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

Greens, the baseload deniers, want $2.2b for bandaid batteries to keep junk renewables alive

The Greens are now asking for another $2.2billion to pay for the battery bandaid to fix a problem they and the leeching renewables industry created.

Adam Bandt is out today with the big new plan, apparently confused about what “load” means:

We don’t have a baseload problem, we have a peak load problem,” Mr Bandt said.

No matter how you look at this, it’s not a “load” problem. It’s an issue of supply.

We can count on the Greens to pour confusion on any problem:

“We need flexible generation and energy storage to manage the transition, not more coal.”

Four mistakes in one sentence. We have flexible generation – more than enough to cope with the current load curve. What we need is affordable electricity, which we used to have, and which coal supplies. What we don’t  need is energy storage to manage an irrelevant transition that we never had to have in the first place. Let me say it again, electricity generators are for generating electricity, not for magical attempts to control the climate.

What Adam Bandt  was trying to say:

We The freeloading renewables industry needs flexible generation and energy storage to make up for its unreliable supply, to manage keep the frivolous and expensive transition to renewables from collapsing, not more coal.

Baseload scares the renewables industry and their lobbyists

It’s the great weakness of intermittent renewables. Solar and wind are in dire need of government funded batteries to stop their inefficient, unreliable, subsidy-dependent industry from evaporating. It’s only by paying more billions to “shift the load curve” that the normal load can be adapted to fit the new intermittent supply.

How much?

Such a system could  deliver between 400 and 450-gigawatt hours of storage, which has the potential to power more than 100,000 homes for eight hours.

Or we could save $2b, get the government out of the electricity market, and let someone else spend $2b of their own money building an efficient coal plant that would supply more homes for fifty years at rates much cheaper.

 

h/t Dave B

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (130 votes cast)
Greens, the baseload deniers, want $2.2b for bandaid batteries to keep junk renewables alive, 9.7 out of 10 based on 130 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y7re3tfg

161 comments to Greens, the baseload deniers, want $2.2b for bandaid batteries to keep junk renewables alive

  • #

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an alternate universe where the Greens could be given full control to implement their energy policies and then, in this universe, we could watch the outcomes and learn some lessons. Oh, wait, that’s South Australia. What could we learn?

    680

    • #
      Robdel

      The greens are already dictating energy policy. The quicker we get to a crisis the more rapidly will the populace come to their senses and annihilate the green/labor candidates at the next election. Until then expect more obfuscation from those parties as well as the Turnbull coalition.

      160

    • #
      sophocles

      In this alternate universe, Lithium would grow on trees and be a “renewable” resource. Just grow and harvest the batteries, no need for mining, transport, refining, transport, manufacture and more transport.

      How sweet to be an idiot, how sweet, how sweet. [Neill Innes, 1973.]

      Yes, it’s life at the Funny Farm, where the Nuts hunt the Squirrels …

      150

    • #
      peter

      Perhaps we could find another planet where greenies could live in paradise? Not a planet of middle-men but a planet of green-men. A planet without any coal, oil, gas or uranium where greenies could live in natural harmony without any polluting industry, pesticides, fertilisers, chemicals, plastics or synthetic fabrics. No animals would be harmed so no husbandry or meat-eating. No rivers or valleys would be dammed, no trees cut down or natural flora or fauna interfered with. Life would be lovely – but very difficult!!

      Any bets on how long they would survive? Three days perhaps? Or should we be kind and leave them with 6-months supply of bottled water and canned food – and then they would die?

      60

    • #
      graphicconception

      Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an alternate universe where the Greens could be given full control to implement their energy policies and then, in this universe, we could watch the outcomes and learn some lessons.

      Every time this is raised, I suggest California. I don’t know why they haven’t tried that yet.

      Needless to say, I do not live in California, or anywhere else in the USA!

      10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The Greens think Lithium is a sort of magic pixie dust that will solve their problems. A quick calculation shows we would need $A375 billion worth of Tesla power walls to help stabilise the multiple hundreds of billions we would also need to get enough extra renewable capacity so we can use those unnecessary batteries.
    Alternatively we might spend $A8 billion on several coal fired stations and shut down those stupid wind turbines.

    540

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      What? Shut down their virtue signals? OMG! Think of the cost of the counselling required, not to mention their “safe spaces”.

      380

      • #
        ColA

        Rereke,

        You can’t shut the bird choppers yet – they have not earned enough money to pay for their demolition!!

        On second thoughts, don’t wait, that’s WAY TOO LONG!! :-)

        50

      • #
        Len

        The counselling would be based on the cultural marxism system so totally ineffective.

        00

    • #
      sophocles

      Rereke, you’re not supposed to think about all that. At least the counselling doesn’t do (much) damage. So behave.

      (“I used to behave but it was Boring!” -kid’s T-shirt I saw today :-) ).

      The greens don’t just think Lithium is a form of magic pixie dust, they also think its supplies are inexhaustible. They aren’t. Like all batteries, even Lithium (or Lion) batteries have a finite lifetime. Like all resources, there is only so much to go around. They can, so should, be recycled.

      130

    • #
      StephenP

      Where will we get all this lithium from? With the increased demand for electric vehicles across the world as well as for the backup batteries, it would seem that the best advice is buy shares in lithium producers!

      100

      • #
        Robdel

        I believe that Bolivia and Afghanistan have plentiful supplies of Li, but of course you are correct, those will run out too.

        70

        • #
          sophocles

          Lithium sources are quite wide spread: Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Tibet, China and the US (Dakota, Nevada, and Utah etc). At the moment there is no shortage, but that won’t last forever.

          60

          • #
            ROM

            The availability and supply of Lithium may not be the real problem.

            The real supply problems could arise from the lack of Cobalt for batteries used in transport and as backups [ god forbid ] for renewable energy systems.

            For some light / heavy reading and for your edification re Lithium battery construction as used in electric vehicles and as proposed Grid backups.

