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

Wind disappears in South Australia, costing wind-industry millions, BOM blames climate change even though models predicted faster winds

The wind fizzled out over the South East slab of Australia during June. Predictably, that meant the wind industry lost millions, and wholesale electricity prices went up. When the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) was asked where the wind had gone, Darren Ray, expert climatologist, said it was due to a high pressure system over the bight, which, he explained, was linked to “climate change”. Thus, as the world warms, wind farms will be progressively more useless in South Australia. Perhaps the BOM should have mentioned that before SA became dependent on wind farms? I don’t think he had thought this one through.

Perhaps the BOM is hoping that the masochistic sacrifice of South Australia will stop global warming before global warming stops the wind farms?

You might think that if the global climate models could see this coming they would have suggested that wind farms weren’t a good idea. Or maybe, since climate models predict every equal and opposite outcome in unison, the models are always right post hoc, but not so useful in projections?

Climate models predict climate change causes faster and slower winds over Australia

In 2017, Darren Ray, BOM expert, said the decrease in winds was due to the widening of the tropical belt. But back in 2011, CSIRO predicted that climate change caused winds to increase over Australia for the exact same reason.

Climate change ‘blowing in’ stronger winds, CSIRO finds

WIND speeds in Australia have increased by about 14 per cent over the past two decades”

“We think the overall increase is caused by the widening of the tropical belt, due to climate change,” he said.

In 2011, CSIRO predicted that climate change would help wind farms:

“The findings were significant for wind-farm developers as they meant increased productivity….”

Although the CSIRO’s research on wind speeds is good news for wind-power development, supportive government policies will continue to provide the strongest incentive for the industry.

There’s a lesson for investors there about climate models.

Note that the “NEM” data is not just about South Australia. It means the whole damn National Electricity Market –  including Victoria, NSW, Tasmania, and Qld.

h/t to Stop These Things.

The wind slowed dramatically this June:

      Where’s the wind gone? NEM-wide wind farm operation lowest in 5 years

Paul McArdle, WattClarity

“….we have to go back to April 2012 (just over 5 years ago) to see a lower aggregate production from wind.  That’s truly astonishing.  Considering that there have been many new wind farms commissioned in the 5 year period (like Hornsdale in July 2016 and Ararat in August 2016), it does beg two questions:
1)  More academically, on a like-for-like basis, has the aggregate wind output ever been lower?
2)  More practically (and very importantly), where has the wind gone, and why?

Wind farms, NEM, June 2017. Graph.

South Australian customers get higher bills:

Lack of wind blows out South Australia power costs

Geoff Chambers, The Australian: 

“The drop in wind supply pushed average South Australian prices for the June quarter to $116 per MWh, up from $81 in the previous June quarter.

The Wind industry companies are losing millions:

Last week, New Zealand wind power company Tilt Energy, which owns the Snowtown 1 and Snowtown 2 wind farms in South Australia, issued a $10 million-$12m pre-tax profit downgrade because of the lack of wind.

It followed a $9m-$12m downgrade for the same reason the previous week by Sydney-based Infigen Energy.

“Production from Australian assets for June will represent the lowest month of production since the full commissioning of these assets in 2008 and 2014 respectively,” Tilt said…

The BOM blame Climate Change:

Darren Ray, a senior climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology, said the low winds had been caused by a high pressure system over the Bight. … Global warming was making the high pressure systems more common.

“There is a long-term trend linking it (high pressure systems in the Bight) to climate change,” Mr Ray said.

“The tropics expand as the planet warms and that sees high pressure systems staying through­out the south longer than they used to.”

Paul McArdle adds in a PS. There have been some of the lowest wind speeds recorded for many-a-year.

He also notes that there may be other factors at work too, like technical problems with rotor bearings reducing output at one “farm” in NSW. Yes, well, but that is another problem isn’t it? Collecting low density wind energy requires massive infrastructure, subject to extreme conditions, and that will always be prone to problems.

Last word to commenter “John” at The Australian who seems to be onto something:

There seems to be a strong correlation between closing coal fired power stations and a fall in wind speeds. The evidence is clear. Anyone who doesn’t believe the correlation is a coal powered wind denialist. In order to avert this problem we need to subsidise the construction of coal fired power stations.

The last, last word to Ruairi:

In winter, high pressure brings chill,
Hard frosts, with the atmosphere still,
Just when people most need,
An electrical feed,
Not a watt from any windmill.

– Ruairi

BACKGROUND INFO:

See Aneroid for Wind Farm output data for June 2017, compared to June 2016, June 2015, and June 2014. The graph changes scale in 2017 when MW production makes it up to 2,200W only once briefly. In other years, wind farms produce closer to 3,000MW.

h/t RobertR

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (111 votes cast)
Wind disappears in South Australia, costing wind-industry millions, BOM blames climate change even though models predicted faster winds, 9.8 out of 10 based on 111 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ycoq33sv

155 comments to Wind disappears in South Australia, costing wind-industry millions, BOM blames climate change even though models predicted faster winds

  • #
    TdeF

    There was a halycon time in South Australia with blue skies, light winds and occasional rain. No longer.

    Now thanks to Climate Change, the winds are either not strong enough or too strong. We now have a Climate Change Wind Drought, something farmers never considered was a problem before. Climate Change now produces all our weather. There is no other weather. Global Warming and Global Cooling. Record heat and record cold and even quiet sunny days in winter. All the fault of climate change and CO2 which comes from coal. So blow up the power stations. You don’t have to worry about the logic. It is peer reviewed, which means infallible.

    690

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Yes, June reminded me of winters in 1965 and 66, cold nights, lovely clear sunny days (once it had warmed up). There may have been other times since but I spent a lot of years out of SA after that.

      150

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I blame the British….( cut to Goon Show skit…)

        Well, it makes as much sense as blaming a non-existent problem…..

        Meh.

        80

    • #
      Geoff

      Government looks after government. Its the economy when you don’t make anything.

      Its cheaper to pay government employees in non essential services to do NOTHING. When they do something its not helpful to the taxpayer.

      190

    • #

      South Australia is notorious for human-induced climate change.

      Its climate was first attacked in the 1860s by a man called Goyder who told farmers not to develop north of his famous demarcation line (now a National Trust icon). When they ignored him after some good seasons he took the rains away so his line would be respected. What a meanie. I don’t know what CO2-generating device he used to change the climate but it’s interesting that rains disappeared in the early years of both WW1 and WW2…and there are a lot of Germans in South Australia. And Goyder sounds a bit German. Just saying.

      60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Wind power x Climate models / Natural variability = Intermittent output + Increased costs.

    or – Excusing the consistent flaws of a failed hypothesis = Furphy’s Law.

    330

  • #
    Curious George

    There is a reason why sail ships are no longer commercially used.

    370

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      There are moves to bring them back, although only as auxiliary power. My grandfather came to WA in a coal fired ship in 1892, so I guess that it is a case of “Back to the Past”.

      140

      • #
        Curious George

        The Aneroid for Wind Farm looks like an exercise in data obfuscation. For example there is a list of all wind farms with “registered capacities”, but the actual output is mercifully omitted.

        230

        • #

          That Aneroid site does do Monthly Averages, and the links to them are indicated down the right side of the site, under the weather maps there.

          You can view them in percentage CF or in MW, but be aware that when you view that total in MW, the maximums you see there are again a point in time, and not for the whole day.

          Also, the text under each graph of Monthly averages is the same for all of them, and does not indicate actual performance for that particular Month, and it says (in that standard text) that the CF is between 30 and 35%.

          To do the actual average CF, you need to work it out on a daily basis, as I mentioned below in Comment 20.

          Tony.

          101

    • #
      R2Dtoo

      Climatologists should read some history. Two terms – the doldrums and the horse-latitudes- may provide some perspective.

      30

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Darren Ray, expert climatologist, said it was due to a high pressure system over the bight, which, he explained, was linked to “climate change”.

    Definitely on a par with, “The dog ate my homework”, excuse.

    I was going to suggest that the BOM hired some PR assistance. But then it occurred to me that Darren Ray might be their PR assistance. Oh dear.

    362

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Yes, June was very similar to my memories of winters in 1965 and 66. Cold clear nights, bright sunny days (once it warmed up).

      I would suggest that the excuse should be “here is my homework after it has been through the dog”.

      210

      • #
        Ian Hill

        I wasn’t living in Adelaide then, being too young, but I still remember seeing three suns rise over the Adelaide Hills in June 1982 as it recorded its coldest temperature ever. Sundogs I believe they were called.

        Seeing as climate is supposed to change it’s Mr Ray who is on to … nothing!

        140

        • #
          James

          I remember those days as well. There was ice in the puddles in the outdoor seats out the back of my parents’ house. ’82 was a drought year. I learnt that year that frost and drought years are associated with each other. ’83 was a bad bushfire year.

