Chung and Alister Doyle | SEOUL/OSLO
    (with extra reporting by Soyoung Kim in Seoul, Michael Shields in Zurich, Luca Trogni in Milan; writing by Alister Doyle; editing by Anna Willard)
    The $10 billion Green Climate Fund that U.S. President Donald Trump said was a waste of tax dollars has fallen behind on its goals, with a biggest payout so far of just $5 million for a U.S.-led solar energy project.
    Work at the international fund, which aims to help poor nations cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt their economies to heatwaves, storms and rising seas has been slowed by legal red tape and the approval process, board members say…

    Reuters contacted five current and former board members, who said they did not agree with Trump’s comments. They acknowledged the fund had been slow to get going but said it was difficult to get projects off the ground and unreasonable to expect big flows of money straight away.
    “The fund is like a plane that’s taken off but we’re still building it in mid-air. That’s a risky situation,” said another board member who did not want to be named…
    The board members also say the 2016 project approval goal had been largely aspirational to encourage nations to step up climate finance…

    “Everyone wants to prove Trump wrong about the GCF. It’s not a slush fund – it’s defining the climate agenda,” (Zaheer Fakir, a board member from South Africa) said of GCF goals of spurring wider public and private funds for grants and loans…

    The fund also faces legal complexities in starting to work with multilateral lenders such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank or private banks. Once agreements are in place, a flood of disbursements is expected to follow.
    Another legal hurdle is that the GCF is associated with the United Nations but is not a U.N. agency and so its staff lack legal protection, for instance, from prosecution if projects go awry.
    The fund is seeking to negotiate nation-by-nation agreements to protect its operations but has signed only about a dozen.

    Swiss Foreign Ministry spokesman Pierre-Alain Eltschinger said the U.S. was likely to be recorded as in arrears. There is no legal recourse to demand Trump pays more – national payments are voluntary.
    Eltschinger said it was “not realistic to expect anyone to make up for the U.S. shortfall. So this remains a problem.”

    Others hope that other nations will step up.
    “Other countries should fill the void. If China or Russia wants to take the lead in GCF, they will have to increase their payment,” said Song Young-gil, former Incheon city mayor who spearheaded a successful bid to host the GCF headquarters.

    The GCF, which has about 110 staff in Incheon, was set up after a 2009 commitment by rich nations to raise climate finance to $100 billion a year by 2020, from both public and private sources. The GCF is just one part of that financing goal.
    In Paris in 2015, governments agreed to set a new, higher target for climate finance by 2025…
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-fund-idUSKBN1940K9

    20

  • #
    pat

    12 Jun: ClimateChangeNews: Karl Mathiesen: Poor world calls for climate finance to fill Trump void
    US climate finance axe exposes poor communities worldwide, say negotiators and aid experts, putting pressure on other countries to step up
    Other wealthy nations will have to do more to fill the hole in global climate finance left by the US, according to the world’s most vulnerable countries…

    At the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, rich nations pledged to shift $100bn worth of investments, grants and loans to climate action in the poor world every year, starting in 2020.
    The statement by the CVF chair pointed to the “collective nature” of that commitment. In other words, if the US won’t front the cash, other wealthy nations will need to do more to meet the mark.

    “If one country walks away from this promise now that doesn’t change the promise as such,” said Jan Kowalzig, a senior policy advisor to Oxfam’s German branch. “The availability and adequacy of such support has a direct influence on the faith in the process.”…

    (Gebru Jember Endalew, chair of the Least Developed Countries group) added that even before the news from the US, there had been no clear plan for how the rich world would meet the $100bn pledge. The OECD projects publicly-funded climate finance will grow from $43.5bn in 2014 to $66.8bn by 2020. That will be topped up to $100bn by the extra investment that money “mobilises” by making projects more attractive to private capital.

    But many poor countries disagree that public and private money can be treated as equal. According to Oxfam, private capital shies away from necessary but unprofitable projects that protect populations from disaster…
    “The initial money in the GCF, $10 billion or so in total now, was just to get it off the ground,” said Thoriq Ibrahim, who is the Maldives’ energy and environment minister and chair of the small island UN climate negotiating bloc.

    “Conservative estimates put the global need at closer to $100 billion a year by 2020, so we are obviously very far from that goa1l. That means public and private sources will have to be mobilised and fortunately we have seen numerous companies reaffirm their support of the Paris Agreement in recent days…

    China recently announced a vast $900bn overseas infrastructure investment strategy, which the government said would support “green” development. The country is also one of the largest exporters of coal power technology.

    Paula Caballero, global director of the World Resources Institute climate programme, said the growth of China’s economy and global ambitions could lead to more money flowing to the developing world. But that it was unlikely the country would count that support towards the $100bn pledge, which is the responsibility taken on by wealthy countries.

    “Outside of the negotiations and in the real economy South-South cooperation and flows will likely increase, but explicit and formal pledges by emerging economies in the UNFCCC [UN climate talks] space would be very unlikely. At least not anytime soon,” said Caballero.
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/12/worlds-poor-call-climate-finance-fill-trump-void/

    10

  • #
    john

    Australia is insane to let UPC renewables anywhere near them.

    30

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 9mins20secs: 2GB: Ray Hadley Morning Show: Dennis Shanahan
    The Australian’s Political Editor Dennis Shanahan talks to Ray about the tension in the Coalition over the Finkel Review.
    http://www.2gb.com/podcast/dennis-shanahan-5/

    50

  • #
    pat

    14 Jun: Australian: Rachel Baxendale: PoliticsNow Live: Energy target backlash as PM faces revolt
    Energy policy continues to dominate the agenda, with angry Coalition MPs warning Malcolm Turnbull against embracing a clean energy target that hits consumers with higher prices.

    12 minutes ago: ‘We’ll give Finkel full consideration’
    Bill Shorten has called for Malcolm Turnbull to show leadership and pull the Coalition into line on energy policy, saying paralysis on the issue is driving prices through the roof and threatening the viability of businesses and the cost of living.

    Speaking at a business in Queanbeyan this morning, the Opposition Leader said Labor was prepared to make compromises in the national interest.
    “We like an emissions intensity scheme, we think that is the best way to help drive more jobs in renewables, downward pressure on energy and electricity prices and of course tackle climate change, but the Finkel report has proposed a clean energy target,” Mr Shorten said.
    “We are prepared to give it full and fair consideration and analysis.”

    Shadow Energy Minister Mark Butler said yesterday’s Coalition partyroom meeting had put Australia in a “very dangerous position”.
    “We’ve seen before in 2009 and in 2011 what a major party walking away from energy policy does to the economy,” he said. “Wholesale power prices have doubled in the four years of this government and as Mathias Cormann said himself yesterday, if we don’t come to grips with the Finkel report recommendations, power prices will go up and up.”
    Mr Shorten said coal would remain part of Australia’s energy mix.

    ***“But if we going to have a discussion about clean energy, the proposition that includes all forms of coal is just a con,” he said…

    “I understand the government wants to be all things to all people but if we’re going to have a clean energy target it’s got to be a fair dinkum energy target and I think that’s what everyone reasonably expects.”
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/politicsnow-live-energy-target-backlash-as-pm-faces-revolt/news-story/f2ac5cd94eed7404301a2f08fb4593d5

    20

  • #
    Turtle

    This idiotic notion of the bubble people that you can be a “moderate”, “rational pragmatist” in the “sensible centre” is going to destroy the Libs.

    60

  • #
    pat

    not a very convincing denial, Trudeau:

    12 Jun: Reuters: Canada’s Trudeau denies he wants G20 to drop Paris pact mention
    (Reporting by David Ljunggren; Editing by Bernard Orr and Grant McCool)
    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday denied he had suggested deleting mentions of the Paris climate pact from the final communique of a major summit to appease U.S. President Donald Trump.
    German magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday said Trudeau made his comments in a call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will host a G20 summit in July.
    Pressed in Parliament as to whether he had made the remarks in question, Trudeau replied: “No, I did not say that”….

    “We will not let climate policy, or indeed international policy, (be) dictated by any country,” Trudeau told legislators.
    Earlier, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna told reporters that Canada would be “strong on climate action at the G20″…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-g20-climatechange-canada-idUSKBN1931VT?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

    12 Jun: Reuters: Stephen Jewkes: U.S. left as ‘footnote’ in G7 climate talks
    The U.S. said it would not sign up to a pledge by Italy, Canada, Japan, France, Britain and Germany which called the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change “irreversible” and key for the “security and prosperity of our planet”.
    As a consequence, Washington formally refused to back multilateral development banks — bodies designed to finance poorer nations and help them reduce their pollution emissions…

    “The U.S. is now left as a footnote to climate action and that’s very sad,” said Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna. “Everyone expressed their deep disappointment with the U.S. decision,” she said…

    Environment ministers and officials met in a luxury hotel, sitting around a table ***covered in lush grass, to discuss issues ranging from climate change to sustainable development and litter at sea…

    Italian Environment Minister Gian Luca Galletti said a dialogue had been kept open with the U.S. to see if there were the conditions for Washington to reenter the Paris accord.
    “But one thing is clear, the accord is irreversible non-negotiable and the only instrument for fighting climate change,” he told reporters.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-environment-idUSKBN1931I5?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

    20

  • #
    pat

    13 Jun: Daily Mail: Press Association: We need international co-operation on climate change, says Gove in Trump attack
    Quizzed on Good Morning Britain about whether President Trump was wrong to withdraw from the accord, Mr Gove said: “Yes, I think he is wrong. I think that we need international co-operation in order to deal with climate change.
    “And I think the Paris Accord which my friend Amber Rudd had a huge role in helping to shape is a significant step forward.
    “The only way in which you can deal with this challenge, the only way in which we can enhance the environment to pass on to our children in a better state is by working across borders.”…

    Scientists have warned that failure to curb dangerous climate change will lead to sea level rises, more intense storms and flooding, more extreme droughts, water shortages and heatwaves as well as massive loss of wildlife and reduction in crop yields, potentially sparking conflict and mass migration…

    In 2013, in his role as education secretary, Mr Gove was accused of trying to “airbrush” climate change from the national curriculum – but he told Good Morning Britain he “strengthened” the position of climate change on school syllabuses…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4598806/We-need-international-operation-climate-change-says-Gove-Trump-attack.html

    behind paywall. from CarbonBrief: Quoting a “source close to Mr Gove”, the paper says: “‘He (Gove) wanted to enhance climate change in the national curriculum.’

    13 Jun: UK Times: Ben Webster: ‘Shy green’ Michael Gove promises to protect the environment
    Michael Gove’s first act as environment secretary was to issue a denial yesterday that he had ever intended to remove climate change from the national curriculum.