            Breakdown of raw materials in Tesla’s batteries and possible bottlenecks

            There are a number of other types of batteries that can be used and perhaps are more suited to Grid backup such as the continuous flow liquid battery technology.

            .
            Nevertheless all of these proposed energy storage technologies are hideously expensive and abjectly unreliable solutions to a perceived and supposedly planet destroying problem for which there is NO evidence existing in real life outside of unproven, unverifiable climate models that have been promoted by a bunch of purported climate scientists of somewhat dubious ethics along with ethics free climate catastrophe and renewable energy pimps of the green political persuasion.
            .

            But in line with Jo’s headline on baseload power.

            A look at the Australian Energy Update 2016 Energy Consumption by Industry;table, Page 9, indicates that “electricity supply” uses [ coal,oil and etc ] 28.2% of Australia’s energy consumption.

            Transport uses 27.2% of our energy consumption.

            So in short, Transport in Australia uses almost as much energy as is used by the electrical energy producing sector itself.
            .

            If we assume that about half of our current vehicle and Transport energy needs are converted from fossil fuels to battery / electrical use.

            Plus assuming about 10% of the transmitted electrical power to recharge the battery powered transport sector is lost as transmission losses particularly over Australia’s long distances.

            Plus allowing very roughly a 20% loss of energy from the inherent inefficiencies arising from from the discharge / recharge of the batteries in the electrically powered transport sector.

            It might well mean that we here in Australia will have to increase our current Baseload power production by at least a minimum of 60% to 70% JUST to meet the demands and cover the inefficiencies and losses if we propose like some EU nations as well as a couple of American states to make a, say, a 50% transition of our national vehicle transport fleet from fossil fuels to an electrical/ battery technology.

            NOBODY as in NOBODY in political circles let alone of the Green cult has even mentioned such a situation or provided any comments at all as to what is entailed in a transition from fossil fuels to an electrically powered vehicle transport system in all of their impractical and irrelevant and incomprehensible planet saving utterly irresponsible blatherings as the purported leaders our nation in all of their empty of reality, blustering Green virtue signalling blatherings.

            80

    • #
      graphicconception

      The Greens think Lithium is a sort of magic pixie dust that will solve their problems. A quick calculation …

      You have already gone exceeded the brain power of the average greenie. They have lots of good ideas on the face of it but they all become difficult when you start to calculate just how much of everything you need.

      It is fun to calculate how many US Ivanpah solar farms you would need to build every week, for ever, to power the USA or to calculate how many Tesla Gigafactories you would need to build each week to store the energy just in case the sun does not shine for a few hours – like at night, for instance – or when the wind does not blow if you are using wind turbines.

      You need to build them at a constant rate because the old ones wear out and need replacing.

      Then I remember the report that came out not too long ago that said that “renewable” energy systems can never produce enough energy to replace themselves and I spot a problem.

      10

  • #

    Intermittent, unreliable, expensive, diffuse, inefficient, imported, rare resource-heavy, oil/gas-backed, grid-unfriendly, space-hungry, ridge-damaging, people-maddening, tree and-bird negating, counter-conservationist antique technology. (Heavy, inadequate, hyper-expensive, imported, polluting, degrading, old-fashioned batteries not included.)

    What’s your next retro idea, Adam? Encarta CDs in every classroom?

    310

  • #
    Dennis

    Is there an intelligence test and psychological appraisal required for candidates for election to the Senate?

    202

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think it is a mandatory requirement for each Senator to be able to spell their full name correctly, and do so, without breaking the crayon.

      320

    • #
      john karajas

      It’s even worse than that, Dennis, Adam Bandt is Member of the House of Representatives. He has been voted in by virtue-signalling inhabitants of inner Melbourne, very few of whom know anything about the real world.

      381

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Is there an intelligence test and psychological appraisal required for Greens candidates”

      Yes.. and they HAVE to FAIL it.

      302

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Andy I’m not sure if there’s an intelligence test but you will nearly always see him with earphones on and if you can manage to prise one loose and listen to it you’ll hear “breathe in , breath out , breathe in ,breath out”.

        81

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Yes but you need a steady supply of, as Vladimir Lenin said, useful idiots, to carry out their communist agenda….

        50

    • #
      Yonniestone

      As Jo highlighted above the total oversight of what the citizens he’s supposed to represent really need, cheap affordable energy that helps generate growth, its difficult to think that people in positions of power can be so incompetent about issues that is essentially their jobs, or even more difficult to fathom is the entire circus has been staged in a cruel Kabuki styled act that is entirely written by poor players that write their own cheques with a nations debt.

      101

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        But yet his electorate continues to vote for him.

        Work that out.

        60

        • #
          ivan

          Either get a copy of the film ‘Idiocracy’ and watch it or read ‘The Marching Morons’ by C M Kornbluth that it was based on and you will have the answer to why the vote is the way it is.

          I don’t think that anyone saw the book or film as being prophetic when they came out. Look around now and see that they are.

          60

    • #
      John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

      A commonsense test will do.

      50

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    …we could … get the government out of the electricity market, and let someone else spend … their own money building an efficient coal plant …

    Nice thought, but given the real history of the way that the Australian Government cannot resist meddling with commercial enterprise, I doubt that anybody would want to take the risk. At least, not for the price-point levels that were commonplace before the Australian Government drank the cool aid.

    Any commercial enterprise would have to allow for a margin for risk, which would push the prices for electricity sky-high. Sorry to mention it, but you are all doomed.

    120

    • #
      Yonniestone

      There’s absolutely zero chance of this happening with the current parasites in parliament, we need either a Trump-esque character to rally the nation or when things get really desperate a massive civil uprising that circumvents the system.

      130

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      you are all doomed

      Well then, roll on the “doom” so we can get this over and done with while I’m still alive.

      I want to see and hear the tumbrels rattling through the streets full of green refuse going to Les Bois de Justice.

      110

  • #
    Bitter&twisted

    Green greed for other people’s money is constantly renewable.