          80

    • #
      TedM

      So we have never had high pressure systems over the bight before. Isn’t it so easy to add to any observation “is due to climate change”. The level of deceit is palpable.

      261

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I agree with Rereke….dog ate my homework is about right.

        Do they actually pay these people to come up with this tuff?

        110

        • #
          King Geo

          Tuff? A slip of the finger Original Steve. “Tuff” is volcanic ash derived from a volcanic eruption – maybe if one looks hard enough one will find some “Tuff” at Mt Gambier in SA (blue crater – now a lake) – but more likely you will get a “volcanic type eruption” from disgruntled SA citizens after yet another “blackout”. Maybe with a few more of these “human eruptions” the “Blue Team” will take control of the SA Govt in March 2018.

          100

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think said eruption may include tar and feathers for those responsible…..

            I’d hate to be an SA pollie next election.

            50

            • #
              King Geo

              “I’d hate to be an SA pollie next election”.

              That is an ALP pollie, especially Captain of the “SA Titanic”, Jay Weatherill. He has taken on board the Federal ALP’s 50% RET by 2030 (equivalent to an iceberg) and gone several steps further, and totally destroyed SA’s previous relatively cheap & reliable Base Load Energy Generation. “Tar & Feathers” for sure for members of this incompetent ALP Govt & much more? Any ideas?

              40

              • #
                Lawrie

                Don’t count on it. The voters of Australia tell pollsters they are stupid enough to vote for Bill Shorten. Unless the Liberals get out and fight they will lose to a liar and a failure be it Shorten or Weatherall.

                20

    • #
      tom0mason

      I should keep that one in your pocket ready for any and every chance to point out to AGW adherents, that all weather events are indications of climate because the authoritative Darren Ray, expert climatologist, said it is so.

      Thus this I interpret this weather event is an strong indicator of the current natural cooling climate!

      If AGW advocates feel ready to muddy the waters of what is or is not climate then I feel free to do so to the max.

      70

    • #
      Lawrie

      This clown states that as the world warms but the world has not warmed for twenty years. What he should have said was that as the world does not warm the consequences are……. How can this guy make unscientific statements and feel good about it? Has he no shame?

      30

  • #
    Mark M

    I blame the butterflies …

    “Owing to the chaotic nature of the atmospheric circulation (often depicted by the flap of a butterfly’s wings changing the future weather), the detailed day-to-day weather cannot be forecast accurately more than about two weeks into the future.”
    (via the conversation)

    Im saddened when our past politicians could so easily have called 1 of the 3 gasoline taxes a butterfly tax to tax butterflies flapping their wings to thwart current global warming.
    Less flapping better climate.

    170

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Whats da big problem? Just pay the wind generators extra when the wind blows less, and then when it is very windy pay them double that amount.
    Some things are so simple, apparently you were not listing when the objectives of global warming–> climate change were set out in the UN and the national and state governments.
    It is not about climate, global warming, or power generation.
    The purpose is about those in the renewable energy making big money and those in government gaining more and more control.
    Maybe you should look up Agenda-21 and its subsequent statements from the UN & Canberra, and the states in Australia.
    PS: Please don’t put a SARC tag on this as there is no sarcasm intended.

    220

  • #
    Ruairi

    In winter, high pressure brings chill,
    Hard frosts, with the atmosphere still,
    Just when people most need,
    An electrical feed,
    Not a watt from any windmill.

    480

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    a high pressure system over the bight

    This has never happened before?

    Does AU pay these folks?

    150

  • #
  • #
    • #
      Mark M

      Ms. Marohasy is on to it …

      Bureau Erases Goulburn Record Minimum Temperature: Set Sunday 2 July 2017

      http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/07/bureau-erases-goulburn-record-minimum-temperature-set-sunday-2-july-2017/

      - contains updates!

      161

      • #
        TdeF

        Remember $1.5Tn a year depends on temperature changes much smaller than 0.4. That’s fifty years of Global Warming gone in a pen stroke.

        So now according to the BOM in the permanent record -10.4C never happened. A blank. The only possible compromise. Erasure.

        They certainly have a lot of work to do keeping the temperature going steadily upwards in Australia. People do not appreciate the hard work but it is just as important to keep the minimum high as to push the data upwards with homogenization. That pesky -0.4 degrees means jobs and windmills and research grants and world travel. Every little helps. Better to leave the record blank if someone notices.

        251

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    The wind has been broken in Australia!

    180

  • #
    RobK

    Agricultural research stations and BoM should have wind rose data going back generations. Farmers have relied on agricultural windmills for watering stock. They are renowned for variable output from season to season and year to year and have to be sized accordingly. None of this is new. I do notice that for wind turbine sites, because wind is site specific, they do a monitoring of the site for a year or two before construction. Perhaps they base their due diligence solely on these data, or perhaps they are quite aware of the risk and are now just acting surprised. No surprise.

    80

  • #
    el gordo

    This is just so wrong, the intensification of the STR has nothing to do with the tropics.

    “The tropics expand as the planet warms and that sees high pressure systems staying through­out the south longer than they used to.”

    41

  • #
    David Maddison

    I don’t like “wind turbine” as the terminology for windmills. Turbine has the connotation of being a properly engineered system like a jet engine or steam turbine designed to deliver constant power. The is no way wind “turbines” can be construed as properly engineered as they deliver random low quality expensive power and no self-respecting engineer would put their name to one.

    142

    • #
      Rick Will

      Wind turbines are highly engineered devices. Their designers are working with exotic materials to the limit of their capability. They have to cope with whatever Mother Nature can throw at them.

      Vestas provided the engineering behind the fastest sailing boat ever built; achieving 65 knots – although they had to learn about cavitation along the way. Wind turbines do not suffer from that particular issue.

      Wind turbine is the correct terminology. They are certainly not “mills”. The word turbine has no connotation of “properly engineered”. It is simply a device for extracting energy from fluid flow.

      Symbols of Stupidity is as apt as windmills.

      50

      • #
        tom0mason

        Rick,

        On the subject of stupidity. I have noted over the years a possible correlation — it appears that intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid are full of confidence.
        However I may be proved wrong on this.

        80

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I am confident, that I have an above-average number of doubts, about most things.

          Most people of a scientific bent should be that way. It is the charlatans, on the other hand, who appear to have no doubts whatsoever, about being confident in their predictions.

          40

        • #
          simon

          tom0mason,

          while not exactly matching your observation, see the Dunning-Kruger effect for a very similar phenomenon…
          ["The cognitive bias of illusory superiority" works both ways. He was obliquely referring to the very phenomenon, that you are now referring him to, so it could be claimed that you are also subject to Dunning-Kruger] Fly

          00

      • #
        David Maddison

        Rick, I didn’t say they weren’t highly engineered. I said they weren’t a properly engineered system because they produce a low quality product which is random, expensive and of poor usability.

        51

        • #
          Rick Will

          Engineers get paid to do a job. They appear to do a reasonably proper job on the wind turbines. Sure some fall over and many earlier ones are not achieving design life but we are around the bi-plane era of airplanes with respect to development time.

          The fact that society as a whole, or the politicians you voted for, have decided to proliferate the wind turbines without understanding the consequences is not the engineers design the machines problem. A few attached to a large system are not much impact. Really no different to engineers working on atomic bomb. They were just going along with the polies’ higher purpose. A similar objective now but with climate disruption being the higher purpose.

          If you job was in some way involved in suppling materials or knowledge for wind turbine installations would you resign from your employment? How personally committed are you to seeing the folly end?

          20

          • #
            Freedom of Beach

            Except Rick if that engineer is a pet wind-industry acoustician- willing to misrepresent data to protect their job/s whilst knowingly trashing the lives of those driven from, or suffering acoustic torture in their homes from turbines too close.

            20

            • #

              Professionals in their field,’willing to
              misrepresent data to protect their jobs,’ (‘n trash others.) What’s ter like? Yikes!… (We’re not even talkin’ Galileo-wise, bringin’ in the instruments of torture, here.’)

              20

      • #
        William

        Eco-crucifix is the most appropriate word for them.

        31

      • #
    • #
      Wayne Job

      The engineering for the aerodynamics of the blades was done by a Mr Jacobs in the 1930ties. His research resulted in the formulas for aircraft propellors. He did this to make his new invention a wind generator efficient they ended up all over the world on farms with battery storage, totally reliable. Quirks in OZ made a large one for farms up until the 50ties or 60ties So the correct name for these devices is ” Wind Generator”
      Old engineer .

      30

      • #
        Rick Will

        The turbine is the portion that extracts the energy. The part that has the rotating blades. The generator is the part that produces electricity.

        A wind generator is a better name for the whole installation.

