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

No wind or solar powered aluminium smelter anywhere in the world? Could be a message in that.

Matt Howell, the CEO of Tomago Aluminium Smelter, told a few home truths on ABC radio Monday.

To paraphrase in my own words:

1. Aluminium Smelters gobble electrons for breakfast. His smelter uses 10% of  the entire electricity supply of the most populous state in Australia (NSW).

2. If power goes out without warning for more than three hours, the smelter pot lines freeze, permanently. The company goes to the wall.

3. The largest battery in the world would keep their smelter going for all of 8 minutes. There is a good reason there are no solar or wind powered aluminium smelters anywhere in the world.

4. The government can ‘t let the market solve anything whilst it is simultaneously destroying the free market by propping up the market failures at the same time.

5. Electricity pricing has suddenly got very ugly. Their electricity bill may now be subject to price spikes where it could cost them $4 million just to keep one pot line running during that spike. It is as if suddenly gas stations only sold $400 per Litre petrol. (Which would be $1800/per gallon).  What he doesn’t say, but which logically follows from that, is that heavy industry in most of Australia can no longer get reliable electricity at an affordable price, even with forward contracts. Cry, scream, run with your factory.

6. In Australia, if we achieve “zero coal” we will also achieve “zero heavy manufacturing”.

7. If we want heavy industry, we need a HELE Coal plant. There are hundreds being built around the world, and we are selling our coal to them. How crazy are we?

Howell makes some great points. It’s good to see an ABC presenter willing to let the evil capitalists speak. Well done Matt Wordsworth. I found something worth listening to on the ABC this year.

‘http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4714262.htm

MATT HOWELL: Well, we’re currently taking a constant load of about 970 megawatts. So to put that into simple language, that’s about between 10 and 12 per cent of NSW’s consumption.

MATT WORDSWORTH: So obviously smelting uses an incredible amount of power. But is it also fragile, in the sense it needs secure power?

MATT HOWELL: That’s correct. So our cells can tolerate a power-off window of three hours. Beyond that, they will freeze and they can’t be unfrozen.

Now, that’s a catastrophic outcome and we saw that not so long ago, at Alcoa Portland smelter in Victoria, where they lost some 70 per cent of their cells due to an interruption of high-voltage electricity.

It is fair to say that, if our smelter had have been located in South Australia when they had their system black event, the business would now be closed.

MATT WORDSWORTH: So last summer AGL, your power provider, issued an energy curtailment notice. What does that mean? And why did they do that?

MATT HOWELL: Rather than hitting a button to interrupt the electricity supply, what they’re saying to us is: “You no longer have the contract rate. You will be paying whatever the rate is in the wholesale market if you choose to continue with that load.”

And for us, that’s extremely expensive because, unfortunately, under the NEM (National Energy Market) rules the wholesale power price can get to a high of $14,000 per megawatt hour. And to put that into perspective for a commodity that most people can relate to, let’s say petrol for motor cars: that’s about $400 a litre for fuel.

Now, if we were to continue one potline at $14,000 a megawatt hour, that’s about $4 million we’d be exposed to.

MATT HOWELL: For large base load consumers, such as aluminium smelters, they need base load supply. And practically, that means thermal. It can either be coal or it can be gas.

And whilst we’re not ideologically opposed to renewables, wind and solar – they certainly have their place in many applications – but there is no aluminium smelter anywhere in the world that is powered by wind and solar. We need continuity of supply and that means thermal.

And I think it’s pleasing to see that there’s a growing number of people coming to the realisation that the latest generation of coal-fired power stations – the so-called high-efficiency, low-emission or HELI coal – there are literally hundreds of these being built around the world.

MATT WORDSWORTH: So you don’t have any confidence that a ramp-up of battery storage could be the answer for base load power?

MATT HOWELL: Well, we’re again optimistic that the battery technology will continue to evolve, but it’s fair to say at the moment the largest battery in the world – 100 megawatt hours – would power this smelter for less than eight minutes.

We have got an abundance of coal. We’ve got the technology. We’ve got the know-how …

…read the rest of the interview.

h/t Ian

 

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (122 votes cast)
No wind or solar powered aluminium smelter anywhere in the world? Could be a message in that., 9.5 out of 10 based on 122 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y82kg6vc

264 comments to No wind or solar powered aluminium smelter anywhere in the world? Could be a message in that.

  • #

    The only way to keep a solar or wind powered smelter from freezing up is if its backed up with enough conventional power to keep the cells molten when the Sun goes down or the wind dies which represents a substantial fraction of the power required to produce Al. I’ve though of combining the Al with Ferric Oxide to produce heat to keep the cells molten when the power goes away, but unfortunately, it requires more Al fuel just to keep the cell hot than can be produced by a cell producing Al on solar or wind power alone.

    141

    • #
      Kajdron

      And the backup will have to be readey to provide energy quick enough in case of dark calm.
      Wich means, AFAIK, they have to burn coal all the time (though in smaller rates, then during full operation).

      20

  • #
    Curious George

    Manufacturing is not environmentally friendly. Want to save the planet? Become a hunter gatherer.

    362

    • #
      Roger

      No just let the politicians export the industry and jobs to China or India – its what they are currently doing.

      203

      • #
        Graham Richards

        The only action that the politicians will understand is when the smelter operators simply shut up shop & move either to a state where brains are in greater supply or don’t bother to reopen at all.

        I have a feeling that brain cell supplies are in much trouble too!

        212

        • #
          Dennis

          Australia has already lost aluminium smelter businesses and cement manufacturers.

          In fact many manufacturing businesses closed or made exit plans after the Gillard Labor carbon tax was introduced alongside their renewable energy levy (plus GST). Rising electricity prices were the final wedge that removed these businesses from Australia.

          From 2007 to 2013 Labor increased the RET too (former PM Howard said recently it should never have been raised above the original trial 2%) and during the Labor terms in office electricity prices increased 101% and water price increased 83%.

          Yes electricity prices continue to rise and I heard yesterday by a total of 200% to date since the rot set in. PM Abbott did manage to have the RET capped but was trying to have it abolished.

          192

          • #
            Just Thinkin'

            My water rates went from just over $90.00 per quarter
            to over $300.00 a quarter for about the same amount
            of water.

            This happened when the water side of things was removed
            from the Councils watchful eye to a (mates) Corporation.

            92

            • #
              Michael van der Riet

              Aha, so your water consumption was being subsidised, directly by government and indirectly by all taxpayers. Therefore, subsidies are a Good Thing and we should have more of them, RE being an example.

              00

          • #
            crakar24

            ALCOA in Geelong shut up shop once the carbon tax drove a stake through the heart of the Anglesea coal plant

            72

          • #
            GreatAuntJanet

            I may be mistaken, but aren’t solar panels built with aluminium frames? And, um, wind turbines have quite a bit in as well, don’t they? I suppose it doesn’t matter as they are all made in China…

            142

            • #
              Another Ian

              Plus the wires connecting them to the grid are likely aluminium also

              60

              • #
                Crakar24

                Attempted to plumb the depths of the hive mind to understand why the above comments rxd red thumbs, got lost in a hall of mirrors thank goodness I left a trail of bread crumbs

                70

    • #
      Dave in the States

      While agree in general, I think it counter productive to go along with the common misconception that co2 is a pollutant and its emissions should be mitigated.

      There is nothing wrong with burning coal using HELE technology to power industry and releasing net beneficial co2 into the atmosphere.

      402

      • #
        David Maddison

        Dave in the States, I don’t think we should use the term HELE, High Efficiency Low Emissions. The “low emissions” part of this implies that emissions i.e. CO2 are a problem when clearly they are not. The only reason to use HELE should be low fuel comsumption and therefore cheaper, more plentiful electricity. Whatever CO2 emisdions are put out is irrelevant. We should just call them supercritical or ultra supercritical technology.

        423

        • #
          Dave in the States

          Hi David,

          Perhaps I should just use HE for high efficiency or high energy. However, I take it that these new technologies are also lower in emissions of real pollutants such as SOx and particulates.

          92

      • #
        Roger

        With the Paris Climate Agreement arranging for a 46% Increase in global CO2 emissions it is abundantly clear that concern that Increased CO2 emissions will increase global temperatures is pure fiction.

        CO2 emissions are purely political posturing and no more or less than a profit-source for the Al Gores of this world.

        312

        • #
          Allen Ford

          concern that Increased CO2 emissions will increase global temperatures is pure fiction.

          Even more fictional is the notion that the imbeciles who gave us this monstrosity think they can control any temperature rise to 1.5-2.0 degrees C. To accomplish this feat, they would have had to have established a provable nexus between 2CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures, a feat they have spectacularly failed to accomplish.

          When the punters finally get angry enough and the inevitable revolution comes, one can only hope that the morons are [snip]!

          [Lets not go there please?]ED

          62

      • #

        Yes Dave – I quite agree. Not only should conservatives stop apologizing for wanting cheap clean reliable coal, but they should be demanding nukes too. Push the Overton Window — change the conversation. If we ask loudly enough for nukes and any coal, more coal, coal with “high fertilizer emissions”, and thorium, everything we might get one of them…

        HFEC = High Fertilizer Emitting Coal.

        232

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Hunt down the traitors of your country gather them up and…….sounds like a plan.

      142

      • #
        clive hoskin

        That may happen,in the not too distant future.The”Natives”have just about had enough of this”Green”bull$hit.It may become a health hazzard to be a”Greenie”

        10

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Reduce the population to 2% of what it is now!

      44

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      Becoming a hunter gatherer is nothing but a shortcut to extinction. The natural earth, unmodified by the mind and hand of man, simply cannot support more than a few hundred thousand individuals, if that many and that not for very long. Being a hunter and gatherer MEANS being lunch for a more aggressive predator.

      The fact is that the vast majority of people today are alive BECAUSE we developed a high energy high technology civilization. When that goes, no more people! But then that is the stated goal of the so called leaders of the green blob isn’t it? There is NOTHING that I view as more evil than that!

      252

      • #
        King Geo

        Yes Lionell becoming a “hunter gatherer” is nothing but a shortcut to extinction.

        For example these songs from the 1980′s and 1990′s by the Aussie Rock Band “Hunters & Collectors”,

        Say goodbye (1986), The way to go out (1984), Back in the hole (1994) & When the river runs dry (1989).

        52

  • #

    Five minutes of commonsense on the ABC is probably not good grounds for the millions spent on the gorilla network. When you think about it, the connection between heavy industry and the fuels which power heavy industry should not need explaining even to an infant.

    Recently I sat at a table where the company included a banker, a doctor, a lawyer and an architect. All were well-off urbanites and ABC/SBS viewers; and all were in agreement that the sooner we do away with fossil fuels and carbon-greedy products the better.

    Yet all of these people were intending to put themselves inside an enormous aluminium capsule called an Airbus, three of which can contain almost one million litres of kerosene, and propel themselves to the other side of the world…for holidays.

    Airbus estimates that an Airbus A320 takes off somewhere in the world every 2.5 seconds. Boeing estimates every single second 2.2 of their 737s land or take off somewhere in the world. Consider the kerosene and aluminium, and the utterly miraculous efficiencies and scale of mining, production and delivery which make this possible. It’s dizzy-making. And yet…

    “The sooner we do away with kerosene and aluminium the better…The sooner I can get away from work to hit Paris then Florence the better”…all in the same conversation.

    There’s a problem here. I don’t know if its spiritual or intellectual. But there’s a big problem here.

    722

    • #
      Dave in the States

      These facts are not understood by the public at large, and they do not receive an education of such facts. Here at Jo Nova we benefit from the contributions of Tony from Oz in particular, but most of the rest of the world remain under the delusion that wind and solar can replace hydrocarbon fuels.

      What kills me is the delusional idea of electric powered flight. They just do not comprehend the quantification of the energy required for such things.

      442

    • #
      Manfred

      I don’t know if its spiritual or intellectual.

      Green faux-ideology appears for many to have supplanted traditional religious belief for the ‘informed’ frappé drinkers that typically comprise segments of the community found at ‘The Conversation’.

      Belief permits the suspension of rational thought, thereby justifying literally anything, no matter how crass, inhuman, insane, sociopathic or regressive. The MSM, willingly co-opted as the pulpit have spouted Greensound-bites commandments endlessly, which if you will, have become ingrained the congregational response to ‘Viridi vobiscum’. Ipse facto, ‘fossil fuels are bad’, ‘CO2 is poison’, ‘carbon’ is sin, ‘recycle’ is indulgence, ‘renewable’ is blessing, ‘green energy’ is grace, and so on.

      There is no intellect to be found. Don’t bother looking for it. As for the spiritual, it is a vacuous belief in a false Green goddess. But yes, as you say mosomoso, there is a big problem when the a larger part of rational society are irrational and given to chanting, ”Et cum tuo’

      202

      • #

        My theory: The far left are innumerate. Every number over ten is simply “a big number”.

        Their level of righteous indignation (RI) is the same (100%) no matter if we talk about 100Mt of CO2, or 100Gt.

        They get rewarded for 100% R-I regardless of the underlying numbers. Hence there is no incentive for them to even notice the disconnect between Kt, Mt, Gt, Bezillion-ton.

        Thanks to people who are good with numbers, the planes still fly. The lights come on (mostly). The cheque arrives.

        282

        • #

          Joanne mentions this ….. My theory: The far left are innumerate. Every number over ten is simply “a big number”.

          I love the way they all use Nameplate as the base for all their statements.

          They say that renewables are cheaper than ‘new’ coal fired power.

          A new tech USC coal fired plant costs (around) $3.2 Billion, and a new wind plant might only cost $2.2 Billion.

          See, they’re right. It actually is cheaper.

          The USC coal fired plant will have 2 Units, each of 1200MW so a Nameplate of 2400MW.

          The new wind plant will have a Nameplate of 500MW at a Capacity Factor of 30%. so now that Nameplate comes in at only 150MW.

          You know facts that they, umm, forget to mention or ask about from their advisors, because, well, they wouldn’t know themselves anyway, but why ask advisors when that bottom line, the cost is cheaper.

          Until those politicians and their followers learn the difference between Nameplate and actual power generated, we are continually being misled.

          Tony.

          252

          • #

            The only person who blathers on about “nameplate” is you, and your assertion that only you consider this factor is blatant nonsense.

            You’ll excuse me if I don’t rely on your innumerate “analysis” and instead rely on the relevant experts, such as the IEA:

            “availability/capacity of the plant is a driving factor
            for levelised cost of generating electricity. The reported availability/capacity factors of wind power plants range between 17 and 38% for onshore plants, and between 40 and 45% for offshore plants except in one case.
            At a 5% discount rate, levelised costs for wind power plants considered in the study range between 35 and 95 USD/MWh, but for a large number of plants the costs are below 60 USD/MWh. The share of O&M in total costs ranges between 13% and nearly 40% in one case.
            At a 10% discount rate, the levelised costs of wind generated electricity range between 45 and more than 140 USD/MWh.”

            http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf

            118

            • #
              Bobl

              Except young Craig, that even Tony is optimistic when it comes to unreliables. Power systems are NOT dimensioned on nameplate with or without capacity factors (annual average) or the levelised cost of electricity, they are dimensioned on what ever it takes to actually supply the largest load of the year at 99.95% reliability. To do that with solar you must overbuild by 25 times and have storage for 10 days. Using wind it CAN’T be done, because there is no statistical minimum generation. ( the statistical distribution of generation capacity has a lower tail that encompasses zero over any practical storage duration).