    The Green Party had said he was “entirely unfit” for the brief because of his “attempt to wipe the subject from our children’s curriculum”. This was a reference to claims in 2013 that Mr Gove, when education secretary, had removed climate change from a draft of the updated geography syllabus. Mr Gove authorised officials to point yesterday to a strongly worded rebuttal issued by the Department for Education at the time…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-will-protect-environment-says-shy-green-michael-gove-after-cabinet-reshuffle-f8dl8g76l

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    I am driving on the Hume Freeway from Sydney to Melbourne and just went past a wind subsidy farm. I think it was the Breadalbane Wind Farm. On one ridge there were around 16 windmills but on about half of them the fans were not turning or only turning very slowly. Any ideas why?

    At least when they are not working the grid will be more stable and there is less subsidies for the operator to earn.

    102

    • #
      Dennis

      When I passed by in May 2017 none of them were operating.

      90

    • #
      Reed Coray

      You wait. The greens will soon put pressure on the wind farm owners to use a portion of the power from producing turbines to drive non-producing turbines. That way, the inefficiency of a wind farm won’t be obvious to the casual observer.

      60

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Reed Coray:
        There was a 2 turbine set up in Japan that pulled power from the grid to keep the blades rotating “to save face”.

        In practice turbines should turn the blades slowly to prevent sag in the drive shaft. Standard in big ships and in power stations with steam turbines which are run at about 3 rpm when they are not working. Should it be necessay to stop the rotation the shaft has to be chocked up (supported) at short distances.

        80

        • #
          Reed Coray

          Thanks for the information. I wasn’t aware that potential damage could result if the blades stopped turning; but to a layman it has the ring of truth. The next time I see a “farm” of turbines some of which are rotating and some of which are stationary, I’ll get depressed thinking about all the damage being done.

          40

    • #

      The Wind Plant near Breadalbane is the Gullen Range Wind Farm Plant.

      Nameplate is 166MW.

      Average output over the last 24 hours is (around) 15MW so running at around 9% of its capacity, so that’s around seven of their 73 turbines actually with the blades turning.

      Over the last 7 days, the average Capacity Factor is 15%, so around 25MW per day on average and for two of those days it was below 10MW.

      Over those last seven days, the total output has been 4200MWH, you know the same power generated by Bayswater in 95 ….. MINUTES

      Tony.

      231

      • #
        Dennis

        The more the facts are presented the more obvious the fraud is becoming.

        100

      • #
        Alfred (Melbourne)

        Are you aware that large wind turbines in the North Sea require diesel engines to turn them slowly when there is no wind? Otherwise their bearing would get damaged.

        Bearings: The Achilles Heel of Wind Turbines

        90

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Alfred:
          No, I wasn’t aware so thank you. I was referring to the bending of the stationary drive shaft.

          When you think about it this use of diesel because it will be available when wanted is direct evidence that even those involved know that wind is an intermittent supply and cannot be relied on to be there when needed.

          90

        • #
          David Maddison

          Sea based windmills can be bigger than land based ones because of limitations of the size of blades that can be transported by roads or rail.

          10

    • #
      Analitik

      I’ll bet they were all turning albeit with some being driven very slowly by the grid to keep the bearings from brinelling

      110

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    12 Jun: BBC: Sean Coughlan: Did Michael Gove really try to stop teaching climate change?
    On social media, these claims about climate change have been linked with pictures of Mr Gove’s visit to the newly elected President Trump, as though their awkward thumbs up were evidence of some kind of global compact.
    But is there any substance to the claims?
    Anyone taking geography GCSEs or A-levels this summer will wonder what the row is about, because pupils will have been grilled – probably the wrong word – about climate change and global warming.
    And there are plenty of references to climate change in the national curriculum for younger years…

    But the row about “climate change denial” goes back to a controversial rewriting of the geography curriculum when Mr Gove was education secretary.
    In a draft version, climate change was conspicuous by its absence, prompting a wave of petitions and lobbying demands for its re-inclusion.
    And when the final version was produced, climate change had been reinstated.
    But instead of ending the argument, there was still a lingering fog of claims about political attempts to stifle the subject.
    And the Department for Education had to publish a statement denying that climate change had been removed.

    People who were close to Mr Gove during this time say that the climate change allegations have taken on a life of their own, a Westminster version of an urban myth, without any foundation.
    They say it’s a complete misreading of what happened – and that rather than downplaying the teaching of climate change, it was to be bolstered by moving it to science.
    And in the end, after a consultation, Mr Gove took the decision to keep teaching it as part of geography.
    Another source said that climate change ended up being taught in geography and in science, so it hadn’t been cut – so it was a meaningless row.

    But there are also different versions of events.
    Another very senior figure, close to the curriculum reforms, said that shifting climate change into science might have been the “formal” argument.
    But they suggest that there was also an “instinctive” distrust of the topic, with lessons about climate change seen as having an underlying, politically driven agenda…

    Another person involved in the rewriting of the geography curriculum remembers ministerial interventions and political horse-trading.
    They describe attempts not to “stress the human causes” of climate change as an attempt to placate the “right wing of the Conservative party”.
    Mr Gove was described as wanting to make specific changes to the wording…

    Although Mr Gove might have become the lightning rod in this row, it’s worth noting that much of the controversial coverage about cutting climate change from geography was not about Mr Gove at all.
    Tim Oates, who chaired the panel reviewing the national curriculum, argued it should be about core scientific knowledge, rather than issues, such as climate change, that might stem from that.
    Such topics should be left to teachers to decide to teach rather than be prescribed, he said.
    This had prompted reports that climate change “propaganda” was going to be dropped…

    There are other arguments underlying all this. Should ministers, political figures moving in and out of departments, really get involved in the detail of what pupils are taught? Or should this be the domain of subject specialists and education professionals?
    And the school climate has changed too. Academies do not have to follow the national curriculum – so for most secondary schools, such requirements no longer even apply.

    A spokesman for Mr Gove’s new department, Defra, said: “The secretary of state wanted to enhance climate change in the national curriculum when he was education secretary. It was never his intention to remove it.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40250214

    40

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    13 Jun: Bloomberg: May’s Bid to Keep U.K. Lights on Harder After Election Loss
    by Jess Shankleman
    Country needs $127 billion investment for energy industry
    Minority government seen likely to let energy slip down agenda
    “There’s not going to be an energy policy,” Guy Madgwick, managing director of Northern Europe for wind turbine manufacturer Senvion SA, said in a phone interview. “It’s nowhere near the top of their list.”

    ***With more than a dozen power plants due to close in the next decade, Britain’s grid is creaking under growing volumes of power from wind and solar farms…

    “We’re at a point in the U.K. where we probably need to redefine some of the targets and goals we want to achieve over the next 10 to 15 years for the whole of the energy sector,” said Keith Anderson, chief executive officer of ScottishPower Plc, a utility that’s also developing renewable-energy plants…

    Investment in clean energy plunged in the first quarter after falling on an annual basis for the first time in six years last year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Developers are seeking certainty on how their payments will be structured after the U.K. leaves the EU, a move that may allow it to drop renewable energy targets for 2020 that have served as a guide to how policy will evolve…

    The election further unsettles the outlook for energy policy by adding to the governing coalition the Democratic Unionist Party, which opposes policies to fight climate change…READ ALL
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/may-s-effort-to-keep-u-k-lights-on-harder-after-election-defeat

    40

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Pass the popcorn, do not Bogart da joint! :-)

      40

      • #

        Ah yes!

        Country Joe And The Fish.

        How well I (almost) remember.

        They were in a pretty cool movie in the very early seventies, Zachariah, with a young Don Johnson.

        It looked so odd watching cowboys walk into a bar, and the resident house band were all playing rock music through electric guitars and amps.

        Saw it at a small art house theatre in Hunter Street Newcastle with hessian seating and a concrete floor in the days when you could smoke at the movies, umm, four nights running. The air inside that tiny theatre was a wonder to smell. No, umm, bogarting inside. I think the people who ran the joint couldn’t figure out why the place was packed solid four nights running, and they actually extended the movie for an extra night.

        I asked the management for one of the large posters and I had it on the wall in my room for years.

        Joe Walsh was in too, with one of his early Bands, The James Gang.

        Cool movie.

        Tony.

        81

  • #
    TdeF

    In Andrew Bolt’s commentary on the CET (to partner the RET presumably)

    William Kinnimouth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre points
    out the bleeding obvious

    “It is unfortunate that the Chief Scientist did not conduct an independent
    review of the science ­underpinning the contentious ­hypothesis of dangerous
    anthropogenic climate change before embarking
    on a blueprint for the national electricity market.”

    Even at over 200 pages, his report is merely about a timetable to shift to wind power,
    paid for by the sale of coal to other countries.

    What is the point of a Chief Scientist if not to examine the science?

    I guess also we still have hundreds of full time public service CSIRO scientists examining solutions
    to a problem they could not identify in a decade. How can you solve a problem if you do not have one?

    250

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      TdeF June 14, 2017 at 1:08 pm

      “In Andrew Bolt’s commentary…”

      Are they stupid; or are you?

      20

    • #
      Dennis

      What was the point in earlier years to appoint economists to accept the climate change agenda as fact and report only on future impacts on the economy, as done in the UK and Australia.

      The bulldozer approach, shove whatever gets in the way out of the way.

      60

    • #
      Graham Chubb

      The Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, is not a scientist – he is an Engineer. As an Engineer, he should clearly understand the ‘Scientific Method’. However, he is just another hand picked shill to the principal spivs in the Liberal Party.

      102

      • #
        TdeF

        True and we all knew this was a foregone conclusion before he even started. It is a ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ report.

        He has been chosen for a purpose, to add credibility to Malcolm’s Emissions tax scheme, the scheme on which Malcolm was rolled in 2009. The scheme for which Malcolm crossed the floor against his own party. Finkel would have been sounded out on Global Warming just to get the job and studiously avoided questioning ‘The Science’ anyway.

        140

      • #
        bobl

        Indeed, As an Electrical Engineer I’m embarrassed. However, he has a problem many of us have. He has been asked to engineer a solution within the parameters of the Paris commitment and so he uses the tools at his disposal to deliver what he was asked for. Dumping Paris was not within the parameters of his remit. Finkel possibly (though I can’t be sure) knows how futile this all is.

        In recent years it HAS been like this for engineers, we need 1 GWh of generation built, but money often comes with strings, political strings, and so you get “we only can get money for renewable solutions”. Does the Engineer say, nope I can’t in conscience do that because it will fail, or does he take the money and do his best to deliver what was requested within the strings. I can tell you that mostly engineers don’t get to put the strings on the money, we just have to comply with them as frustrating as that is.

        I have personally been in this bind many times. I have occasionally resigned on integrity grounds but you can’t survive that way. My solution ultimately is to provide competing analyses and stern warnings about the insanity of following a poor course of action to the purse holder. Then hope they see sense. If not then of course (assuming what I’m asked to do is not illegal) I have to do what the boss says, even if it’s not what I would do. Almost all of you would know that feeling if you have ever been directed to do something dumb (but not wrong). For Engineers in energy it just affects a lot of people. The Engineers on the whole though are not responsible, we don’t limit the options, the political purse holders, generally governments, do.