        A propeller is something quite different to a turbine as it produces thrust. Although to laymen a wind turbine and wind propeller appear quite similar.

        30

        • #
          Robber

          Rick, a wind generator is a shortcut way of saying wind-powered generator, as we do with diesel generators or hydro generators. But it would be good to acknowledge that the difference in these power sources is the intermittent nature of wind. Calling them windmills is one way of suggesting they are a return to the 19th century. Perhaps we could call them WINGS or WIGS – Wind intermittent generators.

          10

  • #
    KenE

    Can anyone out there answer a simple question for me? How do they work out a wind farms out put in relation to houses powered?
    EG. Macarthur has a rated output of 420MW and is supposed to power 220,000 (Govt claim, also reneweconomy.com.au) homes. Is that at 100% nameplate output, or at around 30% which is supposed to be the average output? During June the whole month with about one days exception it was between 20% and zero, with most of it closer to zero,(May was mostly 30% or less).
    I have tried everywhere and cannot get an answer.

    70

    • #
      RobK

      Ken,
      It’s a rubbery figure, but if a modest smallish Australian house uses say 24kWh per day then the average draw of power is 1kW over the 24hrs. Then 220,000 houses would draw 220MW on average over say a year. So with those assumptions they are expecting a bit over 50% capacity factor, which is ambitious but not unheard of. These claims make no hint as to maximum demand etc and are of little real value.

      70

      • #
        RobK

        If your houses were very frugal and only used 12kWh per day as an average over the year, then you’d be in the range 25-30% capacity factor.

        40

        • #
          RobK

          It is also very deceptive to say a certain size wind machine can power a given amount of houses, even if the total amount of energy of each is the same over a year. Without the added cost of storage timing is obviously everything. On this front wind and solar are left wanting.

          30

          • #

            That homes supplied meme they use ALL the time is false on so many levels really.

            As I explained how they, umm calculate it, it’s worked on how much power the average home (the selective one they use for that) consumes, and then worked back from there.

            That particular wind plant is not connected to those X number of homes only. The plant is connected to the grid only, and the grid supplies all three levels of consumption, some residential, some commercial, and some industrial.

            That particular wind plant cannot supply the full 24 hour needs of those X homes, because the homes require their power on the full 24 hour basis, and because the CF it is all calculated on is a year round average, and as I have so often mentioned, the power varies, sometimes wildly, on every day, so there will be at least half the time when the total power being generated falls lower than what is actually required by those X number of homes.

            The same false meme could be used for a new HELE USC coal fired power plant with two X 1000MW units, and using that same calculation, then the proposed coal fired plant could supply, wait for it, 2.5 MILLION homes.

            Whichever way you go, it’s a false metric.

            Tony.

            171

            • #
              TdeF

              Tony, you do insist on using mathematics. Politicians are innumerate. Greens in particular. Chemistry, mathematics, physics, engineering and logic are skills which are foreign to our leaders, more cunning than clever.

              The same with the war on Carbon Dioxide along with water and sunshine, the essential elements of all life on earth.

              I do not even know what the objective is with all these windmills. If it is to reduce CO2, it is an abject failure but still the taxes and money flow like a river into the hands of carpetbaggers and opportunists, leaving us with thousands of useless windmills. Yes, they still quote nameplate instead of actual power.

              How solar is supposed to work in Europe in Winter or at night is beyond me. How windmills will supply industry without wind is equally absurd. All this based on a chain of logic which is broken at every step. Still I love the calculations. Good work.

              100

              • #

                It’s like peeing into the wind really.

                Ninety nine out of a hundred ordinary people couldn’t give a toss about any of this we talk about here, and in reality, they wouldn’t even bother to find out, or if told, they would just switch right off.

                They just do not want to know.

                As long as the power keeps coming out of the proverbial hole in the wall, they couldn’t care where it comes from, and that’s why it’ll take something really awful to make people sit up and take notice, and even then, South Australia got away with it during their blackout. It’s that old adage really, baffle ‘em with bull$hit. Works every time.

                That’s the ONLY reason renewable power (wind and solar) gets away with everything they say about it. They are relying on people not knowing anything at all about it, and in reality, not wanting to know.

                For those two renewables, different rules about telling the whole truth about it apply, and if anything else at all advertised in as misleading a manner as they do, they would be taken to the cleaners by the legal system.

                I tell it all here, but it’s like preaching to the already converted. I can (try to) say the same thing at other sites, like say that ‘Have a chat’ site, but, if it ever gets past moderation, (perhaps one in ten comments) I get howled down with what is basically ad hom and personal attacks, so I don’t bother any more.

                I know that there are lurkers here who don’t leave comments, and each one of them who does read what I write goes away having learned at least the tiniest thing about it all.

                The more I write about even some of the finer details, then the more the rest of you know, and that’s why I try and explain everything in such detail.

                I know in my own mind that people who don’t know any of this ‘stuff’ would find it almost impossible to try and explain it to others themselves. People know what they learn for their own occupation in life, and to step into another field is difficult, a bit like me trying to explain something I know very little about, because I know people will ask questions that I cannot then answer, so rather than try and explain something from a field I don’t know, I will leave that to the experts in that field, not that I’m an expert in what I write about, but I’m confident enough to BE ABLE to explain most of it.

                That’s the only reason my comments are always so long.

                Tony.

                141

            • #
              Robdel

              I totally agree, Tony. The people just don’t care as long as the electricity flows from the outlets. The only thing that will grab their attention is when there are blackouts so the outlet ceases to function. That effect is very persuasive.

              40

    • #

      KenE,

      that homes supplied meme is how the wind plant hides its hoped for Capacity Factor.

      RobK gets it correct when he says they base it on the average power consumption for homes, either across the State, all of Australia, or in that area, whichever one gives them the most number of homes.

      As RobK also mentions, it’s a rubbery figure really.

      So, basically, it’s Nameplate X 24 (hours in a day) X 365.25 (days in a year, leap year added) X (hoped for) Capacity Factor, and this gives the yearly total power output in MWH. They then divide that by the average household power consumption and that gives the number of homes supplied.

      So, when an indignant person, complaining about the low CF questions why a wind plant operator did not mention that CF at the proposal stage or at their site, the wind plant operator can come back and say, hey, it’s there for all to see, not adding that it’s hidden behind that homes supplied meme, with maths no one in the general populace has the knowledge to work out.

      So there you have it, they have most effectively covered their a$$e$.

      Tony.

      211

      • #
        Robber

        The Ararat Wind Farm reports on its website:
        240 MW total installed capacity with 75 turbines will generate enough electricity to power 120,000 Victorian homes per year.
        Ref: the homes equivalent has been calculated using the predicted annual electricity generation of the site and the annual average
        electricity consumption figure of 4900Wh for homes in Victoria (sourced from Acil Allen Consulting. March 2015. A Report to the
        Australian Energy Regulator. Electricity Bill Benchmarks for Residential Customers.)
        Now how does the maths work?

        40

        • #

          Robber,

          I suggest that 4900 you mention there should be KWH, (yearly power consumption) and if so, divide that by 365, and you get only 13.4KWH of power being consumed per day, and that is way under what average power consumption is for the average home.

          So, see how they use a lower average household power consumption, and they get a higher number for homes supplied.

          Tony.

          121

          • #
            Robber

            Thanks Tony, they have a typo on their website :-(
            You are correct, annual consumption should be 4,900 kWhr per year.
            I checked the Allen Consulting report, and for Victoria they quote a range of household consumptions depending on number of people and whether gas is connected:
            All annual numbers in kWhr, with 1-5 in the household, no gas available.
            Summer 841 1364 1509 1085 1897
            Autumn 1066 1416 1753 1602 2485
            Winter 1494 1828 2508 1661 2402
            Spring 1054 1281 1609 1278 2977
            Total 4445 5889 7379 5626 9761
            All annual numbers, with 1-5 in the household, gas available.
            Summer 671 987 977 1231 1449
            Autumn 477 989 840 866 1103
            Winter 858 1158 1293 1508 1776
            Spring 635 892 941 1140 1378
            Total 2641 4026 4051 4745 5706
            Lots more details in the report, including other states.

            See Figure ES 1 Seasonal patterns in consumption. Interesting – it shows peak usage is in Winter, not summer, for most states.

            50

    • #
      David Wood

      A 420 MW station produces 420000KWh operating at nameplate capacity. If this powered 220000 homes as claimed, the average consumption would be 400000/220000 or under 2 KWh per home which is about enough to power a two bar radiator!! At actual average caspacity factor of say 30%, the station would only generate enough to supply each house at a rate of 0.6KWh, nowhere near enough to operate a small electric oven.

      They never mention that when there is no wind the whole town of 220000 houses would be blacked out if it relied upon the wind mills.