              The overbuild to get to the required reliability ensures that the CO2 emitted in construction is never ever recovered in generation. 100% renewable energy needs more energy input to build than it produces, where does that come from? Put simply, in construction they cause more CO2 emission than they ever save.

              Of course you’ll as usual irrationally ignore the electrical engineer and harp on about what some environmental ex VP wacko thinks about electrical generation.

              150

              • #

                The EROEI for Wind is well above what it is for Shale oil and the various other marginal fossil-fuel wheezes that have been promoted lately:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

                The “100% renewable” narrative is a deliberate nonsense pushed by anti-renewable lobby groups.
                The “over build” you describe is based on sparse implementation of renewable generation – as coverage increases, this need for “overbuild” decreases.
                In Germany they now have very widespread renewable generation and what it does is effectively doubles the variability of demand on non-renewables – hence the move away from the inflexible coal power towards gas and gas-like generation that can respond to demand.

                04

            • #
              Robert Rosicka

              You seem to have an intellectual impairment CT , dont rely on anyone do your own math , your masters are lying to you .
              My maths skills are maybe on a par with a year ten student and I freely admit it’s not that good but I can workout that CT + words = bullshit , which leads me to believe your the founding member of Dumbfukistan.

              [I probably should have snipped this.] ED

              100

            • #
              toorightmate

              “The only person who blathers on is ….. CRAIG THOMAS.”

              90

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Craig is a troll, I have no doubt.

                But interestingly, he acts more like a seagull. He flies in, makes lots of noise, spreads guano everywhere, and then flies away again.

                On the positive side, his guano consists of mostly quotations, taken out of context, backed up by tirades against his chosen hob-goblins du jour.

                When analysed carefully, you find that his tirades are actually designed to paper over what he knows are the weak points in his side of the argument.

                I would hazard a guess, that Craig is a worried person right now, because it is starting to dawn on him/her, that the promised alternatives are not up to delivering what the publicity spin promises.

                30

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              OK Craig.

              You quote the IEA, as an attempted riposte to the explanation Tony was giving.

              If you remember, Nameplate is the theoretical maximum output, with no losses.

              But there are losses, so the Capacity Factor is the output you get when these are taken into account, and it is reported as a percentage of nameplate that is actually available as real power output. The IEA give a figure, in their example, “17 and 38% for onshore plants, and between 40 and 45% for offshore plants”.

              Notice Craig, that the IEA give a usable power figure that is around a quarter to a half of the theoretical maximum. The example figure that Tony gave was well within the band that the IEA (who you use as a definitive source) state.

              That is to say, that you owe Tony an apology for your arrogant attitude. Not that we expect one from you.

              20

        • #
          James Bradley

          Jo,

          China’s economy may actually fall on its ar$e in the next few months. The outcome would be felt hardest here. Of those here the hardest hit would be renewables.

          102

          • #

            geez I hope no one is reading this, you’ll send the coal price down again.

            63

            • #
              Lucky

              A good point is made here, intentional or not.
              The renewable industry produces electricity generation devices that to make absorb a large amount of energy upfront, and in some cases they consume more energy in manufacture than they will ever produce.
              This upfront energy is of course predominantly from coal, so any drop in renewables will result in lower demand for coal.

              50

          • #

            Of course, if there is a big economic slump – seems those things do happen regularly and are easily predicted by bar flies and taxi drivers, though only a Paul Krugman gets a Nobel – there will be a substantial reduction in emissions of all sorts, including emissions of money from Asia to Oz.

            Our Green Betters will be able to point to the billions frittered on non-hydro renewables and boast that the emissions they don’t like have been reduced. So the White Elephant green tech will get the praise which rightly should go to greed, debt and mismanagement.

            You might wonder how anybody could be so silly, but we have large buildings called universities where people can now study to be silly. And a gigantic brute of a national broadcaster where the thoroughly sillified people can spread their silliness to those still living under oppressive reality.

            101

          • #

            Wouldn’t the hardest hit be the real estate agents?

            What are you basing this analysis on James? Some kind of expertise, or is it just plucked straight from your nethers?

            112

        • #
          ROM

          .
          Always remember when you have doubts about the intelligence and the knowledge levels of an individual or a collective group;

          “Half the population is below the average level of intelligence.”
          .
          Albert Einstein quotes again;

          The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

          .
          An intellectual is a man who doesn’t know how to park a bike.
          Spiro T. Agnew

          80

    • #
      James Murphy

      I had a colleague tell me that global coal consumption was dropping rapidly, and that it would cease to be a fuel source by 2025. There is no accounting for such cognitive dissonance. It genuinely surprises me every time.

      The BP 2017 energy outlook says this about fossil fuels;
      “…The gradual decarbonization of the fuel mix is set to continue, with renewables, together with nuclear and hydroelectric power expected to account for half of the growth in energy supplies. Even so, oil, gas and coal remain the dominant sources of energy, accounting for more than 75% of energy supplies in 2035 (down from 85% in 2015)…”

      and coal in particular…

      “…Growth in global coal demand is expected to slow sharply, running at 0.2% per year compared to 2.7% per year over the past 20 years. Much of this slowdown is driven by China as its economy adjusts to a more sustainable pattern of growth. Even so, China remains the world’s largest market for coal, accounting for nearly half of global coal consumption in 2035. India is the largest growth market, with its share of world coal demand doubling from around 10% in 2015 to 20% in 2035. Nearly two-thirds of the increase in global energy consumption is used for power generation and the share of energy used for power generation rises from 42% to 47%…”

      As for planes…
      Each time I have looked at FlightRadar24, there have been somewhere around 16000 planes in the air, but the actual number is no doubt higher. Zooming out to display flights for the whole world is quite a remarkable sight.

      242

      • #
        Dave in the States

        As for planes…
        Each time I have looked at FlightRadar24, there have been somewhere around 16000 planes in the air, but the actual number is no doubt higher. Zooming out to display flights for the whole world is quite a remarkable sight.

        Even small business jets consumes about 200 gallons of jet fuel per hour in level flight. That does not include what is required to get off the ground and climb to altitude.

        192

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Coal still underpins the whole of the manufacturing chain, on a global basis.

        As much as Craig may not like it, you cannot build anything from nothing which, in his naivety, is what Craig expects.

        10

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Western civilisation is awash with well-qualified people who have never been able to think critically about anything outside their narrow speciality. I give you the Indoctrinensia.

      322

    • #
      Craig

      I’m hearing what you’re saying Moso and I don’t know where to start. I’ve just resigned from my company, top 3 pharma company, for reasons of poor strategy selection on a new business model I created. That is, others are influencing the direction of the model and I’m being shunted to the sidelines. Simply lack of evidence, lack of clarity, lack of understanding about the bigger picture beyond their little bubble they live in and I don’t know what the answer is anymore.

      The lefties has grabbed the Reigns of power at the top and they won’t or can’t see how they are screwing themselves and others over. They think they are winning when they are not and these increadibly stupid decisions made today will come back to bite them on the ass.

      132

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        It is not that they want to live at your expense, they simply don’t want YOU to live. The fastest path to that end is to destroy what you created even though it means they will destroy themselves in the process.

        They worship the null, the empty, the non-existent, the zero! They feel the ability to destroy is a power greater than innovation and production. However, you will get the blame as they go down in flames. You didn’t make it possible for them to achieve their contradiction. They will be destroyed by it.

        With their last breath, they will exclaim, “We didn’t mean for THIS to happen.” My answer to that is, “Yes you did by your every thought, every choice, and every action.”

        By resigning, you stopped feeding them. That is the only way I know to fight them. Allow them to drive themselves to their ultimate fate without sacrificing yourself in an attempt to stop the inevitable. Good for you.

        Welcome to the club.

        60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Top three pharma company eh?

        Obvious personal and professional skills.

        Two pharma companies to talk to, perhaps?

        10

    • #
      Tim Hammond

      It is the primary delusion of the Left and Progressives everywhere, that you can regulate and add cost and indulge Green/virtue policies and everything else will stay the same.

      Then when people stop investing and work less hard and stop innovating, the Left/Progressives interfere even more and so on. Eventually you end up with coercion, exactly as Hayek described and as Venezuela demonstrates.

      80

      • #
        Bobl

        Just like when scientists say “all things being equal” blah will happen, but engineers know all things are NEVER equal all things are interconnected. In engineering at best we get to “all things are approximately equal” but only when the conditions can be strictly controlled.

        This is the difference between a scientist and an engineer, engineers have to apply science in the real world. Not in a computer simulation.

        71

    • #
      The Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

      It was just a few weeks ago, in another thread, I posted a summary of a conversation I had with a twenty-something lady, and she could not answer my questions (where did her food come from, cell phone, medical care … … ).

      Everything the C.T.’s of the world take for granted, they’re unwilling to do without, to, “… save the planet …”.

      It’s 110% robotic, programmed, non-thinking on warmunists part.

      And, thanks for the added moniker, C.T.,

      The Mostest Deplorablest Vlad the Impaler and a Big Bullyest and and even Biggerest Bore-est (according to C.T.)

      60

    • #

      Naughty Mosomoso.

      three of which can contain almost one million litres of kerosene

      An A380′s fuel capacity is 320,000 litres or 262 tonnes. A million litres is 820 tonnes.

      I don’t think we’re quite there yet.

      30

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        Oh, come on FD,
        3 x 320,000 = 960,000
        and in my books that’s close enough to a million for normal conversation.
        Cheers,
        Dabe B

        30

        • #

          Crikey! Never thought that he meant collectively! My bad. I must have a bit of early-onset senility….

          10

          • #
            David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

            I’m glad it was a mistake, and I that was polite in my rebuttal. I thought at first you might have been on the Green payroll.
            Cheers,
            Dave B

            10

  • #
    Reed Coray

    The solution to the aluminum smelter solidification problem is simple. Simply build ducting that surrounds the regions of liquid aluminum. Then flood the ducting with that heat-freeing gas CO2. The heat won’t be able to escape and the liquid aluminum won’t solidify. As an added bonus, large amounts of the heat-freeing gas CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere and sequestered for the future when we need it to counteract the next ice age.

    103

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That sounds like a good idea.

      Note to self: Buy CO2 futures …

      102

      • #
        Annie

        The subject of this thread is far from funny but what you said is very funny RW. Thanks for the laugh. :)

        60

    • #
      Annie

      That’s funny but it’s so sad that things have come to such a state in an age where prosperity in ‘civilised’ countries is under such a threat.

      60

  • #
    Roger

    Politicians have to decide if they want to destroy their own economy, industry and employment for their own vanity and self-satisfaction from virtue-signalling or take their heads out of the clouds and face reality.

    Every bit of manufacturing and industry that is destroyed and exported to elsewhere in the world does not a single thing to reduce CO2 emissions – in most cases it increases them – and increases them yet again as the goods which have now been manufactured elsewhere in the world are shipped back to where they used to be made.

    The only way that these oh so stupid politicians, besotted with their belief that they are oh so clever and green, can be considered to have reduced CO2 emissions is because they have damaged their own economy so badly that less and less money is available to buy less and less goods.

    312

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Somewhat misquoting George Carlin:

      It has nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. Not in the abstract. It is all about politicians being a member of “The Big Club”, that thinks it runs the world.

      Why would a politician be concerned about one country, when they can sit at the big table, with the other big players, and divide up the wealth of nations between them?

      CO2 is just a side show. It is just a means to an end. Having people worrying about what is going on in front of them, moves their focus away from the person in the background, who is currently lifting their collective wallets.

      232

    • #
      Dennis

      The large manufacturing company that I was employed by for some twenty five years and half of that time as managing director no longer produces its products in Australia, they are produced overseas and imported for warehousing, sales and distribution through the company’s Australia and New Zealand branch operations.

      Before deciding to retire from business life I had the opportunity to acquire the business and considered it very seriously. But while it was profitable above industry average consistently for years the future did not look good for continuing to manufacture in Australia, even if the latest high-speed equipment was purchased because that equipment could also be installed in a new factory located in India or China or other much lower operating cost country.

      The continuing electricity issues, cost and energy crisis generally, will soon drive the remaining manufacturing businesses away from Australia taking away jobs and tax revenue, etc.

      192

      • #
        ColA

        Nothing will happen here until we start to have black outs at home, you know TV dies in the middle of Neighbors, Internet stops, Facebook closes ETC, and the sheeple wake up and ask questions – then the most important issue will be who tells them what “truth”.

        Given both of those points I despair!

        Sadly, we here well understand the consequences – I get frustrated because I can not see any method to get that across to the sheeple!

        102

  • #
    tom0mason

    But is it not the same for any energy intensive industry?

    Random depowering/repowering of large equipment lines usually ensures that additional maintenance is required to keep them in safe running order — upping the costs of the enterprise, eating away at profit margin.
    Can food processing, vehicle manufacturing, clothing makers, etc., survive for long knowing that machinery and employees will be idle for unknown periods of time.

    With food processing surely having less reliable power leads to less reliable food safety as chillers, pasteurizers, sterilizers, autoclaves, etc., are randomly depowered during brownouts and blackouts.

    Foreign suppliers must be rubbing the hands in glee knowing that Australia is going down this path of deindustrialization.

    182

    • #
      shannon

      With food processing surely having less reliable power leads to less reliable food safety as chillers, pasteurizers, sterilizers, autoclaves, etc., are randomly depowered during brownouts and blackouts.

      As a result we are going down the path of importing more and more food from overseas……at a greater risk !

      10

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Any large manufacturing plant needs reliable base load power to operate efficiently and safely, power cut outs or surges increases the workforce’s exposure to injury or death.

    182

  • #
    Keith

    Is there even a renewables windmill in the world? Can you smelt all the rare earth metals, produce cement etc needed to construct a wind turbine without coal, oil or gas powered energy?

    132

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      There are hundreds of “renewable” watermills in the world, usually in the third world, and usually made from a number of half-gallon cans, attached to an axle, that in turn, drives a car generator to produce electricity.

      No frequency stability. But who needs that, if you are only using it for lighting and cooking?

      82

    • #
      manalive

      Is there even a renewables windmill in the world? Can you smelt all the rare earth metals, produce cement etc needed to construct a wind turbine without coal, oil or gas powered energy?