    200

  • #
    pat

    4 Oct: Bloomberg: Storms Spur $22 Billion Investment in Battery-Backed Grids
    By Chris Martin
    Growing demand for more resilient power supplies will spur $22.3 billion of global investment in battery-backed local energy systems over the next decade, according to Navigant Research.

    Villages and homes in far-flung places will drive the expansion of microgrids, small-scale solar systems with batteries that can retain power until it’s needed. Navigant expects 14.9 gigawatts to be in operation in 2026, up from 238 megawatts this year, according to a report (LINK) Tuesday…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/storms-unleash-22-billion-in-spending-for-battery-backed-grids

    NavigantResearch: Market Data: Energy Storage for Microgrids
    Advanced Batteries and Flywheels for Grid-Tied and Remote Microgrid Applications: Global Market Analysis and Forecasts
    https://www.navigantresearch.com/research/market-data-energy-storage-for-microgrids

    it’s clear what drives Navigant Research:

    Navigant Research Expects More Than $37 Billion Worth of Wind Blade Materials to Be Produced and Purchased between 2017 and 2026
    Business Wire (press release)-27 Sep. 2017

    00

  • #
    pat

    totally ridiculous, but we are getting close to COP23 in Bonn, and I can tell u there is an EXTREME ramping up of CAGW alarm online:

    5 Oct: ABC: Kate Doyle: BOM drops a special climate statement explaining why it was so hot in September
    We all lived through it, but today the Bureau of Meteorology made it official that September 2017 had some significantly hot days.
    It was so significant that BOM released a Special Climate Statement for only the fourth time this year…

    “We broke quite a number of September temperature records,” said Agata Imielska, a senior BOM climatologist and one of the key contributors behind the statement.
    “The most notable of those was the warmest September day for New South Wales’ state-wide average temperatures.”
    But there were many more…READ ON
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-05/september-was-a-scorcher-according-to-bom-special-memo/9018402

    60

    • #
      pat

      btw this is the “scorcher” headline on the ABC “Just In” page:

      September was a scorcher according to BOM special memo

      40

    • #
      Annie

      Maybe it was warm in some places in September but it was cold around here in North Central Victoria, so, BOM, stop trying to brainwash me into not believing the evidence of my own senses…thank you!

      110

      • #
        Bob in Castlemaine

        Dead right Annie, here in Central Victoria our blue pacific bush has just come into full bloom, that’s two and a half weeks later than usual. This bush is usually like clockwork in heralding the arrival of spring, flowering on or about the 22 September every year, regular as clockwork. Obviously this poor bush didn’t know that it’s been our hottest “evah” winter. Guess it didn’t have access to the BoM’s whiz-bang computers and data collection resources aye?

        60

        • #
          Wayne Job

          I had two beautiful blue bushes, they are both in the throes of death from extreme cold
          , wind and wet feet . South Gipsland. Long cold winter.

          20

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Let’s face it we’re doomed anyway , just for fun can’t we all vote green next election, buy heaps of pop corn and sit back and watch the ensuing chaos .

    140

    • #
      Annie

      I will NEVER vote Green, ever, even just for ‘fun’. Their ‘policies’ are not at all working towards the common good and therefore are actually evil.

      140

  • #
    Craig

    The guy is a complete lunatic. Without a pollies pay, he would be only be employable as a school janitor cleaning the latrines.

    121

    • #
      AndyG55

      Not sure I would let him anywhere near a school !!

      132

      • #
        James

        Legalization of pedophilia was part of the German Greens platform until about 10 or 15 years ago. So you are 100 percent correct!

        101

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Work Ha!, these creatures purely exist to to get as much as they can for the least amount of effort, free money is the white truffle for this breed of swine.

      72

    • #
      gnome

      Before he was a pollie he was a lawyer. What have you got against clean toilets in schools?

      30

    • #
      Another Ian

      As that old song says

      “My job is to clean an army latrine

      I’m the man with the plan

      For the pan that everyone uses”

      Sounds like a revised version of the plan

      20

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    In 2001, whilst on my way to hear a speech in Westminster Hall by the Labour Science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, I discussed this issue with FoE people. They claimed we were to build the EU wide Virtual power station – solely renewables. I told them it would never work above 20%. The rest should be nuclear to be CO2 free.

    This Green dream is a Marxist ego trip by technologically-ignorant bullies backed up by corrupt climate scientists pushing false science based on two fundamental mistakes. Only now the experiment has been done have they realised their big mistake. The likes of Tesla’s batteries are simply a way of corporate survival now electric cars have been proved to be uncommercial without owners bludging subsidies.- using Obama’s subsidies to bail out WA temporarily until the cost and efficiency of the battery packs prove they are just a way of keeping Grid oscillation for short times, whilst SA deindustrialises to the level that the average voter realises their technologically ignorant MPs have forced their power system to revert to diesel – low efficiency, high pollution.

    OK they are now desperately installing high efficiency CCGTs but fail to realise they must be operated at > 60% maximum output, otherwise you lose the steam cycle. So, over 15 years they will have converted a cheap coal base load system to an expensive gas base load system even less able to cope with the wind and PV supply fluctuations.

    In the UK we face the same level of dogma in Theresa May and the people who run power in her government. With a bit of luck she’ll be gone to be replaced by a non-Marxist pragmatist, willing to take the heat by confronting the technologically ignorant, including the National Grid Company. Our Grid is now on the verge of becoming SA-II. Huge diesel packs in government buildings and old quarries do the power humping whilst the Marxist politicians boast about the windmills, essentially a modern version of Easter Island statue virtue signalling.

    Central Europe is using Czech and French nuclear baseload. Our nukes are nearly gone. The social effects are now being felt as Brexit progresses. However, that will allow us to operate independently of EU Marxists to keep unemployment <10%.

    240

    • #
      Dennis

      I am concerned that our two major political parties want Australia in the EU.