      70

      • #

        Well, sort of.

        That Macarthur Wind plant quote of 220,000 homes is loosely based around an original CF of 38%, and try as I might, I could never find where that figure actually came from, because, when I started out nine years ago, I found that all proposals for wind plants used that 38% CF figure, not that they ever reached that total, but it provided the basis for that X number of homes supplied figure. I looked everywhere for ages, and while it seemed to be the constant, I could never find out where it came from. I remember seeing it once on a wikipedia site, but, hey they must have got it from somewhere else, as that site is not an original (or definitive for that fact) source for anything.

        So then, using that 38% CF figure, let’s work it out.

        420 X 24 X 365.25 X .38 = 1,399,053.6MWH a year. (where 420 is Nameplate, 24 hours in a day, 365.25 days in a year and a 38% CF)

        That end result distills down (MWH to KWH) to 1,399,053,600KWH (per year)

        Divide that by 365.25 for a daily result and you get 3,830,398KWH per day.

        Divide that by that quoted 220,000 homes and you get (almost) 17.5KWH average power consumption per home per day, which is about right for all the wind calculations I have ever done over the years for here in Australia.

        Odd really, but from all the years I have been watching, the average home here in Oz consumes (around) 20KWH + per day, but use that higher figure and you get less homes supplied eh!

        They mostly use that 38% CF figure and 17.5KWH average household power consumption per day.

        And I hope I haven’t lost you all with the maths there.

        Tony.

        121

        • #
          KenE

          Tony. Another question if I may. With the long run of windless days we have had over the last few months, how is SA going to charge all their new batteries. Or are they buying some that remain charged regardless of how much power is drawn from them!!!!! Maybe they will have resort to fossil fuel – but they couldn’t possibly do that , could they! And you would have to charge them with the EXCESS power the wind farms produce, which happens how often.

          30

          • #
            William

            They will use the diesel generator ship they plan to lease from Turkey.

            When will this madness end?

            40

      • #
        RobK

        David, your figures would be kWh/h. That is the house would consume 2kWh every hour, or 48kWh/day.
        Similarly, if the wind machine went full capacity for an hour it would produce it’s kW nameplate in kWh every hour.:-)

        20

    • #
      Graeme #4

      Recently I calculated my house’s average daily energy usage @ 32 kWH, which was a surprise as I saw somewhere that the average Aust. house usage is 20 kWh. Person I knew in a double-storey dwelling with large air cons told me they consume 70 kWh daily in summer.

      40

  • #
    Robber

    What a hell hole SA has become. I think the time has come to accept climate refugees from SA. It will become the ghost state, populated by wind mills where either the wind doesn’t blow or it blows too strongly (remember the SA blackout last year?). Trying to save them by importing diesel generators after they blew up their coal-fired power stations seems to be a waste of resources. Perhaps Tasmania will offer to accommodate SA refugees, as with some global warming Tassie will become the next tropical paradise. And merging SA and Tas (new state name Globalmania) will give Australia a more economic state. Oh, and then the ghost state could become the storage state for all the toxic waste from discarded solar panels, wind mills and nuclear fuels from around the world.

    110

  • #
    Alistair

    Is extreme windlessness a variety of extreme weather – just like cold is a form of extreme heat?

    100

  • #
    Alistair

    Last word to commenter “John” at The Australian who seems to be onto something:

    “There seems to be a strong correlation between closing coal fired power stations and a fall in wind speeds. The evidence is clear. Anyone who doesn’t believe the correlation is a coal powered wind denialist. In order to avert this problem we need to subsidise the construction of coal fired power stations.”

    He is of course right to ask the question. But my eye was caught by the correleation between the rise in Chinese dirty coal fired power stations and the impact of “The Pause” as reported by Graham Lloyd the other day in the Australian from some global warming “experts”. Clearly the Chinese have found a satisfactory way of counteracting global warming that is cheap and easy.

    100

  • #

    When expert climatologists at BoM and soothsayers in other government institutions attribute changes in weather to climate change, it’s probably because they’ve trained their computer models to the decades of strong, short, successive solar cycles. during the last 3 decades of the previous century.

    Their horizons of the possible are constrained by computer models; not by what has been and is observable. And any observations that don’t fit, must be corrected to fit.

    70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I had a discussion with a highly intelligent CAGW believer relative ( oh the shame…..) of mine about how the temps in Aswan, Egypt were at record levels at 50C due to ( you guessed it……) climate change.

      Then I went and found several resources ( including the UN WMO – ouch…) that showed the record for temp in Aswan was set in 1918 ( pre “CO2 pollution” days, dontcha know….) at 51C. Stop the presses!!

      Interestingly, when I hoppped onto the official Egyptian BOM equivelent, I noticed the forecast for the next couple of days showed temps up around 52C in some spots.

      I wonder if the egyptians will get “the nudge” to homogenize thier data too?

      Again, I blame the Brits…..he he

      71

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    I am very much looking forward to the official explanation from the BOM.

    As for the “linked to climate change” thing, there are at least two possible explanations. First is that it is a verbal tick a little like the Muslim tendency to put “God willing” at the end of every statement. Second is that alarmists link everything to climate change.

    Still, you would think that the BOM would have sent out an internal memo saying to be careful because people are watching what they do. Perhaps they have and it just goes to show that some blokes really are smarter than others.

    51

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Oh dear. I’m in moderation. I wonder what particular trip wire caught me. Or maybe the moderators from judithcurry.com have passed on the message that I cannot be trusted not to point out the lame nastiness of Jim D’s posts.

      This too shall pass.

      30

  • #

    I mentioned this in a comment at the most recent Weekend Unthreaded Post from Joanne.

    Luckily that Aneroid site does the daily outputs from all these Australian wind plants, so I can can calculate a daily average, do all the days in the Month and that will give me a Monthly average, and then do the same for the next Month.

    After reading that article at the ABC about the Infigen profit downgrade, I did the averages for the last three Months, April, May and June.

    Now, using those averages gives a false impression really, because that daily average is (theoretically) a straight line across the page, and sometimes the wind varies pretty much across every day really, with some days well below that daily average line, and some above the line, but here, the average would have to suffice, and even then, that average is pitiful anyway, even at the hoped for average Capacity Factor (CF) of 30%.

    So, over these last three Months, the wind power CF has fallen way off.

    April – 20.63%

    May – 24.1%

    June – 14.9%

    Three Monthly CF – 19.9% (worked out on the daily basis of 91 days here)

    19.9%

    That’s pretty poor really, and to get the yearly total back up to the normal average of 30%, that means the wind will need to be pretty good for the rest of the year, eh.

    That 19.9% is an average daily output of only 875MW ….. out of a total of 4395MW, and seriously, that is so bl00dy pitiful to say the least.

    However, look at June where that CF is only 14.9% for the whole MONTH. That’s an average daily output of only 655MW.

    That’s less than just ONE of the four Units at the Bayswater coal fired power plant.

    2,500 wind turbines generating less power for a whole Month than ONE turbine at ONE coal fired power plant.

    Even when wind power is really delivering it’s only up around 2800MW at its absolute best, and even that total is not an average, perhaps just one point in time across the whole day, and some days vary by as much as 2000MW. Even at that maximum, that’s still only a CF in low 60s, for that point in time, and while they say that the wind is always blowing somewhere, wind will NEVER make its total Nameplate even for one point in time. So, when they quote that Nameplate of 4400MW, you need to be aware that it will NEVER reach that total, ever, even for one point in time.

    Be aware also that this is not just for South Australia, but every wind plant across the whole of Australia, east of the WA border.

    Coal fired power actually IS that straight line across the page at the maximum output of each unit.

    There really is no comparison.

    Tony.

    141

  • #
    pat

    ***”variability of weather”!

    14 Jun: Australian: from UK Times: Emily Gosden: Lack of wind hits green energy growth in Europe
    Year-on-year growth in renewable energy in the EU was “almost zero”, however, because renewables were generating electricity less often than in 2015.
    Spencer Dale, BP’s chief economist, said: “It’s quite an amazing thing. The reason why it was almost zero last year was that load factors of wind and solar in 2015 had been unusually high, so the wind was blowing a lot and the sun was shining a lot in 2015.
    “It went back to normal levels last year and by going back to normal levels you got no growth.”
    BP said that wind farm capacity in the EU grew by just over 8 per cent in 2016, yet wind power output actually fell by 0.7 per cent…

    Mr Dale added: “To me it brought out this point about how the variability of weather can have big impacts on the growth of renewables.”
    In Denmark, which has installed particularly large numbers of wind turbines, “the decline of wind power alone represented a loss of almost 5 per cent of its total power generation”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/lack-of-wind-sun-hits-energy-growth-in-europe/news-story/18ddabd9ffcb28ec75217e8933492472

    20

  • #
    pat

    hmmm!