      That is an excellent question, they don’t seem viable in the long term — it’s just a gut feeling I’m afraid.
      However this website examines the EROEI ratio for various energy sources and concludes
      “… The new bright Green energies of bio-fuels, solar PV and buffered wind [including energy cost of intermittency] are already over the cliff edge and if we continue to embrace these technologies human society may perish as we expend too large a portion of our energy endowment simply getting energy …”.
      You’ll never find that type of level-headed analysis using a google search for instance, all you’ll find is pages and pages of wind puffery (npi) unless you know what to look for.

      122

    • #

      Keith, I’ll bite — is there a historic relic from a preindustrial time — no. OK probably not surviving, but theoretically possible.

      There are wood burning smelters of lead and aluminium.

      Perhaps someone could calculate how many thousand square kilometers of forest need to be razed to build one aluminium wind tower.

      73

      • #
        Dennis

        Good point, but they could grow a new forest for the next wind turbine and batch of solar panel framing.

        sarc.

        40

      • #
        Doonhamer

        You are correct.
        It was coal that saved the few remaining forests in UK, which were all being turned into charcoal to produce iron and then steel.

        40

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    How long will it take for rising electricity prices to cause Australian industry to build their own base load power stations, perhaps using coal, gas or other fuels that they own? If this were to happen, it would threaten the economics of the already faltering state power networks even more, perhaps to the point of collapse. Is this what it will take to get the federal and state governments to see sense? If so, bring it on!

    162

    • #
      Mark A

      How long?
      Does never sound right? Because the states or federal gov won’t allow it. Even if by some miracle they did, imagine the hoops they would have to jump through.

      121

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      BHP are looking at the cost & viability of a conventional power station at Whyalla. This would include output for Arrium as well, and as the electricity generated is used ‘internally’ it is exempt from the RET.
      The problem is that any conventional power station is likely to be too big; I have no idea what the Roxby Downs mine and processing uses but would suggest 100-150 MW. A (cost) realistic CCGT would be more like 500MW, and the lunatic policy of the SA government would not only prevent a steady surplus supply entering the grid, but would penalise it as well.

      So, yes, a very few australian industries esp. aluminium smelters could build a gas fired CCGT (if they can get the gas supply), but the electricity would be more costly than that from coal fired plants. So the choice for big electricity users is:
      !. Spend lots of money building a power plant, get electricity at an uneconomic rate, go slowly bankrupt.
      2. Spend about the same amount building a new factory in some country which will supply cheap electricity from their new coal fired stations.
      Guess what they will choose.

      142

      • #
        David Maddison

        A company would be better off setting up an aluminium smelter off shore and then importing Australian coal to make cheap electricity to smelt Australian bauxite…

        193

      • #
        Dennis

        I heard that BHP Australia has a new very efficient blast furnace design that probably wont be located here.

        40

    • #
      Dennis

      What would be the point of that high expense item and still incurring the other high costs impacting on Australian businesses?

      Probably some businesses could justify it like the steelworks at Whyalla South Australia where the costs involved in transferring manufacturing assets overseas or abandoning them would be a far higher cost to shareholders.

      52

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    Jo, I posted my previous post at about 5.50 am in brisbane, it is now 5.58, but your site says my previous post was posted at 6.32 am. Is the clock on your site wrong?

    32

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The extra time is added in place of GST.

      52

    • #
      David Maddison

      The time stamp has been wrong for years.

      33

      • #

        Yep. Sorry about that. The time stamp on the site is set to Brisbane but seems to be wandering out on its own past the Barrier Reef somewhere. It now runs 38 minutes fast. I tried changing and resetting it a few times over the years. Made no difference.

        In summer it represents the East Coast average time of Qld, Vic and NSW.

        If only the site-clock could connect to the internet…

        91

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    This is what happens when university production lines start churning out graduates with Arts degrees in “Esoteric Studies”, with no practical experience of the real world – other than making a passable latte, perhaps.

    They are not taught to think critically, and so gain no practical real world experience, because their lecturers no longer think critically, because they have no real world experience either. In fact, they sometimes have difficulty in distinguishing between “what is”, and “what they believe it should be.”

    And that, dear friends, is why a lot of these over-educated and under-experienced people drift into politics. For them, it is like coming home.

    222

    • #
      el gordo

      An Arts degree has given me the ability to see things in a broader context.

      China produces most of the world’s aluminium and is dumping on a glutted market, should we give up the manufacture?

      Australia has four smelters and they are exporting, but there doesn’t seem to be much money in it, so why persist?

      60

    • #
      el gordo

      I’ll add this for reinforcement.

      ‘Data from the International Aluminium Institute showed China’s aluminium production last year accounted for 55 percent of the global total, estimated at nearly 59 million tonnes. Its output has been rising since March.’

      Reuter

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        Since at least the 1990s China’s aluminium production cost has been far lower than the production cost in Australia.

        As a purchaser (company) of large quantities of aluminium from Australian extrusion and plate manufacturers it came to our notice that there were better prices to be had by importing. As a result the local suppliers offered better discounts until we were not much better off importing. But within a few years extrusions formed into various products were being imported already coated, anodising or powder coating, from China and were sold to our end users at below distributor’s pricing, the price being about what our company purchased the extrusions for from the mills.

        At the time we complained about dumping from China but that went nowhere. The Department of Trade and Industry officers acknowledged the situation but pointed out that China’s purchasing or aluminium from Australian smelters well exceeded the total Australian market for the extrusions imported from China. And that the small cost difference, finished and coated extrusions sold for the cost of Australian unworked extrusions as produced at the mill, was not comparable to export sales value to China. Loss of Australian jobs, too bad.

        141

        • #
          el gordo

          Good inside coverage Dennis and this is the state of play, free trade will cost jobs. Which is why Donald accused Beijing of dumping aluminium and taking American jobs.

          90

          • #
            Dennis

            Yes, but on the other hand consumers benefit from cheaper imported goods.

            And despite several Buy Australian Made campaigns, for example, eight of every ten motor vehicles sold here, despite the local manufacturers, were imports.

            Without government fleet sales federal, state and local government the Australian foreign owned vehicle manufacturers would not have been viable businesses. And of course tariff protection retained to assist those businesses long after most Australian businesses had no tariff protection.

            Yes President Trump is targeting China over US job losses and related decline of national prosperity. But the US not comparable, we have only 24 million people including dependent children, a tiny market place compared to the US, our economy is a mere 2 per cent of global economy.

            And there are other important cost factors here to consider. I have posted here on this before so I wont repeat again other than to point out total cost per skilled employee based on all manufacturing and other industries, by the number of those employees, all operating costs taken into account, not just wages;

            Figures rounded off …

            Australia A$600/day

            US A$400/day

            India A$200/day

            Source Australian Financial Review a couple of years ago.

            40

            • #
              Dennis

              However, if Australia targeted export markets and supplied the local market as well the production numbers would of course increase.

              Take away the government imposed red and green tape regulations costs to businesses, amend the industrial relations laws (Fair (unfair) Work Australia) and bring the unions to heel, return electricity cost to the competitive low level it used to be not very long ago, review taxes and the tax system, rid governments (all of them) of excess baggage such as public servants in administration roles excess to essential requirements, cut back on government interference in markets – socialism picking the winners and losers, drop taxpayer funding for non-government organisations that duplicate government department responsibilities at least in part and some more fine tuning and probably, maybe, Australia could rebuild and become an industrial serious player.

              South Korea produces steel from Australian iron ore and coal and then turns the steel into ships.

              Some markets are now too competitive, motor cars for example, but there is still scope for economy building ventures here.

              30

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘….there is still scope for economy building ventures here.’

                A continental very fast train network, based on due diligence, would be welcome news for our steel manufacturers.

                10

            • #
              el gordo

              The big failing of the Ord is that it doesn’t employ enough people to warrant state governments plowing money into it.

              10

    • #
      Glen Michel

      So true Rereke! The thing about these people is their inability to discuss in any cogitative manner any subject that entails a degree of discernment. Black and white for them and a real pity.The annoying part is that they disseminate nonsense at the Tertiarylevel and that passes on to Primary and Secondary education. Nothing new there I suppose.

      30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      In fact, they sometimes have difficulty in distinguishing between “what is”, and “what they believe it should be.”

      What’s new? That’s been the problem all along. You see some problem or just something you don’t like then you imagine what would fix that and try to shove it down everyone’s throat.

      Unfortunately for both them and us, life doesn’t work that way, does it?

      30

  • #

    A bit off topic, but of interest.

    We refer to higher Arctic ice levels as they in the late 1970s, when the sat record kicked in. There is maybe a hope that we will assume levels were always so high till we hockey-sticked post 1980. Not so. While Arctic ice is still some weeks off the September minimum, this is how the ice looks now:
    http://tinyurl.com/q6ab7r

    And this is an illustration of Arctic Ice in 1971. I’m giving benefit of doubt and assuming this was the absolute minimum for that year:
    http://tinyurl.com/y8pcnv4o
    That’s not a lot of ice, and they don’t even specify it’s at minimum. I dare say they worked on it in the summer. In 1971 nobody would have been aware of the consequences of just observing and cartographing what was there.

    Hope those clever people who can dial a desired climate by taxes, subsidies, regulations, bans, targets etc don’t dial in 1971. That would be such a trudge to get back to the same spot.

    Never mind the polar bears…save the aluminium smelters!

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      The Arctic is remarkably warm in summer and all the ice, apart from Greenland is sea ice. The average temperature is 0C, which is why you see such big variations in sea ice cover. The difference from -1C to 0C is huge and nearly insignificant given the natural variability from year to year, even decade to decade. However it is a routine story, as if the planet cares. The beat up does not work with giant land mass Antarctica, covered with up to 4km of solid ice and twice the size of Australia, an entire ocean in the air as high as the Rockies.

      Even in winter, the Arctic is only as cold as the Antarctic in summer. They are different worlds.

      So in Antarctica there are no Polar bears (Brown bears with white fur), arctic foxes, arctic owls, no caribou, no migrating birds and whales inside Antarctica. It is a frozen, uninhabitable desert at high altitude in the last decade, growing rapidly. It has been a lifetime now of worrying about the Arctic and prophesies about the vanishing ice.

      This the sky is falling and the ice is melting is a beat up by professional people who should know better. Highlighted by Prof Turkey and his infamous Ship of Fools expedition where a self appointed expert decided Antarctica had melted and the sea ice was an illusion despite the photographs. Who did pay for his folly? Us, probably. It is hard to imagine any expert keeping his job after being so wrong and costing so many countries so many millions and risking so many lives because he was utterly wrong.

      The problem with modern science is that it has been taken over by faux scientists, opportunists and main chancers. Often politically oriented people who see the fame and wealth and importance which comes from being a doomsayer. When Queensland’s Chief Scientist is currently on multiple criminal charges of fraud, you have to say the presumption that all scientists are honest is unfounded. As for politicians being objective and unbiased, the whole left of politics believes in Climate Change.

      Personally the one who expresses the science best is Abbott. Climate change is crap, socialism masquerading as environmentalism. We need our elected PM back. Turnbull would not be in the job except for one seat and Victoria’s Daniel Andrews, who makes Weatherill look reasonable.

      181

    • #

      Before we turn the Athens (modern) of the South to the Detroit of the South with more wind turbines, diesel gennies and Musik Man Brand giant batteries…

      2012′s “record” Arctic September minimum was heavily affected by a cyclone. It was the very low 2007 minimum which seemed to be the big convincer promoted relentlessly by the climatariat. I’m in no doubt that there have been some very low minima in recent years, and I suspect that we have lately been living in a fairly balmy period of our geological epoch (despite all that Antarctic sea ice that’s not to be mentioned, except for melty bits in the volcanic West).

      Arctic cyclones are not new, but good detection of them is pretty new, so I can’t say whether there had been a summer cyclone to affect conditions in 1971. But look again at 1971 (linked above). There is obviously much more ice in the East Siberian Sea region than in 2007. But there was considerably less ice down the Greenland sea coast in 1971 and the ocean was actually open between the Laptev and Kara seas, unlike in 2007.

      None of this means much unless one knows of weather conditions at September minimum in 1971. What is odd that nobody is in a hurry to find and publish maps of other years before the satellite record. What is odd is the lack of curiosity on the part of those whose main stock in trade ought to be curiosity.

      There was a reason for the “advancing Arctic” concerns of the 1970s and it is simple: there had been less ice previous to that period. Yet this fact, like the Global Cooling kerfuffle of the 1970s, can’t be buried or obscured fast enough. It’s for the Memory Hole, as a certain serf might say.

      51

  • #
    Mark M

    Unfortunately for Australia, there is no new manufacturing- industry friendly energy generation slated to be built.

    Or even under current construction. Or planned.

    Just more useless, expensive intermittent renewable energy and novelty battery packs.

    I’m not claiming I can foretell the future, but, history says it won’t end well.

    181

    • #
      Asp

      Totally agree.
      Planning for coal fired power generation needs to be done on a 30 year horizon, if we want to reliably provide for increasing and continuous power needs.
      If we now did a full U turn, and commenced planning for the power stations already missing from the power supply chain, it would be at least 5, maybe even 10 years, before the first of these new stations are built.
      So the question for the general populace is, do you buy a petrol genset or a diesel genset, or both.

      90

      • #
        Bodge it an scarpa

        For those of us living on a few acres with a bit of forest, a generator running on wood gas may provide insurance against a probable skyrocketing increase in petrol and diesel prices too.

        30

  • #
    TdeF

    Aluminium metal is 90% in cost made from electricity. The last 10% is the conversion from bauxite to alumina. Then it is closer to 100%.

    So my pet topic for years is a point of view. Aluminium is a battery. Energy /kg and cost/kg competitive with oil but unlike oil, renewable. So store excess electricity as aluminium but do something no one does, burn it.

    Oil and coal and gas are free. (apart from the cost of harvesting). They are also storable and transportable (without energy loss). As we have found wind electricity is very hard to transport (as Edison argued against Tesla). Electricity loses energy rapidly in wires. Gas loses nothing in pipes.

    There should be a competition for making cars which ran on aluminium metal. You get a vacuum, not the 11:1 compression of diesel, but it works. It was how steam engines worked when steam is condensed to create a vacuum and the external condenser was the invention which made James Watt rich. Anyway, the result, alumina could be collected when you picked up your new aluminum, creating 100% recycling.

    All too much for our Shamanist Greens who know no chemistry and live in fear, but technology is the answer, not the problem.

    There are so many other ways to use technology to solve the problems, so many other ways to generate, store, transport energy. All they want to talk about is building windmills. The two revolutions of the metal world in the 21st century were stainless steel and aluminum.

    The devastating Renewable Energy Tax recognizes none of this. It is all about renewable fuel, not recycling, the greatest saving in energy. The RET is the driver of absurd electricity prices and perversely, the RET has shut down recycling!

    Carboard is all recycled paper. 70% of all steel is recycled in Electric Arc furnaces. Almost all our structural steel is recycled steel. Aluminium can be 100% recycled. Plastic can turn back to oil. Saving 70%-90% of our energy. Thanks to our crazy government and Greens, recycling is closing or closed. Nuts.