      I first became suspicious when the Labor Government here admitted that their longer term plan for their Carbon Tax was emissions trading by joining the EU ETS. Next was the announcement of participation in the Eurovision contest which continues to take place. And adoption of so many European Standards despite there being Australia New Zealand Standards for the conditions we experience that are often quite different to the conditions in Europe. And recently the signing of a trade agreement between Australia and EU member nations with terms and conditions that I believe favour EU standards.

      Our politicians are following United Nations requirements more and more, and therefore the EU too.

      The recent announcement that diesel engine vehicles will be banned from sale in Australia within a few years time is another example.

      130

      • #
        peter

        The GHS (Global Harmonised Systems) has been implemented worldwide to standardise systems to reduce trade/technical problems in export/import. They generally replace local standards, including safety symbols on trucks, containers, legislation, documents etc. It appears the Europeans dominated the drafting of the GHS. The Europeans are good at bureaucracy. Read into that what you will.

        60

  • #
    pat

    5 Oct: Globe&MailCanada: B.C.’s carbon tax: Revenue neutrality couldn’t survive exposure to politics
    by PETER SHAWN TAYLOR
    (Peter Shawn Taylor is a journalist, policy research analyst and contributor to Canadians for Affordable Energy)
    The dream of a revenue-neutral carbon tax is over.
    The notion of carbon tax perfection has always centred on revenue neutrality − whatever governments reaped by taxing carbon dioxide emissions would be returned to taxpayers via tax cuts in other areas. In this way the overall cost of climate change policy would be nil…
    Unfortunately, the recent provincial budget in British Columbia proves such a textbook idyll can not survive exposure to the political realm…

    While personal and corporate income taxes comprised almost all compensatory cuts in the first few years, over time the B.C. government started to claim cuts in obscure and politically motivated areas. Film tax credits, always a dubious proposition from a taxpayers’ perspective, eventually became a major source of carbon tax compensation. As did tax breaks for “interactive digital media.”
    A Fraser Institute report earlier this year points out many of the alleged tax reductions were from credits that existed before being claimed as carbon tax relief, or that should otherwise be considered ineligible. By their calculations, B.C.’s carbon tax ceased to be appropriately revenue neutral in the 2013-14 budget year. Now, with the ascension of the NDP-Green Party government in Victoria, all pretense to revenue neutrality has been dropped.

    The recent provincial budget not only makes plans to hike the carbon tax by two-thirds – rising from $30/tonne to $50/tonne by 2021 − but eliminates from law the requirement for offsetting tax cuts. From now on the Horgan government plans to use its carbon tax windfall to “create jobs, benefit communities and reduce climate pollution.” In other words, all the usual things governments spend your tax dollars on already.

    B.C. taxpayers have thus become the victims of a grand deception. Having agreed to a carbon tax on a solemn promise of strict revenue neutrality, their carbon tax has been turned into just another garden-variety government tax grab. It seems a betrayal.

    Such duplicity has significance outside B.C. as well. Clearly any reference to implementing a “textbook” carbon tax must now be dismissed as mere ivory tower idealism. The platonic ideal of revenue neutrality is no match for the eager hands of political opportunism. Giving the money directly back to taxpayers never had a chance in the long run. And without the gold standard of B.C.’s revenue neutral tax acting as a template, other provinces are now free to indulge themselves in Green Fund spending orgies − rewarding favoured industries, handing out foolish energy subsidies and otherwise bolstering their re-election chances – without fear of any troublesome real world counterarguments.

    However governments decide to price carbon dioxide emissions − either via a direct tax or an indirect cap-and-trade system – in the end it’s just another efficiency-reducing, growth-stifling, wallet-shrinking tax. Like all the others
    https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/bcs-carbon-tax-revenue-neutrality-couldnt-survive-exposure-to-politics/article36488526/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&amp;

    30

  • #
    pat

    3 Oct: E&E News: Japan is king of efficiency. But it’s losing climate passion
    by Umair Irfan
    (This article was supported by a grant from the International Center for Journalists and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation)
    Several environmental groups teamed up to organize the rally and planned to accommodate 10,000 attendees. But only about 1,000 people showed up. Many of the people in the parade brought their children, holding signs that read “Climate Action Now!” in English, while someone in a polar bear costume led the procession through Tokyo’s Shibuya crossing. But planners found the numbers disappointing.

    “It was quite far from what we were trying to get,” said Ayumi Fukakusa, an energy and climate change campaigner with Friends of the Earth Japan who helped organize the parade.
    It stood in stark contrast to climate change rallies at the same time in other parts of the world, where tens of thousands of demonstrators in cities like Paris, London and Melbourne, Australia, were met with riot police and tear gas.
    “When we see the entire country of Japan, we see the sense of danger toward climate change is still low,” Fukakusa said.

    Public momentum behind countering climate change has been slow to mount in many countries, but its sluggishness in Japan has surprised some…
    With the United States now exiting the Paris climate accord, activists in Japan are concerned about losing ground and want to make the government pursue more aggressive actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    But it’s hard to build their ranks in a country where political discussions make people cringe and public protests are taboo. And young people, the foundation of environmental movements around the world, are thought to be losing interest in climate-related issues in Japan, the world’s fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter…

    However, there isn’t much public pressure to end Japan’s support of fossil fuel combustion domestically or abroad, particularly since air pollution has declined in Japan, making the environment a back-burner issue for most people.
    “There’s a bit of a bubble that’s happening in Japan,” Furuno said. “Because Japan’s energy resources, close to 90 percent, is imported from overseas, the general public doesn’t see that it’s excavated from mines in Australia and Indonesia.”…
    https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060062339

    30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Thanks Graeme No 3 for the very clear choice: do we want to spend $375 billion on our electricity or just $8 billion?