    12 May: BBC: Lack of dust makes China’s air pollution much worse
    By Matt McGrath
    Airborne dust is normally seen as an environmental problem, but the lack of it is making air pollution over China considerably worse.
    A new study suggests less dust means more solar radiation hits the land surface, which reduces wind speed.
    That lack of wind in turn leads to an accumulation of air pollution over heavily populated parts of China.
    The researchers found that reduced dust levels cause a 13% increase in human-made pollution in the region…

    Hundreds of millions of people across China continue to be impacted by air pollution from factories and coal-fired power plants…

    Using models to simulate 150 years of wind and dust patterns in the region, the researchers found that the dust deflects significant amounts of sunlight.
    Without it, more heat from the Sun hits the land. Differences in the temperatures between land and sea cause the winds to blow.

    Without the dust, the land warms up more and that changes the temperature differential with the sea leading to weaker breezes – and more air pollution…
    “There are two dust sources. One is the Gobi and the other is the highlands of north-west China, but we found the Gobi had much more influence,” said lead author Yang Yang, from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State, US…

    The decreases in dust emissions are considerable, varying by almost a third. The impact on winds speeds are quite small by comparison, a reduction of barely more than one-tenth of one mile per hour…

    Another study has recently shown a link between declining Arctic sea ice and a major air pollution event in China in 2013.
    The authors of the new study believe that both theories could be true…ETC
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39895558

    11 May: Nature: Dust-wind interactions can intensify aerosol pollution over eastern China
    Eastern China has experienced severe and persistent winter haze episodes in recent years due to intensification of aerosol pollution. In addition to anthropogenic emissions, the winter aerosol pollution over eastern China is associated with unusual meteorological conditions, including weaker wind speeds. Here we show, based on model simulations, that during years with decreased wind speed, large decreases in dust emissions (29%) moderate the wintertime land–sea surface air temperature difference and further decrease winds by −0.06 (±0.05) m s−1 averaged over eastern China.

    The dust-induced lower winds enhance stagnation of air and account for about 13% of increasing aerosol concentrations over eastern China. Although recent increases in anthropogenic emissions are the main factor causing haze over eastern China, we conclude that natural emissions also exert a significant influence on the increases in wintertime aerosol concentrations, with important implications that need to be taken into account by air quality studies…
    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15333

    20

  • #
    AndyG55

    My only comments….

    DIDDUMS !

    Oh my.. WHAT A PITY. !! :-)

    22

  • #
    pat

    another reason why the public has lost trust in the MSM & much of “climate” academia:

    Nov 2016: UK Sun: Natasha Clark: BREXIT BLUSTER Could lack of wind have caused Brexit? New study shows blustery weather encourages the status quo
    Increases in wind speech(sic) enhance the chances that people will vote in favour of safe, risk-averse parties and outcomes, but June vote was a calm day
    Researchers from the University of Cambridge and Columbia Business School have found that increases in wind speeds enhanced the chances that people would vote in favour of low-risk, safe options, and the continuation of the status-quo…

    Previous research has found that the weather can impact on a range of choices, from what people think about climate change, to whether they will enrol at a university…

    In the first three weeks of June (which included June 23) winds were light, which backs up the researcher’s theory for the Brexit vote.
    If winds would have been higher, the chances of Britain voting for the status quo, or staying in the EU, could have increased.
    Government data showed that the average windspeed in June 2016 was 6.9 knots, the lowest month of the year. It was also down from 8.4 knots in June 2015, and 7.6 knots in June 2013.

    On UK polling days, researchers sourced data from multiple location points across the country.
    It showed that councils with higher levels of wind speech(sic) had a higher likelihood to vote to Remain in the EU. The same result was found in the Scottish referendum – councils with higher wind speeds were more likely to vote No to independence…

    The wind was only likely to affect around 1% of decisions, but in close races like the referendum, it could have made all the difference…ETC ETC

    ONE COMMENT ONLY: by Noseybonk: Wtf?
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2206963/could-the-wind-have-caused-brexit-new-study-shows-blustery-weather-encourages-the-status-quo/

    20

  • #
    Dave of Reedy Creek 4227

    What an amazing thing climate change is…..if it’s hot or if it’s cold, if it’s wet or in drought, if it’s in calm or stormy, how versatile. We used to call it weather! The good old BOM should start their reports with, “Once upon a time…” or ” In a galaxy, far, far, far, far…….away” it would give them more credibility than I find with them now. On top of that Australians, particularly South Australians have to be amongst the biggest idiots in the world to believe this rubbish. I have been following all this stuff since about 2005 and remain more a climate change atheist then when I started.

    81

  • #
    Rick Will

    The AEMO medium term outlook for SA and Vic should encourage anyone with standby power to make certain it is ready and available:
    https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard#medium-term-outlook
    SA is literally sailing close to the wind right now and gets worse by November unless there is new capacity. Vic is in trouble as well by end of November.

    I have noted the power flow on the Heywood interconnector from Vic to SA above 650MW on occasions as well. There must be ability to work on thermal capacity rather than the nominal rated capacity.

    30

  • #
    pat

    an oldie but goodie. sure doesn’t make sense to rest your economy on which way the wind blows

    Sept 2015: Financial Times: Gregory Meyer: US clean energy suffers from lack of wind
    A lack of wind is making the US clean energy sector sweat, with consequences for investors from yield-hungry pensioners to Goldman Sachs.
    Electricity generated by US wind farms fell 6 per cent in the first half of the year even as the nation expanded wind generation capacity by 9 per cent, Energy Information Administration records show.
    The reason was some of the softest air currents in 40 years…

    The feeble breees come as the White HOuse is promoting renewable energy, including wind, as part of its Clean Power Plan to counter greenhouse emissions.

    “We never anticipated a drop-off in the wind resource as we have witnessed over the past six months,” David Crane, chief executive of power producer NRG Energy, told analysts last month…

    Wall Street banks are passive investors in wind farms, often through tax-advantaged financing structures. Goldman Sach’s holdings include a stake in Cabazon Wind Partners in California, where generation fell 26 per cent in the first half, EIA data show. JP Morgan Chase recently acquired an interest in California’s Alta Wind facility which suffered an 18 per cent decline in electricity output…

    Standard and Poor’s put a negative outlook on bonds issued by two wind farm companies as their revenues tracked wind speeds lower.
    “Although our current expectation is that the wind resource will revert back to historical averages, at this time it is unclear when that will happen,” the rating agency said…
    https://www.ft.com/content/b967b6d4-5058-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd

    50

    • #
      Rick Will

      Day after day, day after day,
      We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
      As idle as a painted ship
      Upon a painted ocean.

      Samuel Taylor Coleridge

      Those that have backed the wind farms are like the backers of the sailing trading vessels hundreds of years ago. Always hoping they will arrive early to reward their investment but inevitably disappointed and sometimes completely lost entire investment.

      110

  • #
    pat

    subscription reqd but cached version available:

    27 Mar: RechargeNews: ‘It seems ridiculous that project owners are not insuring against low wind speeds’
    OPINION | Financial difficulties can result from low winds — such as were seen last year — yet 90% of operators are not protecting themselves, writes Jatin Sharma
    Earlier this month, I found myself sitting in an airport lounge eavesdropping on a conversation between two asset managers.
    One was from a large European power utility and the other, a mid-sized independent power producer (IPP) in the US. The former was disappointed with his pay review, which was broadly flat despite having a greater workload with significantly fewer staff.

    The latter, who had children starting private school, had planned to sell off some of his IPP company shares but had opted to delay plans after a significant dip in revenue (for the second year running) had led his shares to fall by 20% in value.

    What connected these two men? Foreign exchange losses sparked by the Brexit vote? An uncertain policy outlook for wind? Large, unscheduled maintenance costs not built into the O&M budget?
    No. These two men who live 6,000 miles apart were both affected by the impact of low winds…

    But operators and their investors are now seeing large-scale underperformance of wind farms. Super El Niños are cropping up, large variations in wind patterns from year to year and the consolidation of financial risk of renewable energy projects affecting yieldcos and utility share prices.

    In the past month, ScottishPower, Greencoat Capital and Innogy have announced earnings shortfalls of 7-18% from low winds in 2016. This follows a fairly turbulent period the previous year for operators across the US, where Q1 2015 saw the slowest wind speeds for 47 years, resulting in energy output falling in excess of 50% from baseline…

    Indeed, it is telling that the latest statistics for the top 20 wind producing countries in 2016 showed that only four saw above-average wind speeds…

    Approximately one in ten wind operators currently hedge against the impact of low winds. GCube estimates that around half of the companies who have insured against lack of wind have elected to do so after experiencing a significant revenue shortfall, demonstrating that buyers tend to favour personal experience rather than the experiences of their wider peer group…

    Lack of wind insurance coverage is not a condition precedent before reaching financial close or refinancing, despite widespread awareness among lenders about significant shortfalls in annual energy production from other deals.