    By the way, in America it is aluminum, not aluminium. Different spelling and pronunciation. Equally valid.

    141

    • #
    • #
      Rod Stuart

      The US Army Research Lab in Maryland agrees with your concept, TdeF.

      50

    • #
      Dennis

      Solid electricity, aluminium.

      40

      • #
        ROM

        Aluminium has been called “Congealed electricity”.

        And interestingly in the last few weeks there has been a serendipitous discovery by the US Army Research Laboratories in Maryland USA that provides a possible and potential ability to use alumium and water to produce hydrogen for fuel cells that would be used to run electric vehicles. Such fuel celled vehicles using this potential technological break throughcould well match ICE powered vehicles in range and performance.

        [ ICE = Internal Combustion Engines. An acronym that is now beginning to appear with considerable regularity ]
        .

        New Scientist has the rough and very early details on this; Nano aluminium offers fuel cells on demand – just add water

        The accidental discovery of a novel aluminium alloy that reacts with water in a highly unusual way may be the first step to reviving the struggling hydrogen economy. It could offer a convenient and portable source of hydrogen for fuel cells and other applications, potentially transforming the energy market and providing an alternative to batteries and liquid fuels.

        “The important aspect of the approach is that it lets you make very compact systems,” says Anthony Kucernak, who studies fuel cells at Imperial College London and wasn’t involved with the research. “That would be very useful for systems which need to be very light or operate for long periods on hydrogen, where the use of hydrogen stored in a cylinder is prohibitive.”

        The discovery came in January, when researchers at the US Army Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, were working on a new, high-strength alloy, says physicist Anit Giri. When they poured water on it during routine testing, it started bubbling as it gave off hydrogen.

        That doesn’t normally happen to aluminium. Usually, when exposed to water, it quickly oxidises, forming a protective barrier that puts a stop to any further reaction. But this alloy just kept reacting. The team had stumbled across the solution to a decades-old problem.

        Hydrogen has long been touted as a clean, green fuel, but it is difficult to store and move around because of its bulk. “The problem with hydrogen is always transportation and pressurisation,” says Giri.

        Slow reaction;

        If aluminium could be made to effectively react with water, it would mean hydrogen on demand. Unlike hydrogen, aluminium and water are easy to carry – and both are stable. But previous attempts to drive the reaction required high temperatures or catalysts, and were slow: obtaining the hydrogen took hours and was around 50 per cent efficient.

        The new alloy, which the team is in the process of patenting, is made of a dense powder of micron-scale grains of aluminum and one or more other metals arranged in a particular nanostructure. Adding water to the mix produces aluminium oxide or hydroxide and hydrogen – lots of it. “Ours does it to nearly 100 per cent efficiency in less than 3 minutes,” says team leader Scott Grendahl. Moreover, the new material offers at least an order of magnitude more energy than lithium batteries of the same weight.
        And unlike batteries, it can remain stable and ready for use indefinitely.

        Of course any non battery, stored energy breakthrough such as this one might be requires large absolutely stable and uninterrupted power to refine the aluminium that would be the basis of such a Stored Energy System.
        Such a requirement completely cuts out wind energy due to its inherent unpredictability and its complete and its complete and inherent unreliability, an unpredictability and an unreliability that will never be solved for reliable energy producing purposes.

        Wind energy, [ and solar ] because of those inherent characteristics of non predictability and inherent unreliability in both the timing of and the amount of energy generated that wind is supposed to produce means in simple terms that Wind Energy is a complete dead end both technologically and economically as far as our civilisation and its energy needs are concerned.

        Wind simply will not ever cut it ever as far as being significant and reliable long term source of energy to power our civilisation and is essential technological infrastructure.

        Or as a comment on another blog has put it which is highly applicable to any electrically powered vehicle and many other applications including any vehicle development that might possibly use the above Aluminium / water hydrogen fuel cell for its power,
        .
        “Electric cars are a very clever way of powering cars by coal.” [ or nuclear / or fusion / or hydro etc. but never wind or solar.]

        110

  • #
    David Maddison

    I believe that part of the problem is that people have no idea of the staggering amount of electricity consumed in modern industrial society or the huge scale of proper power plants. They see a few pathetic visually polluting windmills that are not even turning 70% of the time and think they can produce the power required.

    In Victoriastan the public used to be able to visit a power station in the Latrobe valley, a visitor centre, and see the operation of an open cut coal mine. The visits to these were stopped years ago, quite likey as part of a green plot to stop school groups and members of the public getting any appreciation for coal.

    192

  • #
    David Maddison

    Australia is rapidly becoming a non-viable country.

    Once the rot sets in it is very hard if not impossible to stop it as history (true versions of which are no longer taught in schools) shows us.

    At least America has Trump.

    172

    • #
      Glen Michel

      A Country with a shell and no substance within. A real possibility of withering on the vine.

      10

    • #
      Serp

      “Failed State” is the term that comes to mind. Who can see us surviving five more years of this decarbonization lunacy? It’s a pity we can’t all emigrate temporarily to New Zealand and wait it out as refugees.

      10

  • #
    PeterS

    I sincerely (ie, not tongue in cheek) like to see both Turnbull and Shorten explain to the public why they are supporting policies that are clearly handicapping this country on the international stage to the point that one day soon it will lead to a complete economic crisis the likes we have never seen.

    150

    • #
      el gordo

      There won’t be an economic crisis, we have a large quarry.

      More importantly the failure of the transmission line which froze the Portland pots remains unexplained. Something like this hasn’t happened in 30 years, so why now?

      The transmission line: ‘AusNet Services is 31.1 per cent owned by Singapore Power, 19.9 per cent owned by State Grid of China and 49 per cent publicly owned. We are listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), code AST and the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX).’

      41

      • #
        Dennis

        Yes, but there is already a tax revenue shortfall (and a spending problem of course) for Australian governments federal and state, and local government.

        The mining industry is a valuable and significant contributor to tax revenue but our standard of living, national prosperity cannot be sustained or increased on mining alone.

        And the politicians who lean left even want to stop extension of the Ord River Irrigation Scheme across the top end into NT and QLD as the Coalition have in mind to produce export foods for Asia Pacific Region.

        40

        • #
          el gordo

          Morrison is reducing the deficit and NSW is in the black, not sure about the others.

          Believe it or not, financial services eclipse mining.

          ‘Australia’s financial services sector is the largest contributor to the national economy, contributing around $140 billion to GDP over the last year. It has been a major driver of economic growth and, with 450,000 people employed here, will continue to be a core sector of Australia’s economy into the future.’

          Oz Treasury

          53

        • #
          el gordo

          The Ord River Scheme may appear as a $2 billion white elephant, but is in fact a Chinese market garden.

          WA and NT governments are being pressured to show due diligence and there is a political necessity to spend the tax dollar somewhere else.

          40

          • #
            Dennis

            Labor Green don’t want more irrigation ventures and in Queensland legislated “Wild Rivers” be banned from water harvesting, dams being built, extraction of water for irrigation, even when they are flowing fast during wet seasons.

            However, the Newman (Can Do) LNP Queensland government overturned Labor’s Wild River legislation with the Abbott led federal Coalition government cooperating.

            Yes, short term political thinking is one of our serious roadblock to future prosperity issues.

            20

            • #
              Dennis

              I should have added UN Agenda 21/30 does not want new irrigation farming in Australia.

              Same as it effectively stopped most commercial fishing here, Marine Parks banning commercial fishing and now many trawlers no longer in business.

              So we import seafood from the oceans of other nations.

              40

    • #
      el gordo

      On the 2016 Portland blackout, It wasn’t human error apparently.

      ‘The short circuit was caused by the breaking of an electrical cable. The reason for the cable breaking was not known to the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).

      ‘The “trip” of the transmission line left the Portland smelter still connected to SA, the power flow reversed so that instead of 240 MW into SA from Victoria there was 480 MW from SA to Victoria to supply the Portland smelter. A control scheme then disconnected the smelter from SA.’

      Nuclear Australia

      30

  • #
    Robber

    A report in the AFR stated that the Victorian Government was going to provide a 4 year, $200 million subsidy and the Federal Government a $40 million interest free loan to keep ALcoa’s Portland smelter running. Measured against the 540 direct employees this represents a subsidy of $110,000 per year per worker. Portland accounts for about 10 per cent of Victoria’s electricity demand.
    The Victorian government will pay for its subsidy through the easement tax levied on the power transmission towers on government land. This means extra costs that will increase retail prices. The state government doesn’t specify how much it raises through the easement tax, but it is estimated at $110m a year.
    I wonder if Alcoa is regretting the closure of their 150 MW brown coal station in Anglesea, Vic? Perhaps they should have added a HELE plant.

    70

    • #
      David Maddison

      With a $110,000 subsidy per worker per year you have to wonder what is the point of maintaining this manufacturing operation.

      62

      • #
        Roger

        @ David Madison – one of the greens’ objectives in forcing energy costs to astronomic levels, thus making industry Artificially uncompetitive, is to beg questions such as yours.

        If subsidies are required to keep industry(ies) alive then it becomes easy to argue that they should be ‘allowed’ to close – helping greens achieve their longed for de-industrialisation.

        Just Part of the Plan.

        31

  • #
    Dennis

    Everything I post this morning is in moderation?

    [I don't know why Dennis. Maybe something you ate? :) ] ED

    20

  • #
    Ruairi

    It’s time that Australians copped on,
    To the cut-CO2-carbon, con,
    As electricity’s cost,
    Will make many jobs lost,
    And production from industry, gone.

    190

  • #
    Nicholas W Tesdorf

    If this sort of interview is being tolerated and appearing on the hard line ABC, then the economic-impact of escalating power prices is finally beginning to break through into the thought bubble around CAGW thinking.

    130

  • #
    John Smith

    Does climate change cause glacial smelting?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist, I’m deplorable.

    120

    • #
      • #
        John Smith

        How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
        Ten.
        One to change the light bulb, nine to stand around and say “this change is unprecedented.”

        Thank you … I’ll be here all week.

        100

        • #

          which one of the ten is only 70% certain?

          41

        • #
          crakar24

          The unprecedentednessss of the light bulb change should have been projected by the models however despite the manufacturer of the bulb supplying an end of life criteria for the bulb to the modellers the variability of the bulbs usage would be a complete unknown giving us a considerably low confidence level in the model outcomes.

          Therefore like most things in life nothing is in fact unprecedented.

          More research is required to gain greater understanding in the usage rates of the bulb (Blatant demand for money (extortion))

          70

  • #
    King Geo

    So the Wagerup Aluminium Smelter south of Perth it seems is the only viable aluminium smelter option in Australia – thanks to reliable base load energy from the adjacent Wagerup gas fired power plant. So what does the future hold? WA will see blue sky & SA and some of the eastern seaboard states gloom. At the very least why isn’t NSW building HELE coal fired power plants to replace the old plants? They do have a Liberal State Govt – forget QLD, VIC & SA.

    40

  • #

    Around 100Km South East of where I am sitting is the city of Gladstone.

    It’s home to the Boyne Aluminium Smelter, majority owned by RioTinto, the same owners as the plant at Tomago near Newcastle. (Rio are part owners of both, around 60%) The Tomago plant produces around 520,000 tonnes of Aluminium a year and the Boyne plant around 550,000 tonnes of Aluminium. Both smelters have three potlines with around the same number of ‘cells’, around 750 or so.

    That Boyne plant opened in 1982, and I feel sure that access to reliable constant power was a prerequisite for that, as there is a large coal fired power plant at Gladstone as well, with six units and a Nameplate of 1680MW. That power plant opened in 1976, so its age is now getting up around that of the now closed Hazelwood plant in Victoria. Because of that, and in a similar manner to Hazelwood, the units now cannot make that original maximum power, but even so can still manage around 245MW, for a current Nameplate with all six running of around 1470MW, so around 88% of the power when it was new.

    Currently, this power plant runs five units all the time, so when one goes down for maintenance, the previously closed Unit starts up, so five nearly all the time, for a daily average power delivery of around 1100MW, with a minimum, not surprisingly at around 4AM of 650MW and a daily maximum, not surprisingly around 6PM (in the cooler Months) of around 1300MW.

    Not surprisingly, this is one of only two (of eight) power plants in Queensland NOT owned by the State Government. RioTinto, who also are the majority owners of the Boyne Smelter are also the majority owners of the power plant.

    Recently, the Queensland Government said that they will be going towards a 50% renewable target by 2030, blah blah blah, scroll forward to the findings and the major finding was that NO coal fired plants would be closing before that date of 2030, considering that same Government owns 60%+ of all the coal fired power in Queensland.

    That also includes the Gladstone plant, and in 2030, it will then be 54 years old, the same age as Hazelwood was when it was shut down.

    I would think that the Boyne smelter would consume a similar amount of power as the Tomago smelter would, so around that figure of 970MW continuously, so the Gladstone power plant is already falling in power delivery, (albeit marginally) and I have no idea of the ‘use by’ date for an Aluminium smelter, but if they want to keep it going, than Queensland also will be needing new power to run that as well.

    Incidentally, I note that the spokesman for the Tomago plant mentioned that his smelter was consuming around 10 to 12% of NSW total power consumption. The Base Load for NSW, (minimum power consumption at 4AM) is around 7200 to 7500MW, so the smelter’s consumption, even at the minimum Base Load is 13% of that, keeping in mind that the smelter is a 24 hour operation, and the same would also apply for the Boyne plant at Gladstone.

    The case for new USC coal fired power plants strengthens with each little thing that comes out.

    Tony.

    221

    • #

      But don’t worry, we have the Minister for Energy in Queensland now saying that rooftop solar is the largest power generator in Queensland, surpassing even the largest coal fired plant in Qld, Gladstone. His media release saying that is at this link.

      Rooftop solar power generation in Qld yesterday peaked at 900MW for three hours. The average for that daylight period was 350MW, for a 24 hour average of 160MW, half consumed by the homes themselves, so this day’s average fed back to the grid of 80MW.

      So, that’s 80MW.

      Gladstone power plant with 5 Units running, and the average generation for the day was 1100MW, for the whole 24 hours, so 14 times the power of rooftop solar.

      This Muppet is the Minister for Energy, for G0d’s sake. you would think that he would know this stuff, or at least have advisors who would tell him, eh!

      We’re ruled by idi0ts, I’m sure.

      80MW! That’ll keep the Boyne smelter alive, eh!

      Tony.

      211

      • #

        You’re still doing the defective maths thing.

        The electricity generated by rooftop solar and supplied locally is actual, real electricity that counts as having been generated and supplied – it is bizarre that you pretend it doesn’t exist.

        Not only that, but the power generated and supplied locally suffers no transmission loss, so is worth more, MW for MW, than power generated in a coal-fired power plant which then suffers losses as it is sent around the countryside before finding a consumer.

        Then there is the wastage which for solar rooftop costs zero, but costs the coal-fired plant in terms of fuel and other operating costs.