    60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      KK:

      Like all Green schemes the first cost is merely the start. It is no good having lots of batteries to make renewables useful, but you also have to have the renewables to use said batteries. So instead of 41GW of conventional (reliable) capacity we would need 258GW capacity of renewables** to ensure reliable supply. I was a bit surprised by that figure as we are always told that renewables are cheaper for the same capacity, but that ignores that renewables are really only 30% (at best) of their quoted capacity for a start. And it illustrates how much conventional sources boost renewables.
      And no solar panel nor wind turbine is going to be producing much after 45 years.

      ** Allowing for similar generation performance as at present, the lower Capacity Factor and the charge/discharge losses (12%). No allowance made for extra losses in transmission lines from Ship Creek or Woop Woop.

      120

      • #
        James Murphy

        The die-hard “renewable” people I have tried to interact with, are unable to explain exactly how electricity will be made cheaper by private citizens adding a whole new layer of expensive electrical infrastructure on top of power generation companies spending their money, and tax payers money to generate less electricity, less reliably than before.

        Apparently, despite them living in South Australia, they still seem to think wind and solar power is “free”, whilst also complaining about their electricity bills increasing every quarter. Mental illness is as sad to witness as it is intriguing.

        I sometimes wonder if SA would be better run if a couple of Balfours Frog Cakes were put in charge.

        100

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Graeme and James.

          Between you, you have covered the important issues.

          The much shouted “lowering of renewables costs” perpetuated by an unthinking or at times complicit media is a major factor in people siding with the renewables scam. You can’t blame people for believing what they hear on the government sanctioned media. The problem is that media.

          Having an outright comparison for the generation of the same amount of power by both systems is an excellent start to showing people just how bad renewables are cost wise.

          Most people could easily understand the difference between $375 and $8 million.

          Currently the cost of renewables in cunningly hidden in an electricity bill which I would suspect couldn’t even be decoded by the politicians who authorized it.

          Electricity used to be a basic service provided by the government. It is now like the worldwide banking and investment industry which don’t do much for the consumer but provide a lot of cream for the elites.

          And the ultimate point in all of this is that so called renewables are the most polluting option possible by a long margin.

          Renewables are environmentally unfriendly, vastly more expensive than conventional power generation and a good cover to hide the other major ripoff: gold plating the wires and poles.

          We have been treated as fools by our political masters on both sides as they laugh their way to the bank.

          KK

          120

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            KK:

            Without wishing to defend the Grid operators who are undoubtedly making more money (like every company in the supply chain) from the current mess, but I should point out that distributed generation brings problems. Such as electricity coming into the grid from roof top PV solar. This has to be ‘blocked’ at the neighbourhood transformer to prevent electrocutions of linesmen working up-stream. It also helps voltage regulation.
            The other thing is the influence of renewables which were recently listed as causing a minor percentage increase only in your bill. This ducked around the increase in margins for the retailers who will claim they are taking the same percentage as before (i.e. “we are only taking 6% (say) now the same as previously. Before you award them the Good Samaritan medal work out 6% of $150 and 6% $350.

            30

  • #
    pat

    22 Aug: Manhattan Institute: New York’s Clean Energy Programs: The High Cost of Symbolic Environmentalism
    by Jonathan A. Lesser
    (Jonathan A. Lesser, PhD, is the president of Continental Economics, an economic litigation and consulting firm)
    Abstract
    In 2016, the New York Public Service Commission enacted the Clean Energy Standard (CES), under which 50% of all electricity sold by the state’s utilities must come from renewable generating resources by 2030, and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) must be reduced by 40%. The CES also incorporates New York’s previous emissions reduction mandate, which requires that the state’s GHG emissions be reduced 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (the “80 by 50” mandate).

    Key Findings
    •Given existing technology, the CES’s 80 by 50 mandate is unrealistic, unobtainable, and unaffordable. Attempting to meet the mandate could easily cost New York consumers and businesses more than $1 trillion by 2050…READ ALL
    (LINK) READ FULL REPORT
    https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/new-yorks-clean-energy-programs-high-cost-symbolic-environmentalism-10565.html

    40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Will the mainstream media give this publication any airplay, I think not.

      The public are being kept in the dark and fed on mushroom fodder.

      30

  • #
    TedM

    This is a typical green talk-fest in the usual intellectual vacuum.

    31

  • #
    pat

    Perisher Snow Report: Huge News: We Are Extending the Season!
    Wahoo – With the Best Conditions in 17 Years, Perisher Extends the Season to Sunday October 8!
    Prepare yourselves…here at Perisher we are proud of having the longest snow season in Australia. On the back of over 2 metres of snow falling through the month of August and a further 140cm through September; we are extending the season through till Sunday 8 October, the end of the New South Wales School Holidays!

    Who doesn’t love spring skiing and boarding? And with the most amount of snow since 2000 it’s the best in 17 years.

    It’s almost too good to be true…almost.
    https://www.perisher.com.au/tickets-passes/prices/huge-news-we-are-extending-the-season

    100

  • #
    pat

    4 Oct: WKOW/ABC27: Record-breaking snow in Montana
    By Star Derry
    GREAT FALLS, MONTANA (WKOW) — Overnight temperatures plunged into the teens and snow is stuck on the ground after a record-breaking snowfall. In Havre, Montana, thirteen inches of snow fell between Monday and Tuesday which made it the highest 2-day October snowfall on their record. This broke the record set back in 1898.

    The snowfall was wet and heavy which made shoveling and plowing a challenge and also dragged down power lines. Hundreds are still without power Wednesday morning. Plow drivers are reporting sleep deprivation which is adding to the safety concerns on those roads.
    http://www.wkow.com/story/36517656/2017/10/Wednesday/record-breaking-snow-in-montana

    4 Oct: LivingstoneEnterprise: Up to 30 inches of snow, power outages in northern Montana
    The National Weather Service in Great Falls reports the storm dumped 2 ½ feet (76 centimeters) of snow in the Bears Paw Mountains south of Havre and east of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation. Meteorologist Paul Nutter says snow drifted up to 6 feet (1.8 meters) deep.