    This all seems ridiculous when you consider that over 90% of wind farm insurance claims, by frequency, typically involve single units and result from component failures such as blades, gearboxes and generators. By contrast, low winds usually impact an entire site. But a modest 7.5% drop in annual wind speeds on a 200MW wind farm can have a greater financial impact than even most substation failures.

    For the two asset managers sitting in the airport lounge, I quote Mark Twain: “Everyone complains about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it.”

    If you do not want to be in the same financial position in 2018, now is the time to start consulting with your management and advisers and learn what can be done to mitigate against lack of wind in the future…
    http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1232466/it-seems-ridiculous-that-project-owners-are-not-insuring-against-low-wind-speeds

    30

    • #
      Rick Will

      That would be like insuring a gold mine against less than predicted ore grade. Some things are uninsurable. They would likely be insured against damage from high wind, although premiums could be rising, and fires due to overloading, although premiums are likely rising. Insuring against less wind than expected would be absurd practice on the insurers part. They may even have insurance against loss of profits against some rare event causing damage that prevents operation. Lower than expected wind is almost a certainty with wind farms; hardly an unforeseeable event.

      50

  • #
    pat

    cached version:

    Aug 2015 updated Sept 2016: RechargeNews: Leigh Collins: IN DEPTH: Insurance can de-risk a risky business
    Risk is at the heart of every wind development, particularly offshore.
    No-one can be certain how hard the wind will blow, how the turbines will cope over the years or how difficult installation or maintenance will be.
    And with political instability and financial constraints in many countries, developers can no longer be sure they will actually receive the economic support promised by government…

    What if a developer could guarantee the level of income from a wind farm and remove both the political risk and the hidden costs of unforeseen turbine problems? And what if developers could be certain how much an offshore installation will cost, regardless of the weather?
    Would developers and contractors pay a premium for such guarantees?
    Several innovative insurance companies are betting that they will.

    Weather-related offshore construction risk
    “A year and a half ago, ABB announced that in their first quarter they took a pasting on the impact of adverse weather on their cable-laying business,” says Stuart Brown, head of origination in the weather & energy department at Swiss Re in London. “That is something that is eminently hedgeable.

    “An awful lot of what gets contracted to be done offshore has very expensive weather downtime risk, because you’ve got expensive vessels — they don’t go out, that costs money.
    “You can write a hedge that says if the number of bad days in a construction period is in excess of what I expect, I get compensation based on the €200,000-a-day cost of having that vessel just sit there for each of those non-working days. That is an intriguing prospect.”…

    Brown points to construction of the UK’s Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm, where weather delays were a major factor in the bankruptcy of cable installer Subocean and the $400m loss suffered by EPC contractor Fluor. Swiss Re’s insurance would have protected both companies, he points out…

    ***Swiss Re recently insured Australian wind developer Infigen’s entire output from its 557MW domestic portfolio, effectively guaranteeing how much revenue its wind farms will generate.
    “What they are doing is essentially fixing, through a financial contract, the equivalent of a steady stream of wind across their portfolio. They’ve contracted a product that, if there’s not much wind, they’re short of production and we pay them. If there’s a lot of wind, they have, in effect, windfall profits and they pay us.”
    It is little wonder that Infigen wanted such insurance — in 2014 it suffered a 23% fall in revenue from its Australian wind farms due to lower wind speeds and a drop in wholesale energy prices.

    A similar situation occurred across the western half of the US in January, from Texas to California, when wind speeds fell unexpectedly to 20% below the monthly average…

    Stuart Brown, SwissRe: “Infigen is exclusively wind [aside from a 1MW demonstration PV/energy-storage plant]; they don’t have a big balance sheet. They have a lot of debt, and low wind years are an existential threat to their business — so they can’t put up with many of those.”…

    Bullock believes this insurance will see significant take-up in the offshore sector, rather than onshore, due to the smaller portfolios.
    “[Offshore] investments tend to be focused on one or two specific sites where you’ve got a large number of turbines,” he says.

    ***“And increasingly, the capital coming in is quite often from ***pension funds and the like who are quite risk-averse. When they invest in these things they’re effectively looking for annuitised returns, so they want a degree of certainty over how much they receive each year. To that end, I think such products should start to increase in popularity.”

    Political risk
    “We’ve had issues in some Far Eastern countries — the Philippines, places like that — where either the local authority or the government have come along and said, ‘yeah, nice [wind] project, but actually, we’re running it now’,” says Fraser MacLachlan, chief executive of specialist renewables insurer GCube. “And they will quite literally kick you out of the country and seize the asset. It’s a real risk and it is an exposure and there’s very little you can actually do about it.”

    GCube is offering tailor-made insurance products to protect developers and operators from so-called “political risk” — or, to use the industry’s terms — from confiscation, expropriation, nationalisation or deprivation.
    This will protect developers against changes made by the authorities to power-purchase agreements, feed-in tariffs, or any subsidies that will be factored into a project’s business plan.
    “Certain governments are quite creative. They can change tax legislation in respect of certain types of projects, they can say turbine heights over x are no longer allowed, they can change the feed-in tariff.

    “Some of the changes that you see are radical, and they are the difference between profit and loss. We would insure against that — and that’s created quite a lot of interest.”
    And while standard wind farm insurance policies protect developers against terrorism, they tend not to protect against stoppages caused by the threat of terrorism or, indeed, local protests, says MacLachlan. GCube offers this protection.

    One GCube customer in Mexico could not get access to its site because local people were threatening the workers.
    “The locals had organised themselves into a militia,” says MacLachlan. “It happens.”

    Unscheduled O&M risk
    When a turbine’s warranty period ends, operators take on the responsibility for ensuring it continues to generate power efficiently.
    But what if you discover that the turbine has a defect — and that you have another 99 machines that are likely to malfunction in the same way?

    Standard insurance would cover you against a broken part, but not one that is functioning but not running as well as it should. Standard insurance will also not cover all your losses.

    As MacLachlan explains: “Traditionally you’ll pay your first loss for a turbine at 100%, second one at 80%, and then 50, 25, 0%. If you’re going to find a problem with one turbine, it is 90% likely that it is going to develop in all the others. We’ve removed that serial loss exclusion.
    “It’s stuff that catches you by surprise, it’s, ‘Holy moly, my pitch bearings are all wearing out way more quickly than I thought, therefore all my pitch bearings, at some stage, will need to be replaced’.

    “As a prudent business, you’ll probably have something in reserve for that on your balance sheet, and all we’re saying is, ‘Transfer your reserve from your balance sheet to our balance sheet’. We’ll free up that cash, but we’ll charge you a premium for it.”
    This insurance is currently only available for the US onshore market, but GCube says it “would consider offering it to any longstanding client onshore in any market”…
    http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/869207/in-depth-insurance-can-de-risk-a-risky-business

    10

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Wow…its like futures trading….another Sub Prime Loan in the making?

      ….a house of cards….

      31

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    France and Germany turn to Coal.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    People should be able to sign up for wind and solar only and pay a full unsubsidised price for it.

    Rational people should be able to sign up for coal, gas, hydro and wind power and buy that at its correct price without the RET carbon tax.

    We keep getting told “renewables” are cheaper than others so there should be no problem with this arrangement.

    Smart electrical meters can handle the arrangements and will simply turn household power off to renewables consumers when there is insufficient or no renewable power to go around. If they want backup power from conventional generators (coal etc.) they’ll have to pay the same price as the wholesale price for wind and solar.

    72

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

    “Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

    The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

    As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.”

    100

  • #
    PeterS

    The government is now virtually telling us to all just shut up and hand over all our money to the renewables industry. What really makes me sick is that much of the public is willing to do so! I say go for it you suckers. Let’s see how long before people suffer the hardship worse than that of a third world country as our economy collapses. Perhaps then people will wake up. We certainly get the government we deserve. If there was anything that should force voters to rethink who they should vote for at the next election and come to the obvious conclusion to refuse to vote for either major party in both houses of parliament then this is it. The greatest scam in the history of mankind – pour huge amounts of money into the renewables industry and destroy our coal fired power industry all in the vain hope of altering the climate. What a very sad joke – on us.

    110

    • #
      David Maddison

      They are trying to do terraforming without even a plausible mechanism to do so.