        I think Tony needs perhaps to attend a tutorial from somebody knowledgeable about Australia’s power market so he can stop posting such silly things here.

        27

        • #

          …..than power generated in a coal-fired power plant which then suffers losses as it is sent around the countryside before finding a consumer.

          Really!

          Sent around the countryside before finding a consumer.

          The power being generated is what is being consumed.

          It doesn’t have to go anywhere to look for a consumer.

          There’s 18000MW being consumed at 4AM. Do you think that is not being consumed?

          I’m still laughing.

          Tony.

          91

        • #
          Crakar24

          Reality: My 3Kw system produced 300 watts the other day CT.

          Now what were you jibbering on about again I lost my train station f thought

          40

        • #
          liberator

          doesn’t wind turbine electricity also wizz around trying to find a consumer, and the solar factories do the same?

          30

          • #
            ROM

            Now if Craig was really smart he would be corralling all that spare electricity that is careering around the country looking for a consumer and storing it up in that battery he probably has in the back shed.

            He could make a very tidy profit by selling it to Jay Weatherill next time SA has a blackout!

            60

          • #
            Lucky

            All that wind generated power does not need to wizz around, purchase of wind generated power by the
            networks is compulsory.
            It will be interesting when all coal stations are closed, will solar generation
            have to give way to wind, or v.v?

            50

        • #
          toorightmate

          Craig Old Mate,
          Nest time you get your solar panels cleaned (should be 3 monthly), get them to give that caraway seed-sized brain of yours a grease and oil change – it ain’t working, you nincompoop.

          50

        • #
          James Bradley

          Craig,

          2/3rds of that renewable power is converted to REC’s and compulsorily sold to retail networks at 8.0c/kw adding the cost to all consumers – that’s the only real value of renewables as their REC’s are sold to retailers at double the price of which they sell energy to their own customers.

          30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Ye gods! Craig know nothing about Physics. To Craig, energy just wanders around looking for something to do, to relieve the boredom.

          10

  • #
    Griffo

    What time is that solar powered battery backup electric train set leaving the station? You would need more than a packed lunch and thermos if you were waiting. The Greens and inner city types love public transport,but I can only see bicycle rickshaws in that scenario and you have to get out of the rickshaw on hills and walk beside the driver as I discovered many years ago in Java,the poor fellow did not have the strength to pedal up hill.

    70

    • #
      ROM

      .
      you have to get out of the rickshaw on hills and walk beside the driver as I discovered many years ago in Java,the poor fellow did not have the strength to pedal up hill.

      That was Queensland railways 50 years ago.

      Their theme song in those days was reputedly;, “I’ll walk beside you”

      70

      • #
        Another Ian

        Similar vein

        Train stops at an out of the way station

        Passenger to conductor “Have I got time to pick some flowers?”

        Conductor “There’s no flowers out there”

        Passenger “No, but I’ve got some seeds”

        50

  • #
    thingadonta

    Similar to the above article, a number of developing world countries are having some difficulty integrating the need for high amounts of electricity with certain kinds of metal production in a number of ways.

    Many countries (Philippines, Indonesia, and others) are mandating, or considering mandating, locally built smelters for metal production and imposing the cost of constructing them on mining companies, to increase local employment and value-added downstream industries. However the companies often want to export metal concentrates from their mines to countries where smelters already exist, mainly because it’s far cheaper, and secondly because you can’t have a smelter without reliable base-load electricity.

    Smelters are very expensive and require lots of electricity, something that mining companies can’t just conjure out of thin air. What normally transpires is that companies either export concentrates to overseas smelters, or close down their mines, cease development, and go elsewhere; it is often simply uneconomic to expect mining companies to build smelters and where there isn’t reliable amounts of electricity.

    Academics I have heard state that metal production uses so much electricity that mining for such things as aluminium simply ‘has to go’, although what they are going to do as an alternative for various metals which require large amounts of power for processing of course, isn’t addressed.

    It’s a typical ideological dreamworld much like what’s going on with renewables, they propose shutting down conventional and mainstream metal production, but without considering the viability of alternatives, or the consequences. Something that normally troubles the developing world is now being considered in some circles in developed nations.

    90

  • #
    pat

    10 Aug: Perth Now: Daily Telegraph: Stephen Galilee: Asia beating us on cheap power
    (Stephen Galilee is CEO of the NSW Minerals Council)
    THE writing’s on the wall. ­Despite our abundant natural resources, we are on our way to becoming the energy-poor cousin of Asia. While politicians and climate warriors stumble through an energy policy debate that some believe should exclude coal, many Asian nations are relying on coal-fired power to secure their energy future…

    Earlier this year, an AI Group survey of chief executives of 285 businesses found among some manufacturers, energy costs had doubled or tripled over the year, “highlighting that energy prices are again emerging as a threat to Australian manufacturers’ competitiveness”. And in June, three of our largest energy retailers, representing more than 90 per cent of electricity supply in NSW, announced their prices would rise by up to 20 per cent, or about $900 extra a year for small businesses, and more than $300 for families. Without action to tackle these rising prices, in the future we’ll see local companies relocating their operations elsewhere, taking investment and jobs with them. We’re also likely to see a greater impact on the most vulnerable…

    Meanwhile, our Asian neighbours have stopped dithering and made the tough decisions to ensure affordable energy into the future. Nations across Asia are locking in their energy supply with new High Efficiency, Low Emissions (HELE) coal-fired power plants.
    These advanced technology power plants provide reliable electricity more efficiently, with emissions about 25 per cent lower compared with the older plants we are currently using in NSW. Around the world there are more than 1200 of these low-emission technology coal-fired power units planned or under construction.

    The Philippines, a nation with a GDP one-fifth the size of Australia, is building its first 500 megawatt HELE power plant that is scheduled to start operations in 2019. In Japan there are 44 HELE units in operation with 45 more planned or under construction…
    In 2016 coal exports from NSW to the Philippines rose by 71 per cent, to Taiwan by 34 per cent, and to Thailand by 12 per cent.

    It begs the question, if HELE coal technology is good enough for our regional trade partners, using our own coal to deliver their power needs, why are we not using it here? In NSW we have the infrastructure, the high-quality coal, the world-class mining workforce, and the growing demand needed to make low-emissions coal-fired power a success.

    Policies that exclude coal for ideological reasons are a risk to everyone. We can’t base our energy future on the hope that massive investment in renewables and battery technology alone will be able to replace the coal-fired power that delivers more than 80 per cent of our existing electricity…
    http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/asia-beating-us-on-cheap-power/news-story/52bcb6651675f6ef241bbf3919806439

    70

  • #
    pat

    CAGW leader China in action:

    10 Aug: China Daily: Coal-fired power project kicks off
    By ZHENG XIN and ZOU SHUO
    The first coal-fired power project led by a Chinese private company kicked off construction on Monday in Indonesia’s West Kalimantan province.
    Kalbar-1 power station, a cooperation project between Indonesia Power, a subsidiary of Indonesian power utility Perusahaan Listrik Negara and China’s Suzhou-based private company Golden Concord Holdings Ltd, is expected to reach an installed capacity of 200 megawatts when put into operation in 2020, GCL said on Wednesday.
    GCL is the first private Chinese company to sign a power-purchase agreement with Indonesia, which is plagued by endemic electricity shortages…

    Being more efficient and less expensive in producing power, Chinese enterprises can break Japan’s monopoly in coal-rich Indonesia’s power generation sector, Han added…
    Currently, the province’s power mostly comes from high-cost and high-emission diesel generating sets as well as expensive imports from neighboring Malaysia…

    According to Zhan Ke, president director of PT. GCL Indo Tenaga, a joint venture between GCL and Indonesia Power, the population of Indonesia is three times that of eastern China’s Jiangsu province, yet the installed power-generation capacity is only 560,000 megawatts, half of that in Jiangsu province.

    The Kalbar-1 power station, which is part of Indonesia’s power supply plan to add 35,000 megawatts of power capacity within five years, will be able to supply around 1.4 gigawatt hour of electricity to West Kalimantan power grid every year…
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-08/10/content_30402968.htm

    30

  • #
    pat

    YOU WANT DAMS?

    8 Aug: China’s hydro dominance in Africa and beyond
    By Ma Danning (People’s Daily Online)
    Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos on Aug 4 laid the symbolic first stone for the Caculo Cabaca Dam, the largest hydroelectric dam ever built in the country, adding a new mega project to the growing reach of Chinese contractors in Africa.
    The $4.5 billion scheme, being financed by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, will be constructed by the state-owned China Gezhouba Group…

    When complete around 2023, it will generate 2.2 GW of power from the Kwanza River in North Kwanza province, expected to meet more than half of the country’s power needs. Nearly 10,000 local jobs will be created during the peak construction period…
    “It will solve the power shortage in Angola and bring jobs to the country,” (Energy and Water Resources Minister Joao Baptista Borges) said…

    Chinese state-owned conglomerates behind colossal dams like The Three Gorges and some of the world’s highest-situated dams on the Tibetan Plateau have flexed their engineering muscles in Africa…

    By late June, according to survey by People’s Daily Online, Chinese firms have raised or contracted to build hydropower plants in at least 24 out of 54 African countries. The dams form a circular web linking nearly all hydroelectricity sweet spots in the continent: in northeast Africa’s Nile Basin, Sinohydro is at the heart of the Merowe Dam and the Roseires Dam in Sudan, and Dongfang Electricas contracted Africa’s 3rd largest hydro station to date, the 1.87 GW Gilgel Gibe III in Ethiopia, the dubbed“Water Tower of Africa”. In western Africa, myriad Chinese-built stations are rising in “hydro-hegemon” Guinea, the source of the region’s longest river Niger, and its drainage area countries Mali and Nigeria. In central Africa, Gezhouba Group has just laid the groundwork for the 240 MW Busanga Dam along the Congo River in DR Congo in March, joining the China’s hydro legion in the Congo Basin following projects in Central African Republic, Congo Republic, Zambia, Angola, and Cameroon. To the south, China-built dams cover Zambezi river basin countries Mozambique and Zimbabwe…

    But this is not the whole African presence of Chinese hydro giants…
    In Latin America, where half of its electricity production is from hydroelectric sources, Chinese companies have laid roots in 11 out of its 34 countries and regions, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras and more…READ ALL
    http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0808/c90000-9252483.html

    40

    • #
      ROM

      Pat,
      Not many people have thought through what the Chinese are doing in all those other non Chinese nations.
      Nor have they connected the lessons of history with the current international activities of the Chinese.

      The Chinese sometime in the not very distant future are going to learn through a hard and bitter lesson the limits of power that can be exercised and the limits of influence that Great Powers down through history have always run up against and experienced.
      Slowly but surely there will be a ever growing reservoir of opposition, jealousy, fear and just plain racial reaction against the always historical xenophobic Chinese influences and control whenever they try to thrust the might of their economy and bring military pressure to bear and try to influence and control the politcs of smaller nations.

      The British learn’t all of this lesson the hard way with a lot of wars when they began the great colonial drive into the rest of the world.
      As has every other budding great power down through history.

      The Spaniards, French, Portugese, Germans, Belgians being reputedly the worst of all the european colonising powers, the Russians about three times over, the Americans in the late 19th and 20th century, the list goes on where a budding Great Power attempts to expand its influence and the exercising their economic and military power run up against that immoveable human characteristic of “we might accept you as a friend but damned if you are going to lord it over us and tell us what we can and can’t do. And if you try we will fight”.
      And they do as did the Irish against the British a century ago and they were a few thousand year old neighbours , not some remote grouping of natives that the British tried to take over and force colonialism onto them

      India already has refused to join the Chinese promoted One road, One Belt economic project and invariably what will become a military controlled power play to protect Chinese investments and interests along that Road from the local’s depradation and opposition.
      China went into Africa nearly half a century ago now and then left as the African leaders and nations came to realise how deeply they were being controlled and falling into the claws of the Red Dragon.

      Not much has changed today except that the Chinese are a lot more sophisticated about their activities.
      And everybody else is also now slowly becoming wary of being sucked into a too close an embrace with the red in claw and the budding and nascent Great Power once again, the Chinese Dragon.

      20

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Off topic but only slightly. . . Such a contrast on the radio this morning; ABC radio this morning with Sabra Lane interviewing Labour’s Mark Butler and telling us that coal fired power is a thing of the past and it is a proven fact that renewable electricty is cheaper. Rubbish! We al know that this is untrue. He carried on with a lot more of this stuff and not a word from yours truly Sabra Lane,the ABC goddess of political correctness. Who in God’s name voted for either of these two to be trashing our air waves with their ideology? If we let people like Mark Butler govern our country then we will be writing a national suicide note!
    Then there was Alan Jones with 2GB radio and an interview with NSW Libral Senator David Leyonjelm and thank God for him. He spoke on coal power and renewables with the truth and common sense we all know and told it as it is.
    People like Leyonjelm are our ony hope of saving this country from disaster.
    Regards GeoffW

    110

    • #
      el gordo

      A recent guest post by Leyonjelm at Catallaxy Files is instructive.

      ‘One Nation’s loathing of the Greens is palpable, and when the Greens spit their disgust at One Nation, I almost catch some of the spray because I sit right between the two. But what amazes me is, whenever they’re not pointing fingers and directing bile at each other, their policies are often the same.’

      60

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        The same policy’s , have I missed something somewhere Elgordo ?

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          Yeah he was stretching the truth a little, but they would agree that multinationals stealing our energy resources is not a good look.

          40

          • #
            Robert Rosicka

            Greens don’t want our energy resources mined ! One nation are pro coal and gas as far as I’m aware .

            70

            • #
              el gordo

              The Greens are saying Gillard, Rudd and Abbott sold our resources short, but the big difference between the two parties is Pauline’s determination for a Royal Commission to look into climate change science.

              20

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    OT again on the abc , joe O’Brien was interviewing a “scientist ” from Newcastle uni about marsh land destruction due to rising sea levels mainly southern oz , alarmist back slapping rubbish , even was asked about the cape York mangrove die back and said he believed it was linked to rising sea levels but had not seen any study on it .

    70

    • #

      Saltwater intrusions into groundwater is an observed fact, one cause for which is rising sea levels.

      29

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I believe the mangrove die-back was in the Eastern Gulf near Karumba. It affected a fair area; that said it was isolated.What caused it is indeterminate.It certainly is not saltwater intrusion. Aliens?

      30

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Speaking of Aliens, is it possible that Greens and weirdo types that get around our planet are SPACE PEOPLE!! Have we, in fact, been invaded and thy control the ABC for example.

        30

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          It would be quite easy to consider the likes of the Obamas, the Clintons, Lee Rhianon, or Adam Bandit as shape-shifting lizards and reptiles.

          40

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Again off the subject, but the reason countries like ours are going down a RET path. It is based on false or misleading data presented by government & academic climate scientists.
    For Example: National Academy of Scientists current draft report on Climate.
    US Climate Report Edits Out Highly Embarrassing Section.