    Hill County officials say the city of Havre received about 15 inches (38 centimeters) of snow. The heavy wet snow and wind knocked down trees and power lines
    http://www.livingstonenterprise.com/content/30-inches-snow-power-outages-northern-montana

    40

  • #
    King Geo

    “Greens, the baseload deniers, want $2.2b for bandaid batteries to keep junk renewables alive”.

    This won’t happen under Trump in the USA – is it any wonder the Dow has risen nearly 25% since his election 10 mths ago. Business tax to be reduced drastically, businesses to flourish, cheap energy, low unemployment etc etc. Clearly the USA Economy is going to go gangbusters and Trump has 3 more years to reign.

    On the other hand, unfortunately here in Oz, we have “insipid leftie Turnbull” steering the “Oz Titanic” towards oblivion via promoting Economy killing RE, letting cheap fossil fuel base-load energy to wither & die, and as a consequence chart a course for an equally ruinous path as the EU whose fast tracking to RE has led to a dysfunctional economy, rampant youth unemployment etc etc – this is where Oz is heading – yes a path to self destruction – believe me – car industry totally gone this year – manufacturing industries to collapse – where are the future jobs for our youth going to be found? Maybe they should head off to the USA and hope to get a “green card” – how ironic. Driven out of Oz by “Green Idealogy” to survive via a “Green Card” in a burgeoning USA Economy.

    90

    • #
      toorightmate

      King Geo,
      In that same time frame, the ASX200 has sky rocketed 4.3%.
      Aren’t we the clever country?
      It must be due to those genius types we have – such as Adam Brandt, Alan Finkel, Julia Gillard, Tim Flannery, Clive Palmer, etc.
      Oh, to be a professor.

      51

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well now the new fence around the top of parliament house makes more sense if you look at it through the lens of reality…..

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      Low wages growth and world’s highest electricity pricing is responsible for a major decline in retail sales in Australia I read recently.

      Economic growth (GDP) is down around 2 per cent per year but 3.5 per cent is required to move forward.

      The Reserve Bank of Australia has again decided not to lift the base interest rate.

      Meanwhile, in Canberra, debt continues to grow and our monies continue to be used to gift the UN, gift foreign countries, subsidise renewable energy (add $100 million recently to encourage fleet leasing of EV Tesla) etc.

      40

  • #
    toorightmate

    The next time the boys at the Aluminium smelters have issues with phase harmonics, they will know who to call.
    That font of all electrical knowledge – the world famous Adam Brandt.

    131

  • #
    ROM

    Just so that we can all see where the greens and their running dogs in the media and politics are coming from;

    Via “Quotes” from C3 Headlines
    .

    Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: ………

    .“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.
    .

    Quote by Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation: …………

    “The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
    .

    Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University:………..

    “We contend that the position of the nuclear promoters is preposterous beyond the wildest imaginings of most nuclear opponents, primarily because one of the purported “benefits” of nuclear power, the availability of cheap and abundant energy, is in fact a liability.”

    ——————————

    What is truly astonishing is what appears to be a total and utterly profound and deliberately wilful ignorance of the most simple and basic understandings of the energy technologies and most other technologies that drive and have become the basis for very survival and advancement of our civilisation amongst those who profess to belong to the Greens and other radical environmental organisations.

    The Greens in fact along with their running dogs in media and politics have become the very nasty anti-technology, civilisation destroying Luddites of our age with their apparent attempts through trying to use and promote wind power as our sole energy source to take our civilisation back to the medieval times of some 300 years ago to before the start of the British Industrial Revolution where only wind power, water wheels and human and animal muscle power were the only energy sources available to mankind.

    Sadly they appear too ignorant to even realise just what their aims might entail for mankind’s and their own futures if they were too ever succeed in the so called environmental and for most of mankind, deadly aims they profess to adhere to.
    .

    I have a couple of challenges for all the commenters, the green trolls and red thumbers and even the lurkers here on Jo’s blog.

    1/ Name one or more of the Greens major policies that have actually worked and have been successful and have advanced the wellbeing of mankind.

    2/ Name one or more of the greens policies that have never needlessly and totally unnecessarily caused needless pain, suffering and deprivation to all those of a lower status and lower income brackets.

    3 / Name a single one of the Greens policies that have not been riddled with gross hypocrisy by and from the very same greens who have promoted those policies in the first place.

    I have no doubt at all that others here can add many more such truly condemning criteria for the outcomes of the various policies of the green movement over the past decades to the above short list

    171

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      What is truly astonishing is what appears to be a total and utterly profound and deliberately wilful ignorance of the most simple and basic understandings of the energy technologies

      Take another look. They know exactly what they are doing. It is their clear intent to destroy technological civilization by their attack on the production of abundant inexpensive industrial quantities of energy. Their plan is working because of the almost total lack of We the People’s understanding of the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Which is in simple terms “there is no such thing as a free lunch”.

      The excuse for their attack was once “it’s for the children”. Now “it’s for the planet.” Finally it will be “it’s for the extinction of humans” which is what it was from the get go.

      The issue is not that they want to live at your expense, they want you do die. Since they cannot/will-not produce the values necessary for humans to live, they resent their inherent responsibility to do so. Hence their “will to power” expresses itself in destruction of such values. It is of little consequence to them that such behavior undercuts their ability to sustain their own lives as long as you die in the process.

      101

      • #
        Chris in Hervey Bay

        Take another look. They know exactly what they are doing. It is their clear intent to destroy technological civilization by their attack on the production of abundant inexpensive industrial quantities of energy.

        And from Maurice Strong, United Nations.

        What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about

        Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing-are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.

        The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.

        We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

        Join up the dots.

        50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Here’s a really good way to upset the Green machine , recycling lithium batteries using Co2 .