        This is what Finkel should have done, the report SHOULD have warned about the massive problems of unreliable energy and suggested no regrets alternatives, say the irrigation of a million square km of desert to create offset carbon sinks (called farms) and then go on to say, but if you must persist with this renewable fancy, here is the best out of a bunch of bad options. That way the politicians would be forced into owning the choice and would be properly informed on the CHEAPEST ways forward, this was obviously not what Malcolm wanted, so the report omits the cheapest options. He could also have taken a scientific lifecycle approach backed by AS55000 and done a fair lifecycle comparison. You could in fact still do that with the CET and you’d end up with renewable operators paying gas and HELE coal operators, indeed that might be the quick fix. Impose lifecycle CO2 on them and watch the fur fly.

        90

        • #

          Judas Priest, I’m the lowliest Associate Diploma of Electrical Engineering, and I can see that a 42% Renewables on an Australia wide basis ….. within 11 years mind you, won’t come within a bulls roar of being realised.

          He’s a full bl00dy Electrical Engineer, and he comes up with this.

          He of all people must KNOW that those renewables of choice are totally unreliable in respect of electrical supply security.

          I think some people just sell their souls for the lure of the big bucks on offer for a Government Report.

          Tony.

          191

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/topic… but in case anyone needed more evidence, the olde media is dying:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/ten-enters-volutary-administration/8617078

    Yep, CH10 just went into voluntary receivership.

    42

  • #
    Dennis

    I wonder if the answer as to why our politicians, a majority of them, on both sides have merged under the same political umbrella is new word order, UN world government, no borders, etc?

    In other words the rogue politicians are not planning to face voter anger for too much longer, hand the now sovereign nation over to foreign control via the UN as the plot thickens and treaties are used to get around the laws of Australia.

    And meanwhile crony capitalism is practised, creating wealth for the few in between time.

    40

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Renewable electricity generation has gone backwards in Europe due to a lack of wind and sun, it has been revealed.’

    Oz

    100

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Just being totally cynical but how about Rudd with his fiscal policies and etc afterwards was to basically put Oz into deep debt so that economic levelling by taxation could then be achieved by CO2 fear?

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      And at the time Leader Of The Opposition Turnbull was standing alongside PM Rudd in full agreement with Labor’s plans.

      30

    • #
      Analitik

      You credit Rudd with too much intelligence. He was just reacting in the most populist manner his party would allow (long with Wayne Swan)

      41

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Considering spot prices have increased more in QLD than in SA over the last 10 years, the problem with electricity prices obviously has far more to do with government mismanagement than it has to do with adding new technologies to the grid.

    421

    • #
      TdeF

      No, everyone pays for SA’s windmills. The RET is Federal. Where windmills are built is not a State issue. They get paid 9c kw/hr for simply producing, $89 a MWhr, not for actually selling wind power. So it doesn’t matter where they are situated, we all pay most of our electricity bills in RET taxes, doubled at wholesale by the electricity retailers to 18c kw/hr. For the RIGHT to buy coal or gas or diesel power. The RET is not mismanagement, it is robbery.

      230

      • #
        TdeF

        We also have to pay for unused electricity from solar panels plus say $8,000 cash for simply buying a solar panel for your home, based on 15 years carbon dioxide tax in advance. Again, robbery. When all that is paid, we the public still do not own a windtower or solar system. All ripoff and profiteering down to a household level and long into the future. Consider we pay to build and we pay again to use allegedly free power. The total cost is $6,000 million a year added to electricity bills. Mismanagement? No.

        191

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Craig:
      Since Labor was in power for most of that time, are you saying that Labor should be blamed for mismanagement?

      In practice I think there might have been some effect from a booming economy in Qld. with the shut down of coal fired power stations in NSW making the supply situation tighter.
      Qld. usually draws some power from NSW, who in turn were drawing some from Vic. as was SA. The shut down of the Northern station in SA, followed by Hazelwood has made matching supply and demand difficult.

      100

      • #
        Analitik

        Queensland also has far higher demand per capita than South Australia due to large numbers of manufacturing and industrial business abandoning South Australia due to crippling electricity costs and outages.

        If South Australia had the industrial base of even a decade ago, the prices spikes there would be continual. And wait for July when it gets truly cold.

        100

    • #
      toorightmate

      SUBSIDIES (a la carbon taxes) increase the price – AND OUR GENERAL TAXES.

      50

    • #
      Rick Will

      SA has relied heavily on a lifeline to Victoria. The cost paid there is not reflective of the full cost of their power. We saw what happens when that lifeline fails. The situation has changed now with Hazelwood closure so Victoria is now approaching a similar situation with reliance on other States.

      Right now Queensland is export 1000MW south. NSW is using 500MW of that and sending 500MW into Victoria. Victoria is exporting 470MW west to SA and 200MW into Tassie. So Queensland is keeping the rest of the country going – Victoria is just meeting its needs. SA is a basket case. The generators in Queensland are taking advantage of the higher prices on offer further south. Queensland still has the lowest cost power but it is increasing faster than the other states because it can benefit from the higher prices on offer further south.

      The screwy situation is that the households in Queensland and other states are effectively supporting the offshore providers of the SA wind generators with their LGCs through the application of the RET.

      The whole pricing is just too complex for most people to fathom it. Certainly zero understanding in the press. So Queenslanders see their power bills rising and have no clue that it is because they are supporting the cashed up lifestyle of the offshore owners of the wind generators in SA.

      I am glad I chose to avoid paying for energy in 2011. The only way with energy costs is upward at an accelerating rate.

      60

      • #

        I want to show you the situation in Queensland which will give you some idea why, even as decentralised as we are in this State, we have more than enough coal fired power, most of it relatively new, and none of it closing down before 2030.

        This shows the Name of the Plant, the Nameplate, and the date the plant came on line.

        Callide B – 700MW – 1988
        Callide C – 920MW – 2001
        Gladstone – 1680MW – 1976
        Kogan Creek – 750MW – 2007
        Milmerran – 850MW – 2002
        Stanwell – 1460MW – 1996
        Tarong North – 443MW – 2003
        Tarong – 1400MW – 1986

        Total Nameplate 8203MW

        Okay, now go to this site, the AEMO Database,and click on the tab for Qld.

        Note the images there of the Load curves, the lighter one of those two graphs there, the typical Winter curve with its two peaks.

        Hover your mouse over the low point at around 4AM, and note that it is (around) 5000/5100MW, and then hover your mouse over the high point, at around 5.30/6PM and note it is (around) 7500/7600MW.

        So, in effect, Queensland has more than enough power to cover every need just from coal fired power alone, not that every plant will be running every unit at any one time, but the Nameplate can cover it all, if needed.

        That may seem a lot, but keep in mind that unlike other States, Queensland is vastly more spread out along the coastline, so all that power is required for the different areas, and even so, there’s nothing in the way of stable power North of Stanwell here in Rockhampton, so realistically, the North are in pretty much dire need of a large scale stable power plant, with the population growth North of Mackay even, and out to the Isa.

        With the major growth areas in that South East Corner, then the existing power is enough to cater for that, and still have enough to sell into NSW, keeping in mind that the Interconnector is not all that large.

        So, while Queensland can effectively shift some of its power South into NSW, be aware that power cannot be used to support even as close to Queensland as, say Tamworth or Coffs maybe.

        So, realistically, both NSW and Victoria have a crying need for new large scale power plants, not a crying need to d@mn well close them down.

        Tony.

        161

  • #

    Its true and don’t call me Shirley

    20

  • #
    Analitik

    RenewEconomy has lashed out in fury over the one aspect of The Finkel Report that makes any sense – that renewable generators provide their own storage to cover their intermittency. The total lack of reality there is to be expected but the fundamental lack of technical appreciation/acknowledgement of the issue is breathtakingly dishonest.

    I’m sure I will be banned soon, despite holding back on any insults and only presenting facts (eg what a synchronous condenser is and how they WON’T save the grid from generation shortfalls).

    170

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Of course they are upset, supplying constant power using renewables is impossible. There will be talk of batteries but only from those who haven’t a clue about generation, or those trying to prolong the subsidies.
      In SA the balancing was supposedly from OCGT but they are far more costly for generation than wind and solar, close in cost to diesel and far less reliable.
      Perhaps they should build a coal fired plant?

      110

      • #
        ROM

        Re batteries;

        Andthen there is this; Via the GWPF which makes Finkels suggestion of batteries for renewable energy power storage look even more stupid as it does nothing to save on any further emmissions

        NEW STUDY: LARGE CO2 EMISSIONS FROM BATTERIES OF ELECTRIC CARS

        Enormous hope rests on electric cars as the solution by the motor industry to climate change.
        However the batteries of electric cars are not environmentally friendly when manufactured.
        Several tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released, even before electric batteries leave the factory.

        IVL, the Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective.
        Batteries for electric cars were included in the study. Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have produced a meta-analysis, that is, a review and compilation of existing studies.

        The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions.

        For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory.

        The researchers have not studied individual car brand’s batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used.
        But to understand the importance of battery size here’s one example: Two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively.

        As soon as you buy the car, CO2 emissions of approximately 5.3 tonnes and 17.5 tonnes, respectively, have been released for batteries of these sizes.
        The numbers may be difficult to relate to.
        By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air causes emissions of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO’s calculation model.

        Another conclusion of the study is that about half of the emissions occur during the production of raw materials and half during the production of the battery in the factory.
        The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent.

        More >>>

        61

        • #
          ROM

          And this.

          MIT Technology Review [ May 24th 2016 ]

          Sustainable Energy

          Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables

          Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson?

          At one point this month renewable energy sources briefly supplied close to 90 percent of the power on Germany’s electric grid. But that doesn’t mean the world’s fourth-largest economy is close to being run on zero-carbon electricity. In fact, Germany is giving the rest of the world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.

          After years of declines, Germany’s carbon emissions rose slightly in 2015, largely because the country produces much more electricity than it needs. That’s happening because even if there are times when renewables can supply nearly all of the electricity on the grid, the variability of those sources forces Germany to keep other power plants running. And in Germany, which is phasing out its nuclear plants, those other plants primarily burn dirty coal.

          Now the government is about to reboot its energy strategy, known as the Energiewende. It was launched in 2010 in hopes of dramatically increasing the share of the country’s electricity that comes from renewable energy and slashing the country’s overall carbon emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (see “The Great German Energy Experiment”). What happens next will be critical not only for Germany, but also for other countries trying to learn how to best bring more wind and solar online—especially if they want to do it without relying on nuclear power.

          &

          However, an expert commission appointed by the country’s minister of economy and energy has said the 40 percent target probably won’t be reached by 2020. And the energy revolution has caused problems of its own. Because fossil-fuel power plants cannot easily ramp down generation in response to excess supply on the grid, on sunny, windy days there is sometimes so much power in the system that the price goes negative—in other words, operators of large plants, most of which run on coal or natural gas, must pay commercial customers to consume electricity. That situation has also arisen recently in Texas and California (see “Texas and California Have Too Much Renewable Energy”) when the generation of solar power has maxed out.