    Tony Heller comment.

    90

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      The reason Australia is going down the RET track is that Al Gore somehow persuaded Clive Palmer to block the Abbott government from abolishing the RET.

      I would like to see a Royal Commission into the dealings between Al Gore and Clive Palmer.

      30

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Here is an excellent history of the way we got into this mess.

    50

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Electric arc furnace smelting is essential to modern, high quality, smelting of all kinds. Not just aluminum but also steels and steel alloys. A nation that does not retain these technologies is in regression.

    After WW,2 the findings of the British technical missions indicated that the Germans were able to produce superior armor plate materials and steels until very late in the war largely because of their advanced electric arc furnace infrastructure.

    70

  • #
    pat

    9 Aug: ClimateChangeNews: Megan Darby: Diplomatic cable: US has no plans to renegotiate Paris Agreement
    President Trump is open to “re-engagement” with the Paris climate deal “on more favourable terms”, but not seeking to re-write the text, leaked cable reveals
    The briefing note from secretary of state Rex Tillerson to embassies around the world, dated 4 August, clears up one of the lingering uncertainties around the US position.

    Envoys have been instructed to quash speculation the US wants to re-open a hard-fought international consensus on tackling climate change.
    “At this time, there are no plans to seek to renegotiate or amend the text of the Paris Agreement, or begin negotiations toward a new agreement,” diplomats were advised to tell their host governments.
    The US will continue to take part in UN climate talks, the cable said, starting with COP23 in Bonn this November. This is to “protect interests and ensure that decisions are not taken that would prejudice our future policy”.
    Instead of “renegotiation”, the language has shifted to “potential re-engagement” with the agreement “under more favorable terms” in future.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration will not be honouring the US contribution to the pact pledged under Barack Obama…
    The briefing put forward holding statements on many issues, including US climate policy, the international $100 billion climate finance target and deal on aviation emissions…

    On climate finance to the developing world, the note re-iterated that the president was cutting funds to the Global Climate Change Initiative and Green Climate Fund…
    It was left unclear whether the Trump administration would continue to fund the UN climate body’s operations. Barack Obama paid the US fee for 2017 in advance.
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/08/09/diplomatic-cable-us-no-plans-renegotiate-paris-agreement/

    the State Dept release re intention to withdraw from Paris was not the actual letter, which was delivered to the UN by Nikki Haley.

    whilst some are quoting bits of her letter, including in a link you can find in the above article at ClimateChangeNews called “Analysis: Trump letter to UN on leaving Paris climate accord – in full”, I can find no-one linking to the actual letter, nor can I find an official website carrying the letter.
    however, much more worth reading here:

    7 Aug: NewAmerican: Alex Newman: Trump’s Notice on U.S. Exit From UN “Climate” Deal Means Little
    Climate realists, hold the champagne! The Trump administration notified the United Nations that the United States government eventually intends to withdraw from the controversial global body’s “climate change” regime, better known as the UN “Paris Agreement.” But there is much more to the story than most of the establishment media has reported, and Americans hoping Trump would crush the UN’s brazenly unconstitutional scheming are not out of the woods yet…

    In the letter sent to the UN chief by U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the lack of seriousness was clear…
    “Unless the United States identifies suitable terms for reengagement, the United States will submit to the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1 of the Agreement, formal written notification of its withdrawal as soon as it is eligible to do so,” she added, clearly indicating that the letter was all-but totally meaningless except for the purpose of generating media headlines. And in the meantime, the U.S. government will continue participating in the dictators club’s “climate” charade, Haley indicated.
    While much of the media missed the subtleties, the UN and its leadership did not…

    The Obama State Department’s “lead climate lawyer,” Susan Biniaz, was practically gloating about it in a post at the website of Columbia Law School’s “Sabin Center for Climate Change Law (LINK).” Among other facts, Biniaz pointed out that the actions taken so far do not even constitute an official notice of withdrawal, but instead represent a legally meaningless and totally unnecessary “notice of intent to withdraw.” …

    Climate realists have reasons to be hopeful about the Trump administration. But if the president is going to fulfill his promises, he has a lot of work to do still…READ ALL
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/26658-trump-s-notice-on-u-s-exit-from-un-climate-deal-means-little

    40

  • #
    pat

    10 Aug: WashingtonExaminer: John Siciliano: Climate skeptics slam New York Times as ‘fake news’
    Climate change skeptics at the Heartland Institute slammed the New York Times as “fake news” Wednesday after the newspaper reported this week that President Trump was looking to suppress a new federal report on global warming despite the report being publicly available.

    “The New York Times’ front-page story on the National Climate Assessment represents fake news in collaboration with the deep state,” said Fred Palmer, senior fellow at the conservative think tank.
    Isaac Orr, a researcher for the group, added that the story’s claim that government scientists leaked a draft of the National Climate Assessment “for fear of the report being suppressed by the Trump administration demonstrates how politicized the debate over human influences on global temperatures has become.”

    Orr added that the news acount is “particularly noteworthy because it is simply not true,” explaining that “two of the authors of the report have noted on Twitter that a draft of the report has been readily available online since January.”…
    The group has been tapped by the Trump administration to help set up a “red team” to challenge climate assumptions against an opposing blue team…

    Others joined Heartland to attack the report in a joint statement with the group. “Here we go again. The New York Times hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists,” said Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, a website that challenges climate science.
    “The new report is once again pre-determined science,” he said. “The Trump administration should reject this new climate report and consider a national commission on climate change with scientists not affiliated with environmental activist groups.”…

    Palmer and Orr went after the science of the report’s conclusions. “The first paragraph of the story gives the game away, claiming there has been a massive warming in the United States since 1980,” Palmer said. “In fact there has been little if any warming based on satellite readings, corroborated 100 percent by weather balloon readings.”

    “The New York Times/deep state global warming hysteria is 100 percent the result of predictions from flawed, flux-adjusted computer models,” Palmer said.
    “None of us would live our lives that way, yet the deep state would have us govern our lives that way – with them in charge of our daily lives based on their fake science and flawed computer models.”
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/climate-skeptics-slam-new-york-times-as-fake-news/article/2631098

    30

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Aluminum was once rare and costly. Still, it was chosen for the top of the Washington Monument in the USA.
    For those interested in the history of such things, try this,

    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9511/Binczewski-9511.html

    Be sure to read “Aluminum’s status in the mid-1880s” – - Sidebar 1

    40

  • #
    pat

    10 Aug: WashingtonExaminer: John Siciliano: Sen. Jim Inhofe wonders what all the fuss is about on climate report
    The Senate’s leading climate change skeptic doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about when it comes to a federal climate change draft report that the New York Times inaccurately reported on earlier this week.

    When it comes to the National Climate Assessment itself, it doesn’t say all that much that is urgent, according to Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., in an email to the Washington Examiner.
    “The claims in the report aren’t new or surprising as we’ve been hearing similar claims for decades now,” Inhofe said. “[B]ut the predictions never seem to become anything more than predictions.”…

    “This draft report has been available in various forms, open to public comment for a while, so I think their fears are baseless, and they do not appear to be supported by any actual evidence of suppression.”…

    The New York Times kefluffle came during the first week of the August recess. With a number of lawmakers out of town, only a few like Inhofe took the time to respond.
    But he was beaten by another leading climate science skeptic, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who is chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee.

    “The alarmist climate media is at it again,” said Smith in a statement released late Tuesday. “To treat a climate report that has been public for months and is currently undergoing official comment by numerous federal agencies as a final document does a disservice to the American people.

    “Moreover, this alarmist reporting attempts to falsely link extreme weather events to climate change, when the data has never suggested this,” Smith said. “Making temperature predictions far into the future has proven to be nothing more than speculation, and goes against the principles of scientific integrity. We should treat this document for what it is, an unfinished draft that requires serious revision. To report it in any other way is just fake news.”
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sen-jim-inhofe-wonders-what-all-the-fuss-is-about-on-climate-report/article/2631107

    20

  • #
    pat

    Lamar Smith full statement:

    Spaceref: Rep. (Lamar) Smith Statement on Climate Report
    Press Release From: House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    Posted: Tuesday, August 8, 2017
    U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today released the following statement on a draft climate assessment reported on by the New York Times. The U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report, which is part of the National Climate Assessment, has been public for months and is currently undergoing agency review.

    Chairman Smith: “The alarmist climate media is at it again. In its latest reporting of a so-called leaked climate assessment the New York Times relies on exaggerated statements and false allegations of cover-ups in order to push an agenda. To treat a climate report that has been public for months and is currently undergoing official comment by numerous federal agencies as a final document does a disservice to the American people. In numerous instances, the report fails to examine some of the most current data. For example, the impact of El Nino on the climate is completely downplayed and misconstrued to conflict with historical reports. Moreover, this alarmist reporting attempts to falsely link extreme weather events to climate change, when the data has never suggested this. Making temperature predictions far into the future has proven to be nothing more than speculation, and goes against the principles of scientific integrity. We should treat this document for what it is, an unfinished draft that requires serious revision. To report it in any other way is just fake news.”
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=51313

    Delingpole: New York Times Story on Bombshell Climate Report Is Fakest of Fake News
    Breitbart News· 6h ago

    White House slams NYT article on ‘suppressed’ climate report already made public
    The Hill· 7h ago

    ‘Leaked’ Climate Report NYT Published Over Concerns Trump Would Suppress It Has Been Public For Months
    Townhall· 16h ago

    Scientists call out New York Times for incorrect claim about climate report
    Fox News· Aug 9, 2017

    NY Times runs embarrassing correction on climate change story
    New York Post· 7h ago

    ‘Leaked’ Climate Report NYT Published Over Concerns Trump Would Suppress It Has Been Public For Months
    Townhall· 16h ago

    Scientists Say There’s ‘No Indication’ Trump Tried To Suppress Climate Change Report
    The Daily Caller· 10h ago

    OF COURSE, ALL THE FakeNewsMSM HAVE DUTIFULLY REPORTED THE NYT RUBBISH ALREADY…AND MOSTLY, HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO MAKE CORRECTIONS.

    Speaking Truth to Power on Climate Change: Why the Report Leaked
    InsideClimateNews 15h ago
    And after an eleventh-hour leak to The New York Times, it may become as definitive as the thoroughly footnoted body of science it encompasses.

    Climate Change Study Leaked Over Fears That Trump Will Suppress It
    New York Magazine· Aug 8, 2017

    Damning Federal Climate Report Leaked Before Trump Can Suppress It
    Vanity Fair· Aug 9, 2017

    5 major takeaways from the leaked climate change report
    AccuWeather.com· 16h ago

    Pembina Institute: Leaked US Climate Change Report Should Be Replicated In Canada
    Huffington Post Canada· 13h ago

    Revenge of the Climate Scientists
    RollingStone.com· Aug 9, 2017

    Everyone’s Talking About That Leaked Government Climate Report. Here’s Why It Actually Matters.
    BuzzFeed News· Aug 9, 2017

    The Administrative State Strikes Back: Federal Climate Change Draft Report Leaked
    Reason· Aug 9, 2017

    MIND U, IT’S BAD WHEN FakeNewsWaPo calls out FakeNewsNYT!

    9 Aug: WaPo: Erik Wemple: New York Times guilty of large screw-up on climate-change story
    The New York Times on Wednesday appended a correction to a story about a climate change study:

    Correction: August 9, 2017
    An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.

    That correction, which sits at the foot of the story, dutifully straightens out the record. Yet given the magnitude of the screw-up, it should sit atop the story, surrounded by red flashing lights and perhaps an audio track to instruct readers: Warning: This story once peddled a faulty and damaging premise…

    As part of its corrective effort, the New York Times has pulled the language saying that “a copy of it was obtained by the New York Times,” as well as the mistaken assertion that it has “not yet been made public.” Even so, the article continues to carry this line: “Another scientist involved in the process, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, said he and others were concerned that it would be suppressed.” As well as this one: “Scientists say they fear that the Trump administration could change or suppress the report.”…

    New York Times Washington bureau chief Elisabeth Bumiller says of the draft report’s status: “We were just not aware that somebody involved in the report had put a draft on this nonprofit Internet site,” she says. “It was not a well-known site to us and the point is that the people who shared the draft with us were not aware of it either. That doesn’t change the larger point that scientists were worried that the government wouldn’t approve the report or release it through normal channels.”

    When pressed on Sanders’s criticism, Bumiller said, “We spent a lot of time trying to sort out where it had appeared before,” said Bumiller. “Again, we just didn’t know. The reporter just didn’t know and the editors didn’t know and once it was brought to our attention, we sorted it out” and ran a correction…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/09/new-york-times-guilty-of-large-screw-up-on-climate-change-story/?utm_term=.478fac695977

    too difficult to contact the White House, Bumiller?

    20

  • #
    pat

    comment has gone into moderation.

    10

  • #
    pat

    biggest FakeNewsMSM in the world interviews Hayhoe and asks the pressing political question re Trump. check the PHOTO:

    AUDIO: 1min42secs: 8 Aug: BBC: Scientists report drastic impact of climate change on US
    A draft report on the impact of climate change in the US by scientists from 13 federal agencies says average temperatures in the country have risen rapidly and drastically since the 1980s and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years. The draft report, which found its way into the hands of the New York Times, has not yet been approved or published by the Trump administration. Professor Katherine Hayhoe is a climate scientist at Texas Tech and a lead author on the report.
    PHOTO: Steam and exhaust rise from a steel mill.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05bvxhx

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    I am offended that “Green” “energy” is allowed to enter my pro-science and pro-technology home.

    I want to opt out of this Civilisation-destroying insanity but I can’t!

    51

  • #
    pat

    9 Aug: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: NYT’s ‘leaked’ federal climate doom report: ‘Political report masquerading as science’
    Here we go again. The New York Times hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science. The Trump Administration should reject this new climate report and consider a national commission on climate change with scientists not affiliated with environmental activist groups.

    The 2017 National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is! Two key authors are long time Union of Concerned Scientist activist Donald Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe.

    Wuebbles is on record as believing global warming has powers and abilities far beyond those of any other phenomenon. “There’s really no such thing as natural weather anymore,” Wuebbles said in 2011. “Anything that takes place today in the weather system has been affected by the changes we’ve made to the climate system,” he added.