    This bench-scale physical process, which has been demonstrated for several cathode types, recovers battery materials for reinsertion into the battery supply chain with little or no additional processing. Breached discharged cells are placed in a container to which CO2 is added, and the temperature and pressure are raised to bring CO2 above its critical point. The supercritical carbon dioxide extracts the electrolyte (ethyl methyl carbonate, diethyl carbonate, and LiPF6) from the cells, and is removed. The electrolyte separates from the gaseous CO2, and after further processing, can be recycled for use in batteries if it is determined to be economic. The cells, devoid of electrolyte, undergo pulverization or other size-reduction steps, possibly in the absence of water or oxygen to avoid contamination of materials. Subsequently, the cell components are separated through techniques that exploit differences in electronic conductivity, density, or other properties. Cathode materials may need to undergo re-lithiation prior to reuse in batteries.

    41

    • #
      ROM

      And the cost of all that?

      Who pays?

      Australia, the Land of Drought and Flooding Rains!

      Re the Flooding Rains bit!

      As all those electric Lithium battery powered cars or in fact any battery powered cars have their heavy batteries placed low in the chassis for centre of gravity purposes as well as convenience and therefore close to the road clearance and as Lithium and water or most battery chemicals react together to often form highly inflammable and / or toxic gases , a few electric vehicles caught in one of those flooding rain situations is quite likely going to lead to a few rather nasty endings for some very unfortunate individuals as they try to drive through flood waters and the water gets into the battery compartments.

      What truly staggers me is the total lack of any concept amongst the greens, plus the politicians of every stripe and colour and nearly all of the media of the colossal amounts of power that will be needed to be generated along with a total immensely costly heavy duty Grid rebuild to carry the short period of a couple of hours only peak power to charge up a national fleet of electric vehicles.

      And this heavy duty Grid and energy producing systems built almost solely to handle peak charging of electric vehicles across often vast distances in Australia and other low density populated regions of the world.
      As well as the colossal cost of building the energy and grid infrastructure to replace fossil fuel powered vehicles and transport with a battery storage electrically powered vehicle and transport system.

      Nobody anywhere in authority speaks of this enormous shift in energy sources for transportation of every type or ever mentions the potential cost of such a infrastructure or even less , who pays for such grid infrastructure .

      With the petroleum fuelled vehicles , the cost of servicing those vehicles with fuel and etc has been borne through the profits made from selling fuel to the motorists and vehicle operators.

      Will the electric vehicle industry pay for this immense transition to a new vehicle energy source or does the poor old tax payer get lumbered with the whole damn debacle allover again whilst the electric vehicle promoters get away scot free all over again?

      The politicals , the media, the greens and etc all just blithely blather on about how they are going to phase out fossil fuel vehicles in the next dozen years or by 2025 or 2030, take your pick, without ever even giving a hint that they have any idea let alone any concept of what is entailed.

      They, that is the greens, the green left politicals or most of the politicals and media simply don’t seem have a clue and are strikingly or deliberately ignorant [ they won't be around anymore in politics when their legislation is brought into effect so won't have to suffer the from the invariable accusations of a complete political FU , the NBN being a classic case of such a political FU where the principals have left the scene with all the loot and no responsibility ] about what is entailed if they try to force a shift to electric / battery power for our national vehicle fleet and transport system.

      A few South Australian type blackouts and no charging of batteries in both the grid and in vehicles and the pollies sitting for a day or so in some god forsaken black hole with no water, food, heating, cooling and going nowhere for a long time ahead until power is restored and the vehicle batteries recharged would likely lead to a rapid transition back to fossil fuels.

      Somehow I don’t think I will be investing my non existent fortune in the lithium and lithium battery industry.

      I figured that I might wait a little to see if the Nano aluminium offers fuel cells on demand – just add water comes to anything.
      Non toxic.
      Probably can be re-constitutable as another load of fuel just by feeding power into a removable in seconds fuel cartridge .
      A possible Cartridge type replacement of fuel for another few hundred kilometres driving range.
      Produces hydrogen and converts that to electrical power for driving in a fuel.
      And etc.

      92

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT , ABC will never check facts so I’m assuming not telling the truth is good for journalism these days .
    They insist that heat is the biggest weather related killer but a simple google check would show its cold weather that is by far the biggest killer .

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-05/september-was-a-scorcher-according-to-bom-special-memo/9018402

    71

  • #
    tom0mason

    The Greens fail to understand what base load is.

    So for all you numbnut Green out there — the base load is lots of paying customers DEMANDING electricity, that amount of demand is more or less fixed over any particular day of the week, though the actual customers will vary.

    ¯
    So what do the Green ignoramuses want to do?
    Cut-off paying customers, and end up with Australia being no better than the worst of any of the third world with rolling blackouts and all that follows — unsafe food, reliable water supply, A/C, heating, and lighting gone. Would also destroy any reliability for your green communications, mobile phone connections, MSM broadcasts etc., so it wouldn’t be all bad.
    The only method to mitigate against that (like any third world country) is for businesses and private citizens will go off-grid and run their own generators. So you Greens, what type of generator would they buy? In all probability a diesel, thus ensuring more pollution and causing a worsening of the country’s financial balance.

    72

  • #
    pat

    4 Oct: Bloomberg: Tesla Holders Forgive Slow-Go Model 3 as Nomura Sees $500 Stock
    by Dana Hull & David Welch
    Shareholders shrugging off Tesla Inc.’s plodding start with its newest electric car were backed up by the newest analyst to start covering the company, who instantly became the biggest bull on Wall Street.
    Nomura analyst Romit Shah recommended buying Tesla shares, slapped a $500 price target on them and predicted an “unprecedented run-up” in revenue in his first report on the company Tuesday. The bullish call followed the carmaker’s announcement that it had made just 260 Model 3 sedans in the third quarter, well short of its 1,500 unit forecast.