      42

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/china-met-office-confirms-global-warming-hiatus/

    “The annual warming trends were statistically significant at the 5% confidence level for all periods except 1998–2014… It is also clear from our analysis that the recent “warming hiatus” was characterized by the more slowly warming or even cooling trends in the low to mid-latitude zones of the two hemispheres, with the noticeable cooling occurring in North America, East and Central Asia, northern Australia and southern Africa. –Xiubao Sun et al., Science Bulletin, 62(4) 2017

    The China Meteorological Administration (CMA) has recently developed a new global monthly land-surface air temperature data set called CMA GLSAT. Using it researchers from the administration reanalysed the change in global annual mean land-surface air temperature during three time periods (1901–2014, 1979–2014 and 1998–2014) to see if there was any evidence of a hiatus or pause in recent surface global warming.

    In preparing the new database Xiubao Sun and colleagues from the CMA say they addressed a number of problems with other surface temperature databases, in particular the relatively poor coverage of stations across Antarctica, Africa, South America, and Asia. The researchers find very clear evidence for the recent warming hiatus. Their results show linear trends of 0.104 °C per decade, 0.247 °C per decade and 0.098°C per decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the ‘warming hiatus’. –David Whitehouse, GWPF Observatory, 4 July 2017

    The China Meteorological Administration (CMA) has recently developed a new global monthly homogenized land-surface air temperature data set. Based on this data set, we reanalyzed the change in global annual mean land-surface air temperature (LSAT) during three time periods (1901–2014, 1979–2014 and 1998–2014). The results show that the linear trends of global annual mean LSAT were 0.104 °C/decade, 0.247 °C/decade and 0.098 °C/decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the “warming hiatus”. –Xiubao Sun et al., Science Bulletin, 62(4) 2017″

    30

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Is it correct to say that Australia is the only country deliberately destroying its reliable power generators and attempting to increase the proportion of unreliables to dangerous levels?

    Not withstanding that, is it also true to say that even though only 5% of Australian power comes from wind and solar that the electricity price is the same as if we were 100% wind and solar? Naturally that is impossible but just suppose that simultaneously the wind was blowing and the sun was shining giving a 100% capacity factor. I am talking about the price in that situation.

    52

    • #
      PeterS

      That is the point missed by the vast majority of Australians. We are the only country on the path to self destruction by deliberately handicapping our coal fired power industry in the vain hope that renewables will replace it. Virtually all other countries are building more and more coal fired power stations at a rate that looks like their lives depended on them, even though many are also using more and more renewables. At least they understand they can’t survive as a viable economy without base load power, such as that provided by coal fired power stations to supplement and support their renewable power generation systems. We are mad. Pure madness. The irony of course is if China, Russia or the US took us over they would immediately start building coal fired power stations to use the abundant, cheap and good quality coal we are so lucky to have. It’s time to shut down both major parties before either of them shuts down Australia. It’s that simple.

      81

    • #
      Rick Will

      No on both counts – Germany is probably ahead of Australia in getting rid of reliable power. Some parts of Canada are up there as well. Germany is similar to SA was before Hazelwood shutdown in that they can get the coal (or nuclear) fuelled power from across their borders.

      The real wholesale cost of intermittent generated grid power into an on-demand supply system is around $700/MWh. It is really no different to the cost of fitting solar panels on your own roof, a battery in the garage (or concrete box) and maybe a diesel to help out over the long spells with cloud cover and sun at low altitude. There needs to be massive excess of generating capacity to allow some meaningful production on the worst days.

      The gap between economic renewable and current grid prices is closing all the time as renewables are guaranteed ever increasing market share. In a year or three the retail price will be 70c/kWh and the national grid will be worthless as an economic asset. Everyone will be scrambling to produce their own power or form cooperatives to do that. All energy dependent industry will be gone unless they have a tethered generator on site or in close proximity. After that point all the installed wind capacity connected to the grid will be worthless as well. It is difficult to imagine circumstances where a national electricity grid will exist in 2050 if the government continue to force renewables into the NEM. The NEM exist due to the economy of scale of coal fuelled generation. There is no economy of scale with solar and any economy of scale achieved with wind is offset by the high cost of transmission.

      41

      • #
        PeterS

        Incorrect re Germany. Germany is building a coal fired power station and have a couple more in the planning stages. We do not. End of story.

        20

  • #
    Robber

    Latest AEMO report of average wholesale prices for June 2017.
    $/MWhr
    NSW 84.86
    QLD 76.46
    SA 108.83
    TAS 103.84
    VIC 98.50
    Now, can anyone explain why the state with the most wind mills has the highest prices, while the state with the fewest wind mills (only 12 MW nameplate) has the lowest prices?
    /sarc

    90

  • #
    Zignaster

    I know the solution if the output generated is too low because the winds are too low . All you need to do is have whole solar back up facilities because what would be the odds of low wind AND cloudy skies although when the clouds are more plentiful than ever I suspect that it will be due to climate change as well.

    21

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T Wind disappearing from other sails?


    Dave’s Insights | July 5, 2017 1:30 AM | Reply

    Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

    “Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’”

    http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/07/reader-tips-3887.html#comment-1112295

    40

    • #

      It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good, or vice versa,
      somebody no good… come-uppance hockey stick-wise./

      hockey http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

      10

    • #
      Another Ian

      Interesting that WUWT won’t accept this as a tip

      20

      • #
        Reed Coray

        IMO because Principia Scientific International (PSI) argues that the greenhouse effect (GHE) doesn’t exist and because Anthony Watts believes denial of the greenhouse effect is stupid, Anthony has barred from his blog all discussion of the GHE. Apparently that ban extends to anything published by PSI. It’s a strange position. On the one hand many pro-AGW blogs openly or covertly reject valid and interesting comments questioning AGW and Anthony disagrees with such behavior. On the other hand, Anthony prohibits valid and interesting comments questioning the GHE. Just my opinion.

        20

        • #
          The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

          Reed,

          If I may, perhaps I can throw a bit of light on the subject. The problem is terminology, and very little else.

          First, the name, ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE) is itself a serious misnomer, and it is virtually uncorrectable at this point. The misnomer is too seriously ingrained into almost all literature, worldwide. It comes from the supposition that a greenhouse is heated by energy conversion — – incoming SW solar radiation (visible) is converted into LW infrared radiation, to which (supposedly) window glass is opaque.

          As Gerhard and Tsushner showed, a greenhouse gets warm by suppression of convection; if you permit a greenhouse to have any circulation at all, it does not warm significantly above ambient.

          Second, CO2 is thought to be a “greenhouse” gas because of its IR cross-section (along with water vapor, which is also called, incorrectly, a ‘greenhouse’ gas, on the basis of the aforementioned incorrect terminology). Supposedly, CO2 does this energy conversion (like a greenhouse is supposed to) and traps heat. But since the open atmosphere is free to convect (and advect) the mis-named ‘greenhouse effect’ of each gas is much less than is often accepted.

          Third, the appropriate effect should be referred to as the “atmosphere effect”, and not the “greenhouse effect”. Compare two celestial bodies with otherwise identical characteristics (well, actually, we can’t, so the Earth and the Moon will have to suffice). One body has no atmosphere at all, and the other one has a nominal atmosphere. In the case of the body lacking an atmosphere, we have two temperatures: the “daytime” temperature (very hot) and the “nighttime” temperature (very cold). We can take an ‘average’, but we’re only averaging two extremes (recall the anecdote about the statistician who had his head in the oven, and his feet in the freezer — on average, he was quite comfortable).

          The celestial body with the atmosphere has a range of temperatures, varying in both latitude and diurnally. On the whole, the effect of having an atmosphere moderates what would otherwise be two distinct temperature extremes. The effect is to keep the ‘daytime’ location cool, and the ‘nighttime’ location warm.

          Marcel Leroux was the first place I saw the suggestion that we call it the ‘atmosphere’ effect, and not the ‘greenhouse’ effect, due to the incorrect terminology and incorrectly-assumed physics of greenhouses.

          Please do not take this to mean I endorse any particular website, or its policies, or anything else. The problem comes from the serious error in terminology, and sustained variability in what the terminology means. I can use the term “greenhouse” effect with any sample of individuals, and it will mean something different to each individual.

          I do hope that helps; we’re all in this together. If we can move the deluded into an understanding of what they propose (the destruction of Western economies), we should do so with a substantial understanding of what various terms mean. Maybe “greenhouse effect” is not the worst of the worst, but Jo and her allies do what they can to try to understand and educate everyone, with the goal of everyone understanding what we all mean.

          My regards to you and yours,

          The Mostest Deplorablest Vlad the Impalerest (a.k.a. Darth Vlad)

          10

          • #
            Reed Coray

            Vlad. I agree with everything you said. In my opinion much of the phraseology used by AGW advocates to convince the general populace that AGW is a problem is misleading if not down right wrong.

            20

            • #
              The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

              And the citation is Gerlich and Tsushner, not Gerhard (although Gerhard et al is also a valuable resource, published by AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists).