    Whoa! Wuebbles might as well claim that we never had weather like this until those darn witches moved in the neighborhood!…READ ON
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/09/pre-determined-science-morano-reacts-to-nyts-leaked-federal-climate-doom-report-political-report-masquerading-as-science/

    Marc Morano posts the following, in which he is quoted, but it is jarring to hear the reporter later say the President has never hidden his “CLIMATE SCEPTICISM”! this type of moronic talk needs to stop:

    VIDEO: 2mins39secs: Fox News: Federal study sounds a dire warning about climate change
    The draft report featured by the NYTimes projects 5.0 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit temperature increases; Doug McKelway reports on ‘Special Report’
    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/videos#p/86927/v/5535699430001

    10

  • #
    pat

    news.com.au jumped on board:

    8 Aug: news.com.au: US climate change report leaked amid fears Donald Trump’s administration will dismiss it
    A CONTROVERSIAL draft report on climate change that contradicts claims made by Donald Trump’s administration on global warming has been leaked.
    by Staff writers, AFP,
    One scientist cited anonymously by the Times says he and other researchers are worried that the Trump administration, which must approve the report’s release, will suppress it…
    ***A small increase in global temperatures can lead to prolonged heatwaves, storms and the breakdown of coral reefs…

    but at least they are carrying a correction:

    10 Aug: news.com.au: NY Times runs embarrassing correction on climate change story
    by Keith J. Kelly, New York Post
    The third order draft, which the Times had falsely hyped as an exclusive of unpublished material, has been publicly available since January on the Internet Archive…
    The website Daily Caller also reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had posted the report on its own web site in March…
    http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/ny-times-runs-embarrassing-correction-on-climate-change-story/news-story/43fcdfaaad1e7200855240c84fe71693

    10

  • #
    liberator

    Working in the dairy industry I’m concerned about the security of future power supply continuity. Look at all the dairy companies who run spray driers in Victoria alone. They consume huge amounts of gas to heat the driers, to dry the milk and to run the boilers to provide steam and heat water. They use huge amounts of power to run all their pumps and ancillary equipment. We have four driers. If they are all running at once and during the peak season – that’s often the case and if we get a simple power flick – just seconds, thats enough to totally shut down the driers. We now have a drier full of warm/hot powder, pipes full of milk, heat exchangers full of milk etc etc. We have to have continuity of power supply. We can’t run without it.

    Milk season swings into full production from around September until April. Right over the hot summer months. If we have a drop in power supply reliability and we do lose power for a second or two or longer it costs us thousands. If it happens regularly it will end up costing us hundreds of thousands. And if we get a longer loss of power we can’t process the milk, we cant store all the milk we collect from the farms.

    We monitor the weather radar we look for thunderstorms because they can and do result in power flicks and we can prepare to shut down the driers. We cant see and plan for power drop outs because the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.

    The repercussions of not having a reliable stable power supply are frightening. So sure AGL (seen their adds anyone?) – let’s pull down all the coal power stations by 2040 (or whatever it is you say in your add and put up more fairy wing wind turbines and black magic solar panels – they wont guarantee a reliable and secure power supply. A battery the size of what would be needed to keep industry running in just Victoria???

    What’s left of energy intensive manufacturing will quit Australia. Those of us who work in those industries will all be so thankful that we have saved the planet from a degree or two increase on the global average (a made up figure) and will sit around in circles holding hands singing kumbaya and be thankful we have nothing left. While everyone else enjoys their “FREE” green energy.

    Don’t get me started on the rising power/gas costs – manufacturing just will no longer be competitive in Australia. Wages are one of the higher costs in manufacturing so if you struggle to survive business get rid of workers to stay afloat. But if your energy costs get to be prohibitive what can you do? Stop manufacturing or reduce your outputs? What then for Australia?

    130

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘But if your energy costs get to be prohibitive what can you do?’

      There is talk around my way that if the gas bill is through the roof then we’ll gang up against a council ban on burning wood and books in our fireplaces.

      In medium sized business a backup generator would be useful, at least until our political masters come to their senses.

      40

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Everything Matt Howell said was common knowledge, perceived wisdom when I commenced in Australia’s mineral industry early in the 1970s. Even surmise about battery backup to insure against frozen pot lines was briefly discussed then rejected.
    The large problem is why this was not understood by our politicians. I and many others have written about this very problem many times over the decades.
    The more St charitable explanation would seem to be that they have been taken in by Green ideology. Like they were with nuclear electricity bans. And fracking bans.

    It is well past time to reverse these expensive, zealot-driven political mistakes. Geoff.

    70

  • #

    This narrative is woefully deficient. The Aluminium smelting business is only just *recently* becoming subject to “The Market” after 4 decades of heavy government subsidy.

    *That* is why they are moaning – because our power has been sold off to foreigners, who have promptly jacked up the prices, resulting in aluminium smelting in this country no longer being competitive because the government can no longer give them special contracts for half-price electricity supply.
    Of course, it never *was* competitive, it was just being propped up by subsidies from the taxpayer.

    Also, Iceland’s 2 Aluminium smelters run on fossil-fuel-free electricity. They’re making money hand over fist, because they aren’t having to pay the kind of high prices we have to pay, seeing as their government restricts foreign ownership and doesn’t use fossil fuels to generate power..

    And,
    https://aluminium.ca/en/communications/press/185/after-reducing-ghg-emissions-by-30%2525-quebecs-aluminium-smelters-are-ready-to-assist-the-transportation-sector-with-its-efforts
    Quebec smelters are going great guns.

    and,
    http://www.hydro.com/
    Norway has at least 3 smelters that are doing very well.

    How come other countries can do it and we can’t?
    – reduced fossil fuel use
    – keep grubby foreign mitts off our infrastructure
    – invest in modern technology instead of wallowing in technophobia and subsidising obsolete and dying technologies like coal-fired power.

    212

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “Also, Iceland’s 2 Aluminium smelters run on fossil-fuel-free electricity.”
      Who pays you (never answer Craig) for this bull crap? Where are your geothermal hotspots or high mountains for hydroelectric power? And most crap of all; Where is any evidence that fossil fuel or nuclear power use creates any harm whatsoever?

      100

      • #
        joseph

        Japan doesn’t count?

        10

      • #
        TedM

        Iceland’s power is almost all of geothermal origin. Not wind or solar. Notice how Craig did not tell you that.

        And Norway mainly hydroelectric. Did Craig mention that.

        Perfect examples of how to mislead without telling lies. However it is the intent that counts.

        120

      • #
        ROM

        What Craig rather deviously doesn’t tell us while spouting his green credentials;

        Iceland has a population of 300,000 people.

        Iceland’s Smelters

        Renewable Energy Use – All 3 aluminium smelters rely wholly on hydroelectric and geothermal power.
        This carbon footprint from using these power sources is almost nonexistent when compared with the footprints of other smelters that rely on coal-fired power stations in other countries.
        Other worldly smelters use nuclear power as well.

        .
        What is notable is that the aluminium industry’s total power usage amounted to roughly 73% of Iceland’s total power consumption in 2010.

        80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      OK, Craig.

      It is my understanding that the Government subsidised the smelting of Aluminium in relation to the production of High Voltage transmission lines. For the electricity grid to work, they needed a lot of cable, quickly, and subsidising the manufacture was cheaper than bringing in the cable by the boat load. At least, that is what the ME (elec.) academics tell me.

      I would surmise that the electricity to power Iceland’s Aluminium smelters is derived from thermal-electric sources. New Zealand did the same thing experimentally, but then opted for hydro as the main power source for its Aluminium smelter. The reason they moved away from thermal-electric was the cost of maintaining the plumbing required, given that it is prone to getting clogged with “stuff”. That was the same conclusion that Norway reached, when making the same decision.

      “How can other countries can do it and we can’t?”

      That is the key question, Craig.

      I think it is the propensity that Australian Politicians have for blowing up coal fired generation plants before an alternative “clean combustion plant” can be designed and developed. And that comes down to political decisions being made, based upon where the Government sits, in the current electoral cycle.

      If Australia could keep its politicians away from interfering in the professional engineering decision-making processes, everything would be much easier.

      130

      • #
      • #

        The smelters were also given government electricity supply contracts at 35-50% below other businesses were paying for their power.

        27

        • #
          Robert Rosicka

          Yes to attract their business what’s your point .

          50

          • #

            My point is that is not “The Market”, it is a subsidy. Now the subsidy is gone, they are all shutting up shop because now they have to face “The Market” and they can’t compete with overseas smelters.

            28

            • #
              Robert Rosicka

              So you dislike subsidies for aluminium smelters but defend them on renewables, of course aluminium can be made cheaper in china , cheaper coal fired power which is supplied by us .

              110

              • #

                I didn’t say I dislike subsidies. I merely pointed out that a subsidy was in place and this particular business is now exposed to “the market”, contrary to the statements made in the article.
                10 years ago I was advocating that the government co-locate some “research” or “pilot” solar thermal plants with the aluminium smelters – this could have acted as an effective subsidy and a foil to rising energy prices as the smelters’ old government contracts ran out. And calling them research or pilot facilities would prevent it causing a ruckus with other aluminium-producing nations about trade subsidies.
                But no – our governments have been too busy wasting time on same-sex marriage, disseminating propaganda about a “big bad debt”, or encouraging people smugglers instead of doing any actual nation building.

                Also, China is the world’s leading nation in the deployment of renewable power.

                11

              • #
                el gordo

                For a month or more I was harassed on a daily basis to buy solar panels, screaming down the phone didn’t work, but when a young man (looking at google map) said ‘I know where you live’, I said I know where you live too and you can tell your Beijing masters that I don’t want their panels on my roof.

                All phone calls from that organisation came to an abrupt end, which is a worry.

                With the aluminium smelters we should allow market forces to operate and stop subsidising them. Could they be converted into steel mills?

                10

            • #
              toorightmate

              Craig,
              You numbskull, if you did a bit more research you would find that China has taken the lead in the production of alumina and aluminium metal over the past 15 years, BECAUSE THEY HAVE CHEAP OWER (coal and hydro).

              60

              • #

                They have 150GW wind power capacity installed, and almost 100GW of solar. They also have a vast amount of rooftop solar thermal.
                They have cheaper costs than we do because they are a 2nd-world nation, not because they are stuck on coal, which they aren’t. In fact how embarrassing that a 2nd-world nation like China is vastly out-performing us in deploying modern technologies to replace coal power.

                05

              • #

                Craig,

                now I see what you are doing.

                You’re just here mischievously taking the pi$$.

                I couldn’t figure out why you believe what your handlers tell you to write.

                …..not because they are stuck on coal, which they aren’t.

                The only technologies China is deploying to replace their ancient tiny coal fired plants is new tech USC coal fired power plants, in huge numbers over the last ten years or more.

                Currently the total power generation in China is 5989TWH. (EOY16)

                That’s made up from:

                Coal Fired – 66%
                Hydro – 20%
                Wind – 4%
                Solar – 1.1%

                Those percentages for wind and solar are both below the current World average.

                And rooftop solar thermal, well I think that was open mouth change feet before writing it down eh!

                And Craig, please don’t use the meaningless Nameplate to artificially inflate your numbers. It’s actual power being generated that counts.

                Don’t worry here people, Craig’s just having a jolly jape.

                Tony.

                20

        • #
          Lucky

          A contract to supply electrical power at a price lower than available to other users is usually not a
          subsidy as it simply reflects the lower admin and transmission costs associated with a large customer.

          70

  • #
    el gordo

    The aluminium smelters are propped up for political reasons and can go, but I insist we keep the steel works and any coal fired power stations still in working order.

    50

  • #
    Gazman

    Since the smelter uses so much electricity, maybe it would be cost effective to build their own, coal-powered station to supply their own needs first, then sell surpluses to the AEN. Could be a profitable sideline while providing cheap power for the business.

    After all, if householders can feed rooftop solar into the grid for payment, why not a smelter, just on a larger scale?

    50

    • #

      A german aluminium smelter at Hamburg has built its own wind farm, while another one is micro-adjusting its consumption to help smooth out demand:
      https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/german-firm-turns-aluminum-smelter-into-huge-battery

      Meanwhile, here in Australia, we hand over our resources to foreigners and let our industries go broke.

      Qatar and Australia export a similar amount of natural gas – Qatar is looking at receiving royalties of around $26billion this year, while Australia is earning $0.8billion.

      We are being thieved from on a national scale by people who should be hung for treason.

      48

      • #
        Rollo

        Craig says

        Qatar and Australia export a similar amount of natural gas – Qatar is looking at receiving royalties of around $26billion this year, while Australia is earning $0.8billion.

        If true, theft of this magnitude should be headline news. Can you(or anyone)provide more info?

        60

        • #
          Rollo

          SMH Nov 22 2016, according to Heath Aston Australia are giving away their offshore oil and gas resources for free..

          Fairfax Media revealed in October the massive disparity between forecast revenues from LNG production between Australia and the country it will leapfrog to become the world’s biggest exporter, Qatar.

          In 2021, when each country’s production volumes will be virtually identical, Qatar will receive $26.6 billion while Australia will receive just $800 million.

          70

          • #

            We’re being ripped off. All our resources are being siphoned off into swiss bank accounts.

            21

            • #
              Rollo

              I agree with you on this one Craig. There is no logical reason why Australians have to pay such a high rate for the gas which belongs to them and why we give it away to foreigners for nothing. Our politicians (liberal and labor) are either corrupt or stupid or both. The other possibility is that globalization has proceeded to the extent where we have lost control of our natural resources and our politicians no longer the have power to do what is best for all Australians.

              10

              • #
                el gordo

                This is one thing the Greens and Hansonites agree upon, multinationals exploiting our ignorance and stealing our natural resources is the fault of the major parties.

                20

        • #
          ROM

          .
          Really Craig, you should read those articles before you ever come onto Jo’s blog all hot and bothered.

          A German smelter building their own wind farm?

          What the article actually says!

          According to a 2014 Bloomberg report, the company uses 14 megawatt-hours of energy to make each ton of aluminum.

          In its 2015-2016 fiscal year, which was completed at the end of June last year, the company produced 775,000 tons of aluminum and cast-iron products, a 5 percent increase over 2014-2015.

          Trimet is making efforts to mask the environmental impact of this almost 100-terawatt-hour annual consumption level, for example by recycling 95 percent of all production residues and hosting a three-turbine wind farm at its smelter in the port of Hamburg.

          A THREE turbine wind FARM???

          Germany’s Onshore wind power

          More than 27,250 windmills producing about 70 terawatt hours (tWh) of power made for nearly one third of the continent’s total installed capacity and ten percent of global capacity in 2016.

          I will make an assumption that might be numerically literate and can see for yourself the inane comment of yours suggesting that a THREE TURBINE wind farm is going to contribute mightly towards the power to run a smelter that uses 100 terrwatt hrs of power or nearly one and half times ALL of the power produced by Germany’s 27,250 onshore wind turbines last year.

          140

      • #
        TedM

        And the smelter will draw power from French nuclear power plants when the wind is not blowing, or blowing too fast.

        90

      • #
        Bill Wood

        Unfortunately, Germany and Iceland have some advantages that Australia lacks. Iceland has abundant geothermal eat sources that come from being on top of a volcanic ridge. Australia lacks active volcanoes. Germany and Denmark can use large quantities of wind power because, when the whirlies are operating near nameplate levels, the excess power can be shipped, without charge, to Sweden. When the wind is not sufficient, the Swedes provide hydro power derived electricity to the continental grid at regular rates. If you are a Swede, what’s not to like.