          In hopes of addressing such issues, Germany’s Parliament is expected to soon eliminate the government-set subsidy for renewable energy, known as a feed-in tariff, that has largely fueled the growth in wind and solar. Instead of subsidizing any electricity produced by solar or wind power, the government will set up an auction system. Power producers will bid to build renewable energy projects up to a capacity level set by the government, and the resulting prices paid for power from those plants will be set by the market, rather than government fiat.

          51

          • #
            ROM

            And then the Germans got desperate enough to get around to this!

            German cabinet puts brakes on clean energy transition [ June / 2016 ]

            Germany has long been a global role-model for the transition to renewable energy.

            But now, the German government has decided to scrap the existing system of administered prices for wind and solar power.
            Instead, beginning in January 2017, it will operate competitive bidding systems in which the right to develop a particular wind or solar project will go to whichever credible bidder agrees to accept the lowest revenue per kWh on a 20-year contract.

            The net effect: The cost to consumers of additional clean power should steadily decline.

            In a speech introducing the reforms, Energy and Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, vice-chancellor and leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, described the move as a “paradigm shift” in energy policy.
            Germany would be leaving behind a system of government-mandated prices, and moving toward a more free-market pricing system, he said.

            Reform caps build-out of clean power

            More controversially, the reform will limit the construction of new wind farms in northern Germany by setting a government-mandated upper limit on the amount of new capacity permitted each year.
            The motivation for setting the limit, according to the government, is to make sure the build-out of northern Germany’s wind power generating capacity doesn’t exceed the pace of construction of new power transmission lines needed to move electricity from the north to industrialized regions in southern Germany, where power demand is highest.
            &

            “Last year, grid operators had to pay a billion euros for wind power capacity that went unused,” Gabriel said.

            51

    • #
      yarpos

      Renew is tightly regulated echo chamber, non conforming posts are removed or moderated away

      20

  • #
  • #
    Mark M

    For those interested, the Finkel slideshow Josh Frydenberg presented to the Coalition party room is here

    http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gwqsn5/Finkel-slideshow.pdf

    20

  • #
    pat

    BBC shows no interest in the birds where Wind Turbines are concerned:

    12 Jun: BBC Scotland: Kevin Keane: Campaigners challenge Forth and Tay wind farm plans
    Campaigners have appealed against a ruling which gave the go-ahead for four controversial wind farm projects in the firths of Forth and Tay.
    RSPB Scotland had objected to the developments which, they say, threaten thousands of seabirds.
    After winning the initial challenge, an appeal was lodged by Scottish ministers and the ruling was overturned last month.
    The charity has confirmed it has started a legal challenge.
    It is seeking permission from the Inner House of the Court of Session to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

    The Scottish government has declined to comment on the legal action, but stressed its belief in the importance of offshore wind projects…
    A Scottish government spokesman said: “Protecting the environment and fighting climate change are key priorities for the Scottish government.
    “Offshore wind has an important role to play in Scotland’s energy future, and offers valuable opportunities to reduce the carbon emissions which lead to climate change and create jobs too…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40247178

    13 Jun: ScottishEnergyNews: RSPB launches Supreme Court legal attack to sink £2bn quartet of Scottish offshore wind farms
    A fresh legal challenge by a bird charity threatens to finally sink a planned £2 billion investment in a ‘four-pack’ development of major Scottish offshore wind farms.

    Last month, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that the following four major renewable energy projects by the mainly Chinese and Irish developers can go ahead…ETC
    http://www.scottishenergynews.com/rspb-launches-supreme-court-legal-attack-to-sink-2bn-quartet-of-scottish-offshore-wind-farms/

    10

  • #
    bobl

    For good old Malcolm and Willard I was just watching a video showing how Tesla lithium cells behave like little bombs and bullets when the Tesla EV fires occur. A burning Tesla isn’t just a hazard for the occupants but anyone within 200 m. Of course they are also a chemical fire that can’t be put out – especially with water that reacts explosively with lithium. Because the reaction is with water and is so hot, I doubt even a CO2 extinguisher would work – CO2 precipitates water from the atmosphere, the fire would restart the moment the CO2 blanket dissipates

    70

  • #
    pat

    13 Jun: ScottishEnergyNews: 80% of Scots endorse John Muir Trust message to Scottish renewable energy developers: ‘Keep Off Our Wild Land’
    The John Muir Trust’s “Keep It Wild” campaign calls on the Scottish Government to use the forthcoming Planning Bill to give Wild Land Areas protection from industrial-scale development, similar to the protection already in place for windfarms in National Parks and NSAs…

    The campaign comes as the Court of Session in Edinburgh is set to decide a judicial review of a decision to approve Creag Riabhach wind farm in Altnaharra that would allow the development of 22-turbines up to 125m tall, including five within Wild Land Area 37…

    To mark the launch of the Keep it Wild campaign, the Trust has released a new YouGov poll which reveals 80 per cent of voters back the proposition that Scotland’s Wild Land Areas should receive continued protection from large-scale infrastructure development…

    The Scottish Government promised significant protection in planning policy for Wild Land Areas at the time they were officially recognised in 2014. However energy developers continue to submit applications to construct industrial-scale wind farms in these areas, and, although a number have been refused permission, the recent decision to approve the Creag Riabhach wind farm in Altnaharra has created uncertainty about the continued protection of Wild Land Areas into the future. This is the first time consent has been given for a wind farm within a Wild Land Area.

    There are a number of other major wind farms proposed, in various stages of planning approval, which would also have a major impact on WLAs. These include Caplich (20 turbines) in the shadow of Ben Mor Assynt; Strathy South (39 turbines) in the Flow Country and Limekiln (24 turbines) near Reay in Caithness…ETC
    http://www.scottishenergynews.com/80-of-scots-endorse-john-muir-trust-message-to-scottish-renewable-energy-developers-keep-off-our-wild-land/

    10

  • #
    pat

    14 Jun: EconomicTimesIndia: Discoms delaying payment: Tata Power Renewable Energy CEO Rahul Shah
    By Rachita Prasad
    MUMBAI: The government may be pushing for aggressive expansion in renewable energy capacity, but companies face delays in payments, which are sometimes as much as a year, from state-run power distribution companies, said Rahul Shah, chief executive officer and executive director of Tata Power Renewable Energy…

    “Not just 2 -3 months, there are states which have nearly a year’s delay in payments. The financial health of the discoms is not good. The Uday scheme has started showing positive impact in terms of reducing their debt burden and losses. In some states, the regulators have not yet allowed tariff increases to happen, so improvement in their financial situation will take longer,” Shah said…

    ***He said that given the financial constraints that state discoms face, they are “prioritising” payments to generators which offer firm supply of electricity, which means the thermal power generators, over renewable energy, which is an intermittent source of power…

    “Some of the states have tried to discourage addition of renewable energy capacity by either delaying payments or by backing down renewable energy. Therefore, telling the developer or the owner of the renewable energy plants that there could be some uncertainties pouring in,” Shah said…
    Sector players list Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan, among the ones delaying payments.

    The renewable energy sector also faces huge challenges as transmission infrastructure is stretched and states are still not enthused about buying renewable energy.

    “For India to achieve its goal of 175 gigawatts (by 2022), it is very important for the grid to be able to handle that. There is a limit to which scheduling, forecasting and improving the grid technology can help but government needs to work on the grid since it has a longer lead time. If the government does not act, then the rate at which new renewable power capacity will get bid-out will also have to slow down,” Shah said…
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/discoms-delaying-payment-tata-power-renewable-energy-ceo-rahul-shah/articleshow/59134366.cms

    10

  • #
    pat

    14 Jun: AmericanChamberOfCommerce, Taiwan: Nukes and Uncertainty Charge Taiwan’s Energy Debate
    by Tim Ferry
    Idled nuclear reactors are being restarted to meet the summer surge in demand, but policy uncertainty and capacity limitations continue to trouble Taiwan’s power sector…
    The resumption of operations at these two reactors will see nuclear power’s share of Taiwan’s total power generation rise to 9% – welcome news for Taiwan’s air quality. Coal- and natural gas-fired generation has been used to replace nuclear power and has accounted for over 90% of generation in recent weeks, up from 78% in 2014…

    The government is planning sweeping changes in how Taiwan generates and consumes electricity. The plan, which has now been codified into several statutes, including the recently amended Electricity Act and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Mitigation Act, calls for completely eliminating nuclear power and generating 20% of all power from renewable sources by 2025 – while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% off 2005’s total emissions by 2030.
    The government has also promised that there will be no interruptions in service, no compromise on reliability, and no sudden or dramatic price hikes.

    It’s a bold vision, but implementing it is certain to be an immense challenge. In the complex approval process for renewable energy power projects, many property and land use issues are still unresolved and best practices have yet to be established. As yet, none of the ground-mounted solar power farms that have long been considered essential for Taiwan to reach its goal of 20GW of installed solar capacity by 2025 have been installed or even approved. An additional 100MW of onshore wind capacity is now being planned to add to the 680MW currently installed, but is unlikely to have a big impact on Taiwan’s overall power generation.

    Although the additional 3,000MW planned for offshore wind farms would be more significant, Taiwan’s forays into the extremely expensive and challenging area of offshore wind power have been progressing slowly. Two offshore wind turbines have been installed off the coast of Changhua, with a combined installed capacity of just 8MW. Reaching 3,000MW will require hundreds of turbines built on a tectonically active seabed that also provides an essential habitat for endangered species and supports Taiwan’s fishing industry…

    During this period of uncertainty, AmCham Taipei in its recently published 2017 Taiwan White Paper has urged the government to provide a clear energy transition roadmap and employ careful management to avoid any moves that would impact the reliability of the power supply or result in price shocks, as has happened in other markets over the years. Many of Taiwan’s most vital high-tech manufacturers are highly reliant on the stability of the power supply, and disruptions of even milliseconds can result in huge damage to production lines. The Chamber also notes that as an island, Taiwan doesn’t have the luxury of importing energy from outside of its grid to compensate for power irregularities.