              Yes, I can hear the catcalls now, ‘what value does a missive from PETROLEUM geologists have in the CAGW debate?’ The geological perspective ( four billion years plus ) on global climate change is just another perspective, and one that should be taken as part of a whole.

              Hey, Jo, and Mods, I know there’s a lot happening, but are we making any progress on validating Bill Illis’ chart of 750 million years of climate change?

              Thanks,

              Vlad

              10

  • #
    Dennis

    A story from, I think the source is a BoM or CSIRO climate change “expert” with time on his or her hands …

    Last night at six o’clock this morning a fire broke out in an empty house full of furniture, a burning man ran down the stairs and jumped into an empty bucket full of cold water and was scalded to death. He was rushed to hospital in the best of health likely to die at any moment.

    41

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann.

    THIS IS HUGE NEWS FOR THE DR BALL, SCEPTICS & MARK STEYN, THE SHOCK WAVES WILL BE FELT IN BRUSSELS!!

    70

    • #

      Watching the Mark Steyn site to see what he has to say about this. No news yet.

      50

      • #
        Yonniestone

        As we know Mann’s hockey stick was one of the original fallback mantras of warmists, little did they realise it was a harbinger of their demise :)

        I’m actually a bit excited ATM.

        70

    • #
      TdeF

      Incredible. Love this.. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        The great fight against the profiteers of doom is being carried largely by retired or independent scientists who do not fear retribution and fight for what is right. This is the best news and a sad indictment on younger men and women who will not stand and be counted. Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

        60

  • #

    As I am in moderation(?) I’ll try another tack…
    ‘Hoist by his own petard so ter speak?’
    [You do not have any comments held in moderation] Fly

    20

  • #
    Manfred

    “There is a long-term trend linking it (high pressure systems in the Bight) to climate change,” Mr Ray said.

    It would be fascinating to know what Mr Ray meant by ‘climate change’. Does he imply direct and indirect anthropogenic influences upon land usage and/or atmospheric composition, and if so could he quantify those influences and their causal relationship to diminished wind? Most unlikely, nay, impossible.

    Meanwhile in New Zealand, which intends to be a low carbon economy by 2040, with no fossil fuels in sight and no gasoline / diesel powered transportation, pension investments have embraced the UNEP divestment credo, under the aegis of that which is deemed ‘sustainable and ethical’.

    BE AFRAID. Across the Tasman, your New Zealand KiwiSaver funds are being used to prop up the Green scam under a guise of ethical and sustainable investment, which in this person’s view is a oxymoron of Titanic proportions.

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Can you give me a reference, or references, to the purported New Zealand low carbon economy?

      00

  • #
    Mark M

    The reason the BoM & BEST adjusts temperature data prior to 1910 …

    “That’s why the Bureau’s official temperature records start in 1910 – before that date we have good grounds for believing that the data are poor and biased …

    So, for much of Australia, temperatures recorded before Hunt’s insistence on standardising weather stations in about 1908 would be biased towards warmer temperatures, relative to modern observations.”

    The Conversation, November 2014: FactCheck: was the 1896 heatwave wiped from the record?

    Over 100 years later, and the modern observations still need adjusting:

    A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

    20

  • #
  • #
    Bruce

    Thank you Jo, I look forward to the day when the BOM spokespersons will be legally compelled to tell the truth and all of the truth, at all times, our be personally fined.

    70

  • #
    cedarhill

    You can always bet on the currect crop of greenies taking a good situation and making it continually worse until it fails altogether and then they blame the Russians.

    30

  • #
    DonS

    Hi Jo and all,

    I saw a news report that the much vaunted clean green hydro powered state of Tasmania is once again unable to meet its own power demands and is on the extension cord to Victoria, again. Apparently when it doesn’t rain you can not produce hydro power, who would have thought? Same thing happened last year when the rain was less than usual.

    I blame climate change, then again I blame climate change for just about everything from earthquakes to North Korean missile tests:)

    I notice that the 2 clean green states South Aus and Tasmania also have the highest wholesale electricity prices +$100 per MWH. According to our chief scientist what they need are more wind farms and hydro dams to bring that price down.

    You just have to laugh sometimes and wonder when the madness will be brought to a halt.

    40

    • #
      Annie

      The umbilical cord from Victoria, but the mama is on the verge of starving.

      I seem to remember that contributors from Tassie said that the water catchments in Tasmania had pretty well average rainfall and the shortcoming in hydro was due to greed selling power at higher prices to Vic and that therefore their water storage was run down far more quickly than it should have been.

      00

  • #
    Keith

    Re faster v slower winds influencing Australian wind power generation, faster, and slower trade winds constitute excuses 8 and 25, in the 64 (updated to 66) excuses given for the “pause” from 1997 to 2015.

    Faster trade winds were given as a reason by England et al 2014, whereas slower trade winds were cited by Vecchi et al 2006.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.es/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

    30

  • #

    [...] h/t JoNova – South Australia, the world’s renewable energy crash test dummy, has just encountered a new problem; “climate” has caused their wind power to collapse. Lack of wind blows out South Australia power costs [...]

    10

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    Not to worry, SA is saved. They are getting a battery. 129MWh capacity no less. That’s 100MW for an hour and a quarter to you and me. That should be just about enough to recharge everybody’s mobile phones.

    The Premier of SA was quoted at their ABC as saying “It will completely transform the way in which renewable energy is stored, and also stabilise the South Australian network as well as putting downward pressure on prices”.

    Why of course it will. The only question is which suburb will get the power when the lights go out.

    20

    • #

      O bring back
      the water wheel,
      the oxen yoke,
      and energize!

      00

    • #
      Rick Will

      It is a Tesla battery. It will be chock full of toy cells 21mm in diameter and 70mm long. Toy cells for a toy economy. When is the state going to grow up.

      It guarantees one thing – higher electrify prices to pay for it. Even on the best possible arbitrage it can make only $200/MWh. With an optimum DoD of 60MWh to give cycle life of 5000, it can earn $60M over its life. The state has budgeted $140M for it so it is primarily there for stability needs caused by the instability of intermittents. Where does this madness end. The lunacy of trying to run a grid designed for dispatchable power being compromised by these incompatible waste of money.

      00

  • #
    Cephus0

    That’s truly funny. How people can sit there spouting patent absurdities of that kind of magnitude and expect to not get lampooned is properly beyond me. The problem is that any attempt to parody this wibbling-at-the-moon farce immediately falls foul of Poe’s law. There is simply no way at all to construct a parody more absurd than the original.

    Meanwhile the US is out of the Paris accord and going full fossil-fueled energy independent while the disingenuous Merkel is building more coal-fired plants in Germany and Asia ignores the Western carbon dioxide religion because they have more sense. I sometimes think that the insanity in Oz runs so deep that they would keep this up even if every other country in the world was building ten new coal plants each week. There is nothing in my experience quite so tenacious and obnoxious as an Australian watermelon.

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I agree with your last sentence (and the lat paragraph) but would add arrogance. They are incapable of changing their ideas, facts are dismissed, evidence is ignored and politician’s BS swallowed (if it is from the ‘right’ sort of politician). I have given up ever debating with them, the only thing that seems to disturb them is being laughed at, but they never understand why.

      10

  • #
    Geoffrey Richard Cousens

    I am in a perpetual state of[mild]shock at these wretched”climatears”and their certifiable,public endangering and grandstanding antics.Their”attitude”is only becoming worse;jail for “climate deniers”etc.Now the unthinkable has been”allowed”to happen.First,S.A..Following”the change” the power promptly went out.It was early July.Then it happened again with much greater publicity. The resulting astronomical costs to every member of S.A.’s little community undoubtedly seared a nasty personal memory into their “beings”.If they lived.My favorite x and her little son[25]endured the results of this pesky practice,the electricity bill.$1,200.I was horrified.Not that I supplied any sort of “help”.
    A two BRM flat in Adelaide with two lights and a heater used with real caution.Horrifying.Nevertheless,there is an ending I am most surprised nobody else appears to remember.Just a couple of years ago India,sick of this demented routine,got into law that the[Godammed]“supplier” must supply 24 HR.ahead “predictions”.Or else.I do wonder how that is going.

    00

  • #
    Geoffrey Richard Cousens

    Having,exhaustively,done my”due diligence”[reading most of the comments]I noted that I indeed seem to be correct.Obviosly, I am talking about those most galling scenes of utter depravity,windfarms.Please don’t wind up telling me this is”news”.

    00

  • #
    Geoffrey Richard Cousens

    Having,exhaustively,done my”due diligence”[reading most of the comments]I noted that I indeed seem to be correct.Obviosly, I am talking about those most galling scenes of utter depravity,windfarms.Please don’t wind up telling me this is”news”.

    00

  • #
    Geoffrey Richard Cousens

    Sorry to be a pest.I did not mean to post twice.

    00