        All places that have significant power from wind and solar find themselves dependent on baseload power from other places that have not succumbed to carbon reduction or are geologically blessed.

        California imports power from Colorado coal, Arizona hydro and nuclear, and the Grand Coulee dam in Washington. The Washington aluminum companies found that it was economically advantageous to shut down pot lines (carefully, not suddenly) and resell their power to California. As you ave noted, “shipping” electricity has a cost in lost power.

        When was the last major hydropower dam proposed or built in Australia? Australia is shutting down coal and we won’t mention nuclear. SA becomes dependent on a long extension cord from its neighbor.

        Prometheus brought fire to man and it worked very well for man, less so for Prometheus.

        70

        • #

          Australia has other advantages – oodles of land upon which to site wind farms – resulting in capacity factors over 30% in this country, whereas Germany is happy to get 8%.
          This same advantage is helpful for establishing solar PV farms as well as thermal solar plants.
          We are also surrounded by constantly moving water, and to our north tide ranges in the vicinity of 8 metres.

          The real difference between Iceland and Australia, is that Australia is run by people who are in the pockets of big business and who show no consideration in the interests of the nation itself nor its citizens.
          So we have continued subsidies of obsolete technologies run by businesses who pay a fraction of the taxes they should be and grudgingly small efforts to develop and implement modern technology.

          04

          • #
            Mark D.

            …..”resulting in capacity factors over 30%….”

            Right. we lose on every sale but we make it up in volume.

            “The real difference between Iceland and Australia, is that Australia is run by people who are in the pockets of big business and who show no consideration in the interests of the nation itself nor its citizens.”

            Describing the politicians?

            “So we have continued subsidies of obsolete technologies run by businesses who pay a fraction of the taxes they should be and grudgingly small efforts to develop and implement modern technology.”

            No free pass here CT. Define “subsidies”. Explain “obsolete” when poor can no longer afford to keep warm with your f**cking “modern” technology.

            Dumb**.

            No Capital D**MBASS. I hope you are undergoing a major surgery when the “modern” technology 30% C. F. goes off-line.

            20

          • #
            Rollo

            Craig says

            ….So we have continued subsidies of obsolete technologies……..

            I know from your previous posts that you are referring to coal fired plants when you say this. Please stop repeating this mantra without giving specific examples of what you believe are subsidies paid to coal and other fossil fuels.

            10

            • #

              maybe he means these data from the minerals council of Australia

              Total subsidies for electricity production in 2015-16 amounted to more than $3 billion. Of that total, subsidies for electricity generation from renewable sources amounted to $2,968
              million (98 per cent of total), while $63 million in subsidies (2 per cent of total) went to supporting generation from coal (including by supporting coal mining activities that may indirectly benefit electricity generation from coal).

              20

      • #
        Lucky

        Qatar and Australia gas exports-
        Qatar has a very low cost of production.
        Most Australian exported gas is offshore deepwater in origin and so has high production cost
        before considering labor costs.
        The price is set by the market so profitability is different and the scope for large royalty
        payments on a low cost producer is vastly different.

        30

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘We are being thieved from on a national scale by people who should be hung for treason.’

        It was a bipartisan approach, Gillard, Rudd and Abbott all had a hand in this.

        30

    • #
      TedM

      That’s exactly what Alcoa did here in WA.

      40

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Gazman
      That is entirely feasible under the existing rules.
      All that is necessary is for the firm to register with AEMO as a generator.
      A century ago such operations were the norm.
      For example, the Cobb River power station in New Zealand was originally a Hume Pipe enterprise, requiring electricity for its own use and selling the surplus.
      The New Zealand electricity market has dozens of co-generation facilities registered that produce electricity as a byproduct of steam production, selling the surplus.
      In Canada, it was the norm for a pulp and paper company or a mining operation to establish a generating station for the same purposes.
      However, successful companies tend to focus on their core business. I submit that this is probably the reason that this MO rather fell out of favour.

      20

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Craig has finally made one statement I agree with , yes the selling off of our electrical generation assets has led to higher prices I agree .
    The main reason for increased prices lies elsewhere and you know full well that the RET is partly responsible as well as renewables or do you think that the thermal generators can afford to reduce their output when the wind blows and the sunshines and cop a loss .

    110

  • #
    pat

    7 Aug: Nikkei: Hong Kong’s CLP says profits hard to find in Australia, China
    Unfavorable energy prices hit first-half earnings
    by JOYCE HO
    HONG KONG — Regional electricity provider CLP Holdings said Monday trading conditions in Australia and China — its two biggest markets outside Hong Kong — remain tough after operations in those countries dragged down the company’s bottom-line in the first half.

    CLP, short for China Light and Power, posted a 3.5% year-on-year decline in net profit to 5.91 billion Hong Kong dollars ($760 million) in the six months ended June. Revenue grew 12% but expenses rose 15% in the period…

    “In both Australia and China, we are seeing very challenging market conditions,” CEO Richard Lancaster told reporters in Hong Kong on Monday, citing volatile wholesale prices in the former and an upswing in coal prices in the latter.

    The company noted in its earnings report that gas in Australia has become increasingly scarce and expensive. “One aging coal-fired generator was removed from service, and regulatory uncertainty continued. These factors, combined with a hot summer, resulted in high costs for users of energy,” said the company that mainly serves retail customers…

    In mainland China, higher returns from renewable projects and nuclear operations such as the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station in Shenzhen failed to offset the impact of a steep climb in coal prices as well as slowing electricity demand.

    “Coal prices have risen by almost 80% over the last 12 months and the regulated tariffs haven’t been adjusted up to reflect that higher price, so we have seen quite a squeeze on the coal side of our portfolio,” said Lancaster. “Almost none of the coal power generators in China are making much money.”

    But he believed the country would need to adjust its coal tariffs despite “a strong agenda” to shift its reliance to low-carbon energy sources. “China has such enormous dependence on coal as part of its electricity mix, it’s unthinkable to think that that will be sustainable indefinitely,” said Lancaster…

    Though second to Australia by revenue, Hong Kong remained the most profitable market for the company, protected by a guaranteed returns regime on asset value…
    The regime, also known as a scheme of control, allows the company, 35% held by the Kadoorie family, to provide electricity to Kowloon and the New Territories, or over 82% of the city’s population.

    Although the company renewed the scheme with the Hong Kong government in April, which stipulated that the return on average net fixed assets will be cut to 8% from the current 9.9%, it has yet to confirm whether it will slash electricity tariffs. The government suggested a potential reduction of 5%…
    https://asia.nikkei.com/print/article/284560

    10

  • #
    pat

    dated after both stories in these excerpts were debunked! behind paywall:

    9 Aug: UK Times: Why Trump’s generals are feeling the heat
    by Roger Boyes
    The US military is quietly planning for a warming world that will define foreign policy for years
    Another day, another leak. The latest contribution to the ideological wars wrenching apart Donald Trump’s Washington is the information collated by a panel of climate scientists from 13 federal agencies that the United States is getting hotter more quickly and more drastically, in large part because of “human activities”. And such is the political climate that the boffins released the findings before they were authorised, apparently afraid that the Trump administration would suppress the figures.

    The president, meanwhile, has sent a letter to the United Nations confirming that the US will pull out of the Paris climate accord. Emails — yes, also leaked — suggest that officials have been told to drop the phrase “climate change” altogether and to refer to whatever is happening out there as…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-trump-s-generals-are-feeling-the-heat-nlg6dthgh

    and, apparently, the article went from bad to worse, judging from CarbonBrief’s excerpts from the article:

    “Seen from afar…today’s Washington seems like a throwback to 15th century Spain: a fanatical inquisition on the hunt for heretics and a society in ferment, split between true believers and deniers,” he says. But the “The US army in particular has problems” when it comes to climate change, notes Boyes: “Many of its domestic bases are coastal and could be flooded and out of action in 35 years’ time.” “The military advisers to the president have a long wearisome path of persuasion ahead of them,” Boyes warns. “Perhaps Mr Trump will listen and modify his ideas, start to think about how the state should direct investment into the armed forces. Sadly, the US leader will probably only take climate change seriously when his first golf course sinks under the warming water.”

    the once mighty(?) UK Times has joined the FakeNewsMSM. truly disgraceful.

    20

  • #
    pat

    the cheek of WaPo criticising NYT today for their fake Climate Change Report piece, when they have their CARTOONIST covering the story and linking to a WaPo Steve Mufson/Juliet Eilperin piece, which is no better than the NYT article!

    from the linked article:
    “The current situation will provide an acid test of whether the Trump administration is open to hearing the scientific truth about climate change or is so much in the thrall of fossil fuel interests that they are fixated on hiding the reality from the public,” Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University, said Monday night…
    The New York Times reported on the latest draft late Monday. The Washington Post subsequently obtained a third draft of the report. The version at the White House is the fifth draft, but people familiar with both versions say there is no substantive difference…

    8 Aug: WaPo: The Trump administration isn’t a climate scientist, but it plays one on policy decisions
    by Tom Toles, cartoonist
    The United States is now winning in wrecking the climate, ignoring the evidence and making the remaining sane people crazy, too. So much winning.
    There is a new government report (LINK) summarizing the science of climate, and it basically says, again, what we already knew. The planet is warming alarmingly, and humans are largely the cause.

    It has been delivered to the administration, and people everywhere breathlessly await … what? The very best outcome is that the administration will take this as a convenient excuse to bow to reality and repudiate just about everything it has ever said and done so far. I guess there’s that hope.

    But really, everyone who has been open to the preponderance of past evidence and ever-accumulating new evidence has recognized this as screamingly obvious for some time now.

    (Trump) has rounded up a ragtag army of last holdouts on this subject, staffed his administration with them and thrown the United States of America into hard reverse on the most dangerous threat the nation faces.
    There is no way for a sane, rational person to look at this squarely and remain sane. It needs to end, and now…

    We are beyond out of time to declare a crisis-level state of emergency.
    Either the Trump administration changes policy, or it needs to be removed from power for the high crime of inflicting incalculable damage on the nation, or it might as well start implementing a policy of capture and sequestration of the rest of us in the loony bin.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2017/08/08/the-trump-administration-isnt-a-climate-scientist-but-it-plays-one-on-policy-decisions/?utm_term=.6a3f4201632f

    has Toles corrected his article? not at all. here he is today with a nasty cartoon:

    CARTOON: 9 Aug: WaPo: Trump and Pruitt find their desire to save the planet runs hot and cold
    by Tom Toles, cartoonist
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2017/08/09/trump-and-pruitt-find-their-desire-to-save-the-planet-runs-hot-and-cold/?utm_term=.3c530928d88e

    00

  • #
    pat

    as for NYT…did they tone CAGW things down in response to all the criticism of their fake climate report story? not at all…they are back, shrill and loud…and beyond insane:

    9 Aug: NYT: Lindy West: We’re Choking on Smoke in Seattle
    (Lindy West is the author of “Shrill: Notes From a Loud Woman” and a contributing opinion writer.)
    We first noticed the smoke, drifting down from wildfires still burning in British Columbia, around Aug. 2, just as a heat wave sent temperatures spiking well into the 90s (the historical average for that week is 77) and the ubiquitous Pacific winds dwindled to a standstill. “Nature’s air-conditioning is broken,” the National Weather Service told the Seattle Times…

    I haven’t seen a tree move in a week. It’s as though a giant cloche has been placed over the whole region, like God is playing molecular gastronomy and we are her smoked langoustine cotton candy duck balloons. You can feel the air on your skin, powdery and wrong, somehow both sweltering and clammy. Residents have been warned not to exercise; people with asthma are clutching their inhalers, white-knuckled.

    There’s a mental health impact, too. To live in Seattle is to exist, perpetually, in the bargaining stage of grief…
    People are on edge. Traffic seems worse. Yesterday, in the car, my husband was telling me about two guys he saw fighting on the street, when I got distracted by two guys fighting on the street. It’s been a freaky, tense time.

    ***It was evocative, to put it mildly, to read in The Times about a forthcoming federal climate change report while choking on hot, brown smoke.

    Not only are human behaviors “primarily responsible” for climate change, the report says, but the repercussions are not some vague abstraction for distant equatorial communities or our faceless descendants to deal with. Americans are feeling the impacts of climate change right this second.
    “In the United States,” Lisa Friedman wrote, “the report concludes with ‘very high’ confidence that the number and severity of cool nights have decreased since the 1960s, while the frequency and severity of warm days have increased.” The report also notes that cold waves are less common and heat waves are more common…

    ***Scientists are nervously awaiting the Trump administration’s reaction to the report, citing fears that it might be changed or even suppressed altogether in order to appease President Trump’s denialist base and dystopian corporate bedfellows…

    I don’t mean to imply that these wildfires and this smoke are the direct result of human-made climate change. I have no idea. I am not a scientist. What I mean is that they have thrown formerly intangible feelings of dread into stark perspective. All week I have stared at the low, dirty sky and thought, “What if this never left? What if it got worse?”

    Irrespective of their cause, the fires’ impact — the claustrophobia, the tension, the suffocating, ugly air — feels like a preview (and a mild one) of what’s to come if we don’t take immediate and drastic steps to halt and mitigate climate change. Temperatures will almost certainly rise. Air quality will almost certainly decline. I do not want to live like this, and you don’t either….

    Even if you genuinely believe that doom is coming, it is possible to set aside your panic for a while and, say, go get a coffee. Wash your dog. Bicker with your spouse. The stoplights still work and you can still buy avocados at the supermarket and life is still as mundane and tedious as it’s always been. Boredom is somehow even more reassuring than happiness…

    It will take more than good liberals composting their pizza boxes. We need to make profound changes to the way that industry, commerce and corporations function in this country, which means that we need government intervention, which means, unfortunately, that we need a different government…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/opinion/smoke-heat-seattle-climate.html

    is there anyone the FakeNewsMSM considers unfit to write about CAGW? seems not.

    the NYT writer, Lindy West, reminded me of a few writers in Australia, much loved by theirABC, so it wasn’t surprising to find:

    6 Mar: ABC: Lindy West: Men tell me they’d rape me if I wasn’t so fat
    By Courtney Robinson
    (Courtney Robinson is a freelance journalist. She has previously worked for the Nine Network and SBS, and written for The Guardian, Junkee and SBS2′s The Feed)
    West is currently in Australia to promote her book, Shrill: Notes From A Loud Woman (she appeared at the All About Women festival in Sydney and is a panellist on Q&A)…READ ALL
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-06/lindy-west-quitting-twitter-being-loud/8321816

    10

  • #
    Hanrahan

    Aluminium is just coagulated electricity.
    A few kilometers from me is the Korea Zinc refinery. They avoid comment but I suspect that their operation is under constant review. On the other side of town Qld Nickel has shut down and our copper refinery is on life support.
    But we are meeting emission targets, that’s all that matters.

    50

  • #
    Pol Knops

    Quite some of this industry is already powered by “CO2 low” industry:
    - Iceland: Water power
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland#Aluminium

    00

  • #