    Guaranteeing that the manufacturing sector will always have access to needed power is vital to Taiwan’s economy. The Chamber strongly encourages Taiwan to maintain sufficient capacity of conventional power sources, particularly natural gas, as it builds up its capacity in renewable energy…ETC
    https://topics.amcham.com.tw/2017/06/nukes-uncertainty-charge-taiwans-energy-debate/

    10

  • #
    pat

    Economic Times is the only MSM in the world to carry this Reuters’ report today, even tho all MSM subscribe to Reuters:

    14 Jun: EconomicTimesIndia: Reuters: China’s coal output in May grew fastest in years on summer outlook
    Output rose to 297.8 million tonnes in May, the National Bureau of Statistics data showed, also slightly above April’s 295 million tonnes.
    By Meng Meng and Josephine Mason
    BEIJING: China’s coal production rose 12 percent in May from a year ago, its fastest pace of growth in years, as miners ramped up output ahead of an expected summer pick-up in demand, official data showed on Wednesday.
    Output rose to 297.8 million tonnes in May, the National Bureau of Statistics data showed, also slightly above April’s 295 million tonnes.
    For the year to date, coal production rose 4.3 percent to 1.4 billion tonnes.
    Anticipation of a hot summer and higher consumption has buoyed sentiment from miners who have enjoyed more relaxed regulations on production.
    Thermal coal prices have risen more than 16 percent this year reaching record highs on Wednesday of high of 570.6 yuan ($83.94) per tonne. Open interest hit a record on Tuesday, showing more bullish sentiment in market…
    http://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/coal/chinas-coal-output-in-may-grew-fastest-in-years-on-summer-outlook/59137626

    so what is FakeNewsMSM reporting today:

    Coal No Longer King as China Spurs Shift to Cleaner Energy
    Bloomberg – ‎3 hours ago‎
    The biggest energy consumer is moving toward the end of an era after it burned the least coal in six years, became the number one producer of renewable energy and even lowered its emissions of climate-warming gases, according to data from BP Plc.
    “China matters in a big way to the energy market,” said Giovanni Staunovo, an analyst at UBS Group AG. “There is an aim to move away from coal consumption towards cleaner energy sources.”…

    Global coal usage falls as world turns towards cleaner energy
    The Australian – ‎8 hours ago‎

    World Coal Output Fell by Record Amount in 2016, BP Says
    Fox Business – ‎14 hours ago‎

    Global demand for coal falls in 2016 for second year in a row
    The Guardian – ‎19 hours ago‎

    Trump Clings to Coal as Worldwide Demand Plummets
    Voice of America – ‎13 hours ago‎
    China’s coal production fell by nearly 8 percent…

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    Cory Bernardi has put solar panels on the roof of his Adelaide home, but denies it has anything to do with a change of heart on climate change.

    “Don’t fret, I haven’t drunk the renewable energy Kool-Aid. I’ll leave that idiocy to the Labor, Liberal and Xenophon crew,” Senator Bernardi said.

    “The inept electricity policies of federal and state governments left me with no choice. Like most South Australians, I can’t afford to have my power shut off for days at a time but unlike most South Australians I can afford to spend money to do something about it.

    “That’s no way to run a state or a country and the only way to make our electricity more affordable and more reliable for every Australian is for the government to get the heck out of the way.”

    Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/climate-sceptic-cory-bernardi-puts-solar-panels-on-his-roof-20170612-gwpsva#ixzz4jy6adnYS
    Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

    30

  • #
    pat

    plenty of spin in the following, but a few facts included nonetheless:

    12 Jun: Politico: Why China Is No Climate Leader
    By Elizabeth Economy
    But is leadership on climate change really a strategic gift? Do the Chinese want it? And above all, do they merit it? The quick answer is no, no and no…

    China is still the largest emitter of CO2 on the planet by a substantial margin, contributing 29 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions in 2015. The United States comes in a distant second at 14 percent. In addition, while Beijing is cutting back on coal-fired power plants — particularly in its wealthy and pollution-conscious coastal provinces — it is upping its count of CO2 emitting coal-to-chemical (including coal-to-gas) plants. There are 46 coal-to-chemical plants in operation and another 22 under construction that will add another 193 million tons of carbon emissions annually. A conservative estimate suggests that by 2020, such plants will contribute as much CO2 as all of Poland’s contribution to global carbon emissions, while the extreme scenario — if China builds all the coal-to-chemical plants outlined in its 13th Five Year Plan — will lead to a contribution of almost 800 million tons per year, more than German’s total carbon emissions in 2015, and equal to roughly 10 percent of China’s current CO2 contribution…

    Whatever positive steps China is taking at home are not being replicated in its behavior abroad. China is the world’s largest exporter of coal-fired power plant finance and technology. Even as Xi is calling for an “international coalition for green development on the Belt and Road” (his comprehensive new trade and development initiative involving 65 countries), Beijing is backing more than 100 new coal-fired power projects in the Belt and Road countries. China’s much-touted Belt and Road deals in Pakistan, for example, include plans for as many as 12 coal-fired power plants—even in areas recognized for their superior solar energy potential. In addition, China is actively pushing coal-to-chemical plants abroad…

    Will China rally other countries to adopt another round of more ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets? Will it stop the overseas financing and sale of coal-fired power plants and coal-to-chemical plants? Will it push forward to limit other harmful greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane? Will it accede to international monitoring and verification of its emissions, an important measure it continues to reject? Thus far, there is no indication that China has plans to adopt any of these leadership-worthy measures…
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/why-china-is-no-climate-leader-215249

    10

  • #
    pat

    should have noted re author of the Politico China piece:

    Elizabeth Economy is the C.V. Starr senior fellow and director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    You might want to listen to this and comment (or vomit).

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/sinodinos:-business-as-usual-on-energy-policy-unsustainable/8618690

    Sinodinos: Business as usual on energy policy “unsustainable”
    Listen now(Link will open in new window)Download audio
    Wednesday 14 June 2017 6:06PM (view full episode)
    IMAGE: SENATOR ARTHUR SINODINOS IN THE RN STUDIO AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE IN CANBERRA, 26 NOVEMBER 2015 (RN DRIVE/ELLIOTT DUNN) LINK TO LARGER IMAGE.
    While energy policy debate inside the Coalition party room may be causing friction, a more potent political force looms ever larger.

    Power prices are sharply on the rise in eastern Australia, and as the Government admits, this factor alone could determine the fate of the next election.

    51

  • #
    David Maddison

    Naturally, Chinese donations of money to the Labor Party had nothing to do with approval for this project.

    http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/4730076/victorias-biggest-wind-farm-gets-green-light/

    “Victoria’s biggest wind farm to date has been given the green light by the state government.”

    Sadly, this is near the home of the Lake Goldsmith Steam Preservation Society http://www.lakegoldsmithsteamrally.org.au/ hence the machines that made the industrial revolution will be contrasted with the machines that are destroying it.

    93

  • #
    pat

    too cute not to post. it begins on CNN:

    9 Jun: CNN: Jennifer Gray: Reporter’s notebook: Visiting the disappearing Tangier Island
    VIDEO CAPTION: Rising seas may wash away this US town
    Tangier Island is losing roughly 15 feet of coastline per year. It is now only 1.3 square miles and is shrinking more and more every day. The residents here are extremely scared that if something isn’t done soon, their homes and livelihoods will be washed away by the Chesapeake Bay.
    “We’ve depended on the Chesapeake Bay for a couple hundred years or more, and now it’s the Chesapeake Bay that’s the greatest threat to our existence,” says James “Ooker” Eskridge, the mayor of Tangier…

    Eighty-seven percent of the island voted for President Trump. It doesn’t bother them that he pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. The residents on Tangier look at the decision as more money it will free up to help them build the infrastructure they need to save their island.
    When I asked people their thoughts on climate change, everyone had the same answer. They said it doesn’t matter what’s causing it. They are sick of hearing debates about human-caused or natural cycles. They want people to open their eyes and see what’s happening to Tangier…

    “I agree with the science behind sea-level rise and global warming but its all irrelevant to us right now. We’re worried about washing away,” resident Bruce Clark Gordy said…
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/us/weather-tangier-island/index.html

    and MSM now has this followup:

    13 Jun: VirginiaPilot: Amir Vera: Mayor of Tangier Island says he got a call from President Trump. And they talked about sea level rise.
    Associated Press contributed to this report.
    The mayor of a small Chesapeake Bay island had been on CNN a few days earlier and said he loved Trump like a family member.
    When Eskridge got on the phone around 2:30 p.m. Monday, a woman introduced herself as being part of the Office of the President and said Trump wanted to speak with him…
    “I was blown away,” Eskridge said. “I’m still coming to grips with it.”

    The Pilot called and emailed the White House press office to confirm the account. No one returned the email or answered the phone Tuesday afternoon.
    The conversation with the president wasn’t that long – about 10 minutes.
    According to Eskridge, “He said, ‘That’s one heck of an island you have there.’“…

    The men also discussed the island. Tangier is sinking, and scientists predict it may have to be abandoned in 25 years.
    However, Eskridge said he and Trump don’t believe Tangier’s problem is sea level rise.
    “Erosion is what’s taking away the land around Tangier,” Eskridge said. “We need protection from the erosion with a seawall or a breakwater. As far as sea level rise is concerned, Donald Trump stated, ‘Tangier is not going anywhere.’ He said, ‘You’ve been there for hundreds of years, and you’ll be there hundreds more.’“…

    After the conversation, the island mayor of 10 years said he was a celebrity among the people who he said “just had questions and were coming over and just wanting to talk to me.”
    ”They were like me,” he said. “They were blown away with it.”

    14 Jun: WaPo: Travis M. Andrews: Trump calls mayor of shrinking Chesapeake island and tells him not to worry about it
    “He said we shouldn’t worry about rising sea levels,” Eskridge said. “He said that ‘your island has been there for hundreds of years, and I believe your island will be there for hundreds more.’”
    Eskridge wasn’t offended. In fact, he agreed that rising sea levels aren’t a problem for Tangier.
    “Like the president, I’m not concerned about sea level rise,” he said. “I’m on the water daily, and I just don’t see it.”
    Instead, Eskridge, along with many of Tangier’s residents, said he worries about the erosion caused by the Chesapeake’s water pounding on the island’s shores. He said he believes this is why his home is disappearing at an alarming rate.
    Trump apparently agreed.

    “He said that is a problem, and maybe when I’m up in Washington, I could come by and we can chat about it,” Eskridge said.
    Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to begin building a jetty on the west channel of the island some time this year to protect it from the harsh currents. But Eskridge said they need a jetty, or perhaps even a sea wall, around the entire island…
    He believes Trump will cut through red tape and get them that wall.
    “He’s for cutting regulations and the time it takes to study a project,” Eskridge said. “Of course you need the studies, but we’ve been studied to death.”…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/14/trump-calls-mayor-of-shrinking-chesapeake-island-and-tells-him-not-to-worry-about-it/?utm_term=.cbcb5818ebdf

    40

  • #
    pat

    ***full of nonsense, but posting for the reference to billionaire survivalists’ preference for “coal mining” regions:

    10 Jun: Forbes: Jim Dobson: The Shocking Doomsday Maps Of The World And The Billionaire Escape Plans
    When I wrote my first article on billionaire bunkers years ago, I never would have imagined how quickly our world was changing…Between the increase of bizarre weather patterns hitting the earth, and recent major volcanic activity, now more than ever our focus is on our planets future.

    In the early 80’s spiritual visionaries and futurists provided clues to our changing planet. Often dismissed as crazy prophets, their thoughts for a new world were quickly ignored and laughed at. Gordon-Michael Scallion was a futurist, teacher of consciousness studies and metaphysics and a spiritual visionary. In the 80’s he had a spiritual awakening that helped him create very detailed maps of future world, all stemming from a cataclysmic pole shift.

    Scallion believed that a pole shift would stem from global warming, nuclear activity, and the misuse of technology…

    With all of this knowledge of future mapping, do the world’s financial leaders know something we don’t? Consider how many of the richest families have been grabbing up massive amounts of farmland around the world. All property far away from coastal areas and in locations conducive to self-survival, farming and ***coal mining…

    So, in the event of a post asteroid apocalypse, where are the safest territories in the world? According to several prognosticators and much criticized theorists, here is the detailed list of predicted land changes based on geological positioning…READ ON
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2017/06/10/the-shocking-doomsday-maps-of-the-world-and-the-billionaire-escape-plans/#e2e15bc40478

    hard to believe this was on theirABC:

    AUDIO: 14mins59secs: 8 Jun: ABC Between The Lines: Tom Switzer: Leaving the Paris Accord
    Does it really matter that the US President has announced that they will be pulling out of the Paris climate accord?
    After all it was a non binding agreement and it wasn’t enforceable and US emissions are coming down faster than much of the rest of the world but even so, is there an argument for the US to remain part of the process?
    Ross McKitrick discusses the options.
    Guest: Dr Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
    Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
    Adjunct Fellow, Cato Institute
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/leaving-the-paris-accord/8597962

    20

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    Another one down!

    “We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Fans”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/06/we-dont-need-no-629.html#comments

    And read the comments

    60

    • #
      David Maddison

      I like this comment:

      MikeM_inMD | June 14, 2017 12:45 PM | Reply
      On first glance, it looked like one of those wavy arm advertising things had deflated.

      41

  • #
    clipe

    sus·tain·a·bil·i·ty

    Fears were raised that green energy concerns were prioritised ahead of safety as it emerged that cladding used to make the building more sustainable could have accelerated the fire.

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Fink keeps saying his recommendations don’t exclude coal but new coal power plant is only possible with carbon capture and storage.

    How can he not know that this is not economically or technically feasible?

    Or perhaps he does know that.

    51

  • #
    David Maddison

    “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
    if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
    come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

    Winston S. Churchill

    61

  • #
    • #
      David Maddison

      This is very good news indeed. Large numbers of windmills are now coming to the end of their lives and dangerously self-destructing. The lifetime of these are obviously much less than is claimed.

      31

  • #
    David Maddison

    I heard this on Their ABC RN radio.

    It seems any research done now has to have a “climate change” angle.

    https://youtu.be/N1VQGxo7-oM

    21

  • #
    AndrewWA

    This graphic from WUWT shows exactly what’s wrong with the current regime under the economic vandalism of the Renewable Energy Target.

    We are now facing power costs equivalent to countries with 3 x the amount of Renewable Energy and on a unit cost sit just behind Denmark and Germany.

    Stupid is what stupid does – and we’re being really stupid.

    40

    • #
      David Maddison

      That should be compulsory viewing for politicians but most are too stupid to be able to understand graphs.

      11

    • #

      Five unanswered questions from the Finkel Review.

      1. ‘Is the cost of electricity in Oz from renewable really
      cheaper than electricity from coal?’ – ( Nope.)

      2. ‘If renewables are cheaper than coal or gas, why does
      renewable energy need to be subsidized?’ – (Good question.)

      3. The Finkel Review refers, several times to a ‘business
      as usual’ scenario. ‘What is it?’ – (It’s a strawman, RET
      inflated, competition reduced.)

      4. ‘What is the practical effect of the apparent 600kgs per
      mgw per hour generation bench-marked?’ – (Release yr data, er,
      yr modelling.)

      5. ‘Will there still be an energy market if the Finkel Review is
      implemented?’- (No, not the working of the market invisible hand,
      instead the control and command hand of all-knowing guvuh-mint.)

      http://www.ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IPA_PRB_Five_Unanswered_Questions_From_The_Finkel_Review.pdf

      40

  • #
    yarpos

    Has any report like this ever been used verbatim ? This has a long way to run.

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Does anyone know how much the report cost and how much was spent on travel and overpaid “consultants”?

    31

  • #
    David Maddison

    Every time I think the Turnbull Party Government can get no worse, it manages to do so. It never fails to disappoint.

    51

  • #
    PeterS

    It has been said a number of times, and rightly so that the only real difference between the two major parties now is border protection. Pretty much everything else they are now either the same or very close. This include the climate change and national debt issues. Now here’s the rub. I believe that much of the public do not place a lot of importance on border protection. Much of this is due to complacency but a lot is also due to the fact there are many who actually disagree with the LNP’s hard line on border protection and we should open our borders, either slightly if not all out as before under Rudd/Gillard. It’s a sad fact and there is no point trying to ignore it just because it’s a silly point of view – it’s a view held by a lot of people. As a result of all this there is a real risk that ALP+Greens will win the next election very comfortably if not by a landslide. I hope I’m wrong but that’s the way I see things now. So we can kiss goodbye to any thought of slowing down our race towards renewable energy and in fact expect an acceleration once the ALP+Greens form government. We get the government we deserve.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    The climastrologists keep telling us “renewables” are or soon will be cheaper than coal.

    At the most basic level, how can thousands of windmills spread over huge geographical areas to replace one central power station possibly be cheaper than one large centralised thing?

    61

    • #
      Another Ian

      DM

      Careful there or what you’ve said will be taken as support for “Big Government”!

      10

      • #
        EyesWideOpen

        Hahaaa … good point … though he was talking about an object which had a constructive purpose in the first place; power plants serve a constructive purpose, whilst a caucus of clapping seals (erm, politicians), don’t serve an immediately obvious constructive purpose.

        10

    • #

      David,

      All that ‘renewables cheaper than coal fired power’ is artful interpretation of LCOE. (Levelized Cost Of Electricity)

      They use that LCOE almost as a bible and it has become so entrenched it is now almost believed as fact.

      They try to level the field to give a perspective, when nothing about the two sources can be taken as being ….. level.

      They use best case for renewables and worst case for coal fired power wherever they can.

      They quote best case Capacity Factor (CF) for wind power, usually 38%, although for some I have seen higher. They use that CF for the lifetime of the plant, when it falls dramatically after even five to ten years.

      They quote the lifetime of wind for 25 years, when 15 to 20 years is being seen now to be the average.

      They do not take into account the original subsidy at construction, where Governments can kick in anything up to and beyond half.

      They do not take into account the subsidy paid by government for every MWH of power being generated.

      They horrendously underquote the maintenance required for wind.

      When it comes to coal fired power they overquote the construction cost, dollars per MW of Nameplate.

      They underquote the CF for lifetime, some as low as 50%.

      They count in the cost of the coal purchase (highest figure they can get) when most plants are constructed at the site of the mine, and own their own coal they use.

      They overquote the cost of maintenance.

      They quote only 25 to 30 years as the lifespan, when 50 and more is often the case.

      They then include CCS as well, which consumes up to 40% of the generated electricity, lowering lifetime electricity totals, and cost an extra 30 to 40% on top of construction.

      They even factor in a cost on the CO2 emissions as well.

      Even with all of these things taken into account, the difference is so slight in favour of wind that it is laughable.

      And now it is taken as verbatim.

      Tony.

      101

      • #
        The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

        Hi Tony (from Oz):

        Serious question: This is the preamble to the question. About a year ago, my daughter received a message that discussed the amount of energy required to construct a wind turbine (INCLUDING things like mining the limestone for the concrete, extracting the rare earths for the magnets, … … … in some excruciating detail). The bottom line was that a wind turbine never generates as much power as was required to create it in the first place.

        Just yesterday, while this discussion was raging here on JoNova, I did a search for this article (or message, or whatever it was). Of course, I found many things like the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), The Guardian, and the other usual gang of suspects.

        Obviously, we all know that these analyses will be very biased (much as you discuss in your post).

        At the same time, I would prefer to avoid places like GWPF, not because they are biased (aren’t we all?), but because I am interested in finding truly neutral data.

        Let me mention that I live in Wyoming, and from the deck on the back of my house, I can visually observe well over 300 wind turbines; across the State, there may be some 2,000 to 2,500 operating wind turbines (and my estimate is probably low).

        Wyoming use to be a nice scenic place; it is now difficult to find any vistas which are not polluted with these eyesores.

        Anyway, I respect your extensive writings, and hope that you might be able to assist in locating something relatively unbiased. If not, I thank you for your continual efforts to educate those who refuse to see what is plainly in front of their faces,

        The Mostest Deplorablest Vlad the Impalerest

        (P.S. I’m sure you know this, but Wyoming voted 70.1% for Trump in 2016, the highest percentage of any State; only one county, Teton County, home to billionaires and trillionaires, went for HRC. Who’s the advocate for the working class?!?!?!?!?!)

        20

  • #
    Rick Will

    This is an unthreaded topic for the weekend but a day or so early.

    I have been using the KNMI Climate Explorer site for some time as it has a wide variety of data sets:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs2.cgi?id=someone@somewhere
    One of my more recent unearthing is that it has the CMIP model data linked. That makes it reasonably easy to view and manipulate model output however you need to be cautious on what you ask it to do as it can take hours (maybe days) to do some tasks. But to look at a single model data series only takes a few minutes.

    I have found that one of the glaring fails of climate models is their forecast for precipitation. For some inexplicable reason the models show rising precipitation. The only way I can see that happening is for larger oceans or massive increase in water logged land.

    Here is a chart that shows measured preciptitaion:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmap_0-360E_-90-90N_n.png

    For comparison here is precipitation from one of the CMIP3 models:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipr_cccma_cgcm3_1_20c3m_0-360E_-90-90N_n_++_1980:2020.png

    Here is the precipitation data from a CMIP5 model:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_pr_Amon_modmean_rcp85_0-360E_-90-90N_n_+++_1980:2020.png

    This was tuned to show the drop off that occurred in the measured data through the 1990s but thereafter it shows that relentless rise that diverges dramatically from the measured data.

    Comparing the anomaly of measured and model demonstrates just how far out the models are:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icru4_pre_25_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1980:2020_a.png
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icmip5_pr_Amon_modmean_rcp85_0-360E_-90-90N_n_+++_1980:2020_a.png

    Note how well the fall in the early 1990s is captured in the CMIP5 model – after the event. The CMIP3 models did not do so well at predicting the drop off:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ipr_cccma_cgcm3_1_20c3m_0-360E_-90-90N_n_++_1980:2020_a.png

    This shows how appalling the models really are. BUT my question is why do the models have rising precipitation. That has to be a fundamental flaw as it would indicate there is greater atmospheric heat loss in the future than now.

    20

    • #
      Rick Will

      To make it easier to view the charts together I have produced a screenshot with the three anomaly charts aligned as best the scales allow:
      https://1drv.ms/i/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgjewQUh18IB55Lpk

      It is clearly evident to many that the models fail but precipitation is a key factor for climate and the difference between CM forecast and actual is so glaring that EVERYONE should question the value of these models.

      This is now my goto chart to easily invalidate climate models.

      20

  • #
    Amber

    Stick a wind mill on top of a few new Nuke plants . Safe renewable and politically correct
    power . The first big myth is that renewables are cleaner and the second is most are not long term sustainable .

    The cost … well when you are spending other peoples money and funnelling some to your friends money is no show stopper .

    Canada’s first big wind mill farm in Alberta has run out of puff and is being shut down . Very sustainable .

    Australia is looked upon as a beacon of common sense not lemmings .

    20

  • #
    EyesWideOpen

    Sad thing is, that since I grew up and realized that the Labor Party were just a bunch of Fabian Socialists (Commies) that weren’t interested in actual workers or their labour, I ended up HAVING to vote Liberal due to there being no other choice which might provide an outcome closer to common sense prevailing. Sadly, Tony Abbott was the only political leader in the last decade that actually managed to ACHIEVE SOMETHING (stopping the boats) that even remotely looked like common sense.

    If the Liberal Party would get rid of Malcolm ‘Goldman Sachs’ Turnbull and his Carbon Marketeer backers, put Tony Abbott back in the job, and push all the Turnbull brown noser’s onto the back bench to rot, I might actually be able to experience my first ever election (in my life!), where I got to vote for a party purely because I wanted THEM to be elected, not because of who I didn’t want to get elected (and ruin the country in short socialista order).

    Is that too much for an Aussie battler to ask for? Huh? That I just get a real conservative party based on common sense policy to vote for? A party with policies that has a chance of removing the boot from the throat of our economy and the labour market which relies on affordable and reliable energy infrastructure to even start competing with Southeast Asia? I can dream can’t I?

    Tony Abbott for Prime Minister !!! NOW !!! … Turnbull needs to GO !!! NOW !!!

    51

    • #
      philthegeek

      Tony Abbott for Prime Minister !!! NOW !!! … Turnbull needs to GO !!! NOW !!!

      So you actually do support the idea of an ALP govt? Cause pal, that’s what you’ll get if Abbott gets the big chair again.

      While he may have some appeal on one or two issues for some, to most of the electorate he’s toxic. He’d appeal to some of the Lib base. Who cares about them (no-one) as they are rusted-ons and there aren’t enough of them for the Libs to win govt. He’d alienate the swingers that decide an election. You think the Lib polling is consistently bad under Lord Buffering of Wentworth?? Put Tones up as PM again and watch the numbers plumb new depths.

      All of which is fine by me by the way. :)

      02

      • #
        philthegeek

        So WTF put that into moderation??

        01

      • #
        EyesWideOpen

        I’m a 36yro and you are calling my voting demographic “rusted-ons” ?.. I think you are completely out of touch with many Gen-X’s (mostly males unfortunately) who have had a violent allergic reaction to hollow virtue signalling ‘liberal’ (in the political philosophical sense) hysteria politics.

        We’re sick of the vacuous individuals more concerned with their own apparent ‘virtue’ ratings rather than what is good for the country. Sending back the boats scored Abbott no virtue points, and it was the hard road to take politically due to the ‘feels’ politics having become prominent across the west via a complete left-wing media assault. Abbott did what no ALP leader would ever have had the spine to do: The best and most practical thing for the Australian NATION, rather than his own self image.

        I represent a CORE growing demographic of Aussies that are far more drawn to common sense politicians such as Tony Abbott; ie, we were the ones who made Turnbull’s primary vote look like the amazing shrinking man during the last pathetic election ‘win’ where Turnbull only just scraped a majority in the Commons. We abandoned Turnbull because HE is the one who would look no different if he was leading the ALP.

        Calling a Tony Abbott government identical to an ALP government is like calling Malcolm Turnbull a conservative. This is a complete non-sequitur. Socially Turnbull is about as conservative as a Green’s Senator is intelligent. Abbott is a Catholic Tory royalist who is socially conservative, not to mention economically conservative, and you’re likening him to Fabianista Juliar Gillard and Bill ‘once faceless man’ Shorten, which is totally laughable; please tell me you are a professional comedian?

        10

  • #
    Dennis

    Alan Simon Finkel AO FAA FTSE[1] is Australia’s Chief Scientist.[2] An Australian neuroscientist, engineer, entrepreneur and philanthropist, he served as Chancellor of Monash University in 2008-2016.[3]

    Finkel was educated at Monash University, receiving a doctorate in Electrical Engineering in 1981. He then served as a postdoctoral research fellow at the Australian National University, before leaving academia to found Axon Instruments, a global science and technology company based in the US.[4] During this time, he invented a commercially successful device which substantially speeds up drug research.[3][5]

    Since then, he has used his wealth to found the science magazine Cosmos, an environment magazine called G: The Green Lifestyle Magazine and contribute towards a number of research institutes. During a speech at Monash University’s 50th Anniversary Celebration Dinner, he announced that he would be endowing a Chair in Global Health for the University.[6]

    In 2006 Finkel was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM)[7] and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (FTSE). In 2008 he was inducted as an honorary member of the Monash Golden Key Society to recognize his achievements.[8] In 2009 Finkel was appointed as the Chief Technology Officer of Better Place Australia.[9] In 2012 he co-founded Stile Education, an education technology company based in Melbourne, Australia, where he currently serves as Chief Executive Officer.[10] In 2013 he was appointed President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE).[11] Since 2013, Finkel also serves as the Patron of the Australian Science Media Centre.[12]

    He was the 2015 winner of the Institution of Engineering and Technology Mountbatten Medal, for his promotion of electronics or information technology and their application.[13]

    He is married to Elizabeth Finkel, an Australian science journalist.[6]

    20

  • #
    Neville

    Just checking OZ co2 emissions since 1990, 0.58 bn tonnes pa and comparing it to the latest year available in 2015, 0.54bn Ts pa. That’s a drop of 0.04 bn Ts pa over that period of 25 years.

    The OZ population was 17.1 M in 1990 and 23.8 M in 2015 or an increase of about 39% over that quarter of a century. But amazingly our co2 emissions are now 0.04 bn Ts pa lower today. Why then should the OZ taxpayer be funding other countries to increase their co2 emissions for decades into the future?

    See graph and bottom of the page for data at Govt link.

    http://ageis.climatechange.gov.au/Chart_KP.aspx?OD_ID=69116354463&TypeID=2

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘A second major energy retailer has unveiled big price hikes in gas and electricity from next month, just one week after AGL announced increases of up to $600 a year in some states.’

    ABC

    10

  • #
    pat

    14 Jun: LA Times: Here’s the latest report card on California’s battle against climate change
    By Joe Fox and Chris Megerian
    New data released by state regulators provide a detailed snapshot of California’s battle against global warming…
    The state has been chipping away at greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. However, it’s going to need much deeper cuts to reach its goals…
    Emissions have been reduced by approximately 1% each year since 2006, when California enacted its landmark law setting a target for cutting pollution that causes climate change. But to reach a newer, more ambitious goal for 2030, cuts will need to happen at about three times that pace…ETC

    COMMENT: penguinista: “According to a study by SNL, three out-of-state coal-fired power plants are providing up to 50 percent of the electricity for Southern California—the Intermountain Power Project in Utah, the San Juan plant in New Mexico and the Navajo plant in Arizona.”

    (LINK) instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/californias-hidden-coal-use/

    Gee, I wonder why the graph above doesn’t take this fact into consideration?
    http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-sac-california-climate-change/

    20

  • #
    Neville

    Bjorn Lomborg’s video explaining the facts behind Paris COP 21 should be screened in every school, Uni and all parliaments.
    Just a pity our dopey media and pollies haven’t got the brains to understand the simple facts behind Dr Hansen’s Paris BS and fra-d statement.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q

    30

  • #
    AndrewWA

    Interesting that WITHOUT government subsidies WIND power plants in Canada aren’t worth replacing after 23 years.

    Wind Power Fails in Canada

    40

  • #
    pat

    14 Jun: EU Reporter: #ParisAgreement: Parliament backs new carbon cuts, debates U.S. withdrawal
    Plans for new compulsory greenhouse gas cuts under the Paris agreement were backed by MEPs on Wednesday (14 June), following a debate on the announced U.S. withdrawal.
    These cuts will help deliver on the EU’s overall target for 2030 on all policies – a 40% cut from 1990 levels. The EU is committed to these cuts in the framework of the Paris Agreement.

    The legislation will make it possible to break down the EU targets into binding, national ones for sectors not covered by the EU carbon market – i.e. agriculture, transport, building and waste, which together account for about 60% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.
    Each EU member state will have to follow an emissions reduction pathway, calculated from a starting point of 2018, instead of 2020 as proposed by the Commission, in order to avoid an increase in emissions in the first few years or a postponement of their emission reductions…

    To ensure long-term predictability, MEPs also set a target for 2050, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 2005 levels…
    To help member states achieve their goals, the regulation allows them to “borrow” up to 10% of the following year’s allowance, reducing it accordingly.
    The report was approved by 534 votes to 88 and 56 abstentions…

    President Juncker said that the EU will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement. MEPs overwhelmingly spoke in favour of taking the UNFCCC 2015 agreement forward and applying it fully…

    Quick Facts:
    The proposed regulation would be the successor of the Effort Sharing Decision that sets annual national GHG emission limits for the period 2013-2020. The proposed regulation is part of the EU’s efforts to reduce its GHG emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. This target was set by the European Council in October 2014, and also constitutes the EU’s international commitment.
    https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2017/06/14/parisagreement-parliament-backs-new-carbon-cuts-debates-u-s-withdrawal/

    10

  • #
    pat

    from cached version:

    14 Jun: BusinessGreen: James Murray: National Grid reveals plans to simplify balancing services market
    National Grid has this week launched a major new consultation on the future of the ‘balancing services’ market, as the grid operator seeks to meet the fast-evolving demands of an increasingly flexible and distributed energy system.

    The company yesterday published its first ever System Needs and Product Strategy document (LINK), which provides information on its expectations for the balancing services market and launches a consultation on how it can best facilitate the development of the sector so “all technology types can compete on a level playing field delivering the cheapest possible cost for consumers”…

    Balancing services help the grid operator respond to rapid changes in power supply or demand, and they are expected to become increasingly important as the grid starts to rely on a growing proportion of intermittent renewable energy sources.

    Experts are confident the grid can reliably accommodate significantly higher levels of renewables. However, the transition to a lower carbon energy system is expected to require a more sophisticated approach to balancing services, making much wider use of energy storage technologies and demand response services.

    Writing in a blog post (LINK) announcing the launch of the new consultation, Cathy McClay, head of commercial, electricity at National Grid, said the aim of the new report was to increase clarity about the UK’s system needs, outline initial plans for the future of balancing services, and give new and existing service providers an opportunity to get involved with the company’s strategy development.

    She added that the demands being placed on the grid were changing rapidly. “The change to a smarter and more flexible energy system is already under way,” she said. “Large conventional power plants are closing and renewable generation is growing fast – today it accounts for around 30 per cent of installed capacity…

    FULL DOCUMENT: National Grid: System Needs and Product Strategy
    http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589940795

    13 Jun: NationalGridConnecting Blog: New consultation launched
    by Cathy McClay, Head of Commercial, Electricity.
    ONE COMMENT ONLY: Tripp Tucker: Software-Defined Electricity
    http://nationalgridconnecting.com/system-needs-product-strategy-launched/

    00

  • #
    pat

    MUST READ ALL…what a nightmare they have created:

    14 Jun: InsideClimateNews: As Solar Pushes Electricity Prices Negative, 3 Solutions for California’s Power Grid
    The state has a wealth of renewable energy midday, but it needs ways to meet the evening prime time demand as base-load power plants go offline.
    By Leslie Kaufman
    The crux of the issue that arose this spring is that in the middle of some days, California produced so much renewable energy it drove wholesale electricity prices below zero—what’s known as negative pricing. In March through May this year, wholesale energy prices in California went negative on 21 different days, according to an analysis of the power markets by Catherine Wolfram, co-director of the Haas Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Although an abundance of hydropower from large snows has made negative prices more common this year, California has been trending this way for years because of solar’s penetration…

    Negative prices sound great, but they don’t actually save consumers money. Since electricity storage is still limited, and too much unused electricity could hurt the grid, CAISO must either buy less electricity from wind and solar farms, letting unused capacity go to waste, or actually pay certain wholesale consumers to use more energy. It may end up curtailing 8,000 megawatts of energy this spring and summer, the vast majority of it solar and wind…

    Although in mid May the state had a day when it got 67.2 percent of its power from renewables, a record, California still needs gas and nuclear to help with the evening load when solar goes offline just as people arrive home and start switching on their appliances. Utilities call this “the ramp,” the electrical equivalent of prime time.

    “It will become unstable if we do not have the economic way to have the gas units for the evening ramp,” says Jan Smutny-Jones, chief executive of the state’s Independent Energy Producers Association. He says they are “not making enough money in the middle of the day.”…

    The greatest fear is brownouts or blackouts, which could theoretically be triggered by generation overloads or, more likely, if California’s gas plants can’t handle the increasingly steep ramp as the sun sets.

    That’s because in the early and mid 2000s, California invested heavily in a new type of gas plant that was very efficient but cannot easily ramp up and down. In fact, they are legally allowed only a limited amount of restarts because of air quality regulations.

    Moreover, in order to be efficient financially they have to operate at huge scale and over a long period of time, not just a few hours in the evening—the exact opposite of what they’ve been called on to do in recent years. Sweeney says there is reason to be concerned that they will soon be overtaxed…

    California’s concerns have attracted the attention of U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry. In April, he ordered the department to conduct a review to discover “the extent to which continued regulatory burdens, as well as mandates and tax and subsidy policies, are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of base-load power plants.” …

    ***California is on the storage issue like no one else…
    Yet for all the progress that has been made on the quality and capacity of battery storage, the Escondido facility built by AES still holds a mere 30 megawatts, enough to power 30,000 homes for four hours. That’s a drop in the bucket of Southern California’s energy needs.

    Another solution is to get Californians to use energy outside of prime time…READ ALL
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14062017/solar-renewable-energy-negative-prices-california-power-grid-solutions

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 Jun: RadioNewZealand: Fiji names Governor of California as COP23 special envoy
    Fiji has named the governor of California, Jerry Brown, as the COP23 special envoy for states and regions in a ceremony held in Sacramento in California.
    Fijian prime minister Frank Bainimarama had indicated Governor Brown would work closely with the Fijian co-presidency of the climate conference to be held in Bonn, Germany in November.

    Mr Brown’s job would be to rally support for the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
    Mr Bainimarama said Governor Brown’s long track record of advocacy on climate change formed the basis for his decision to appoint him special envoy.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/333064/fiji-names-governor-of-california-as-cop23-special-envoy

    14 Jun: EastValleyTimes: Fiji’s Prime Minister and incoming COP 23 President joins Under2 Coalition, appoints Governor Brown to special adviser
    SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. was named Special Advisor for States and Regions ahead of this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 23) by the Prime Minister of Fiji Frank Bainimarama – incoming presPresident COP 23 – today at a ceremony where Fiji became the latest government to join the Under2 Coalition. Oregon Governor Kate Brown and Washington Governor Jay Inslee – members of the Under2 Coalition and U.S. Climate Alliance – also attended today’s ceremony and announced that they too will attend the COP 23 in Bonn, Germany to represent subnational jurisdictions committed to climate action…

    “As the incoming President of COP 23, Fiji looks forward to working with this group of states and regions in the global effort to advance climate action at every level of society. This is true now more than ever following the Trump Administration’s announcement that the U.S. will be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. This decision has redoubled our commitment to forge a Grand Coalition that includes all levels of government, businesses and civil society, to take climate action forward with the urgency it deserves,” said Prime Minister Bainimarama. “We look forward Governor Brown’s help in mobilising like-minded leaders from around the world in support of our goal to achieve concrete outcomes at COP 23.”…

    At today’s ceremony, Washington Governor Inslee and Oregon Governor Brown also announced that they will attend the COP 23 as part of a delegation of U.S. governors that have joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, a partnership formed in response to the White House’s decision to withdraw from the Paris accord. The alliance now includes 13 U.S. states – led by both Democrats and Republicans – committed to achieving the U.S. goal of reducing emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan. The U.S. Climate Alliance complements the goals of the Under2 Coalition, which nine climate alliance members have also joined…

    “The growing momentum for national and subnational collaboration gives me confidence about our ability to defeat climate change. This is an all-comers race against time, and I’m proud that Washington state is racing shoulder-to-shoulder with our West Coast neighbors, and our neighbors around the globe,” said U.S. Climate Alliance co-chair Governor Inslee…

    The impacts of climate change are already being felt in California and will disproportionately impact the state’s most vulnerable populations.
    http://eastvalleytimes.com/fijis-prime-minister-incoming-cop-23-president-joins-under2-coalition-appoints-governor-brown-secial-advisor/

    00

  • #
    pat

    15 Jun: Daily Telegraph: Jack Houghton: Electricity price surge to add $320 per year to each NSW household
    THOUSANDS of families and businesses face massive increases to their energy bills from July — on top of already huge rises to household bills over the past five years that have pushed many to the brink.

    The average NSW household will be slugged an extra 19.6 per cent, or $319.80, on their yearly bill. Gas bills are expected to rocket by about $50 a year.

    The Daily Telegraph revealed plans to increase energy bills in April as industry leaders warned wholesale electricity prices across the state had increased by 57 per cent since July last year…

    (Energy Ausralia Chief Customer Officer Kim Clarke) urged the government to act on recommendations in the Finkel Panel’s electricity market review…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/electricity-price-surge-to-add-320-per-year-to-each-nsw-household/news-story/7647fb62238492892a38f9fc2bc11072

    the above is way down on google’s News page.
    what is at the very top?

    Leaked audio: Malcolm Turnbull mimics Donald Trump
    news.com.au – 2 hours ago
    US PRESIDENT Donald Trump was the butt of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s jokes during a speech at Parliament House’s Mid Winter Ball in Canberra last night…

    Highly Cited: Leaked audio reveals Malcolm Turnbull roasting Donald Trump over ‘fake polls’ and Russia
    9news.com.au – 1 hour ago

    20

    • #
      Ernest Bush

      Nobody that voted for Trump cares what world leaders have to say about our new President. Because he stood up to Globalists and withdrew from the Paris Accords, Merkel of Germany tried to align the G7 and G20 leaders against him and found she had no political coin to spend there. Trump is focused on our country and putting its working class back to work at sustainable jobs. The Democrat Globalists made a move to push us toward the UN using Glowbull Warming and failed. They ignored the rest of America and paid a price. They are badly fragmented and unable to win elections at state and local levels. Funding is being pulled. The MSM has damaged itself perhaps beyond repair. Outside of Democrat enclaves, nobody cares what they have to say, since a majority of it really is made up lies.

      In fact, Socialist Bernie Sanders is trying to form a new party, which all Republicans hardily applaud. It’s voters will come from Democrat ranks.

      Turnbull will even be ignored by the U.S. MSM. I am sad that you Australians, who are also seeing your country devastated by Greenies, can’t seem to place someone in office willing to stand up to the bullies.

      10

  • #
    pat

    15 Jun: news.com.au: I’m Tony Abbott and I’m here to help
    Peter Osborne, AAP
    The coalition party room received a comprehensive briefing on the (Finkel) report from Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg on Tuesday.
    But it was not enough to satisfy the former prime minister, or at least nine of his colleagues, who are particularly concerned about the future of reliable, coal-fired power.

    “The problem with the Finkel report is that it’s basically all about reducing emissions,” Abbott said after the meeting.
    “It’s nice to reduce emissions, and we have an aspiration — I stress an aspiration — to reduce our emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030.
    “But frankly we shouldn’t be doing that if it’s going to clobber power prices, hurt households and cost jobs. We shouldn’t be doing that. And I think there’s pretty well a general consensus in our party room along those lines.”…

    Abbott’s view of a “consensus” is sharply at odds with most of the other MPs and senators who were at the same meeting.
    Innovation Minister Arthur Sinodinos says the government’s commitment to the Paris climate accord is far from just an aspiration.
    “It was more than an aspiration … we are not going to get anywhere if people think we will just sign agreements and then walk away when it’s convenient for us.”

    The deputy prime minister agrees comments such as those by Abbott have the potential to damage not only Australia’s global reputation but the government itself.
    “He held an incredible position of respect in our nation, he’s been the prime minister,” (Barnaby) Joyce said.

    “And with that respect comes a responsibility that at times you have to temper your expressions. Other things that other backbenchers may say are understandable, but if you held the highest office you understand how ***THE GAME WORKS.”…
    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/im-tony-abbott-and-im-here-to-help/news-story/5ee2379836222fdb82e1ec8b35736bfc

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Amazing new Tidal developments

    Orkney Islands north of Scotland and 20 kilometers off shore


    The new SR2000

    This 500 tonne steel sausage rated at 2 MW produced 18 MW over 24 hours?

    It is 64 meters long and it’s extending rotors or submersible tidal turbines, extend out to capture huge amounts of the energy in the oceans off Orkney Islands!

    It’s taken only 12 years & a couple Billion $ to manufacture this great submarine of electricity production!

    The CO2 footprint of this savior would be only slightly larger than Leonardo DiCaprio!
    Don’t ask about the Sea Bed Cables, the set up cost, rust problems, shipping or all those minor things!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    40

  • #
    • #
      Rick Will

      Reading that link I get the clear impression that wind power is the greatest deceit of the coal industry. These turbine result in a tiny reduction in low value thermal coal but a guaranteed, ever accelerating demand for met coal!

      00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>