    Investors excused Elon Musk for failing to deliver on another ambitious target…
    Tesla shares extended gains after regular trading, climbing 0.8 percent to $351.01 as of 5:25 p.m. in New York. The stock closed up 1.9 percent…

    Shah, who now has the highest price target among the analysts tracked by Bloomberg, projected Tesla revenue will surge to $58 billion in 2021. He said the company has an “insurmountable lead” in vehicle range per dollar and called its competitors “largely inferior.”…

    “Let’s face that the Model 3 is actually sort of a beta test right now,” short-seller Jim Chanos, who’s betting against Tesla shares, said on Bloomberg Television last week. “Even though it has been released, it’s in the hands of employees and friends of the company.”…

    The Palo Alto, California-based automaker had previously said that it would build 20,000 of the cars a month by December, and then 500,000 total vehicles a year in 2018. The company didn’t reaffirm or change that guidance Monday…

    Michael LaChapelle, a portfolio manager at FoxForge Capital, which has a short position in Tesla, said he’s surprised the market reaction has been so muted.
    “Eight weeks ago, Tesla said they would make 1,500 cars in the quarter. For a car manufacturer to not make a number from eight weeks ago — that’s crazy,” he said. “To me, it says that Elon is just guessing. If they can’t get from 30 to 1,500, how are they going to get to 500,000?”
    https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/2017/10/03/tesla-delays-don-t-faze-investors-banking-on-safe-not-sorry

    40

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    5 Oct: Daily Telegraph: Bella d’Abrera: Sydney Uni wants students to unlearn civilisation
    (Dr Bella d’Abrera is the Director of the Foundations of Western Civilisation Program at the Institute of Public Affairs)
    Australia’s oldest and most prestigious institution of higher education, the University of Sydney, has reached an all- time low. In a remarkable act of institutional suicide, the university has introduced a compulsory initiative to “unlearn”.
    In one fell swoop, it has done ­itself out of a job…

    And if you think “truth” is ­objective, think again.
    According to the university, we live in a post-truth world, where everything is true and everything is false.
    One of its Orwellian “Post Truth” initiatives is to be the authority for fact-checking fake news. But how will it do this if it doesn’t believe in truth or facts in the first place?…

    On Tuesday, the university ventured out of academia into the world of commerce by issuing a press release in which a leading ­researcher at the University of Sydney Business School urged both students and the rest of society to unlearn the traditional idea of profit and loss in order to build a “sustainable future”.
    Just how depriving Australians of the ability to earn a living will “help the community” is an unfathomable mystery.

    It’s now clear that even the ideas of economics are being railed against in order to perpetuate ­issues such as climate change, ­sustainability and identity politics nonsense.

    Speaking of money, will the university continue to accept the federal Government’s Australian Awards for outstanding contributions to Learning? Surely this would completely contradict this campaign of unlearning…READ ON
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/bella-dabrera-sydney-uni-wants-students-to-unlearn-civilisation/news-story/f6cc925f168e2b0ac280201239228516

    60

  • #
    PeterS

    Any half decent and sensible PM of Australia would tell the Greenies to go to hell and encourage the building of coal fired power stations ASAP just like all the other countries are doing. Unfortunately as long as we have Turnbull being supported by his party this country will end up with the crash and burn scenario. I’m still hoping he will be dumped soon but then again I’m never surprised at the utter stupidity of the LNP. That party really has well and truly passed it’s used by date. The alternative is worse of course but that is of no help and we might as well have them in to speed up the crash, wake people up and get it over and done with. A slow death is worse than a fast one.

    130

    • #
      Dennis

      It’s a hard life living in a Sydney Harbourside mansion, complete with unaffordable for most Australians substantial solar and battery power system, multi-million dollar views across the water to the rejected official residence Kirribilli House subsidised by taxpayers who also now subsidise the privately owned mansion with a few million dollars a year.

      Only an Ivory Tower could possibly be more remote from the real world.

      90

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘I’m still hoping he will be dumped soon but then again…’

      According to the punters there are two conflicting visions of what is coming, so I’ll blend them.

      Labor is set to win the next election, so Turnbull decides to quit politics beforehand and give someone else a go. Bovver Boy Dutton gets the high chair and he gives the Opposition hell.

      Labor is then forced to drop Bill and replace him with Albo, a fighter with green credentials. No matter when the election is held, the run up is bound to be exciting and adversarial.

      40

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    With appropriate apologies:

    Traveling in a Clapped out Chevy
    On a hiway filled with battery bevy
    I met a green lad, he made me nervous
    As he was stopped to charge his carriage
    And he said

    Do you come from a land down under?
    Where sense is low and liberals plunder?
    Can’t you hear, can’t you hear the thunder?
    You better run, you better take cover

    Watching a goernment all in tussles
    Too little power so we’ll need our muscles
    I said, “do you speak-a my language?”
    He just smiled and gave me a vegemite sandwich
    And he said

    Do you come from a land down under?
    Where sense is low and liberals plunder?
    Can’t you hear, can’t you hear the thunder?
    You better run, you better take cover

    Lyin’ in a den in Bombay
    With a slack jaw, and not much to say
    I said to the man, “are you trying to tempt me
    Because I come from the land of plenty?”
    And he said

    Do you come from a land down under?
    Where sun and wind drive coal asunder
    Can’t you hear, can’t you hear the thunder?
    You better run, you better take cover

    Living in a land down under
    ruled by those with heads of dunder?
    green the color of dumb and dumber?
    You better run, you better take cover

    Do you come from a land down under?
    Where sense is low and liberals plunder?
    Can’t you hear, can’t you hear the thunder?
    You better run, you better take cover

    Can’t you see the sun, do you hear the thunder?

    160

  • #
    PeterD

    Please someone with math skills, what proportion of total potential need is “potential to power more than 100,000 homes for eight hours”?

    40

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Maybe 8%.

      30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      PeterD:

      Not sure what you mean. The average Australian house uses about 18kWh per day, but there are huge variations from one house to the next. Nominally 0.75kW for each hour so 75,000kW in an hour, or 600,000kWh. But much is used from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. than in the rest of the day. Also bear in mind that household use is only about 35% of the total electricity generated.

      40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Graeme,
        I used figures of total usage for twelve hours and 800,000 households which made Peter’s figures about 8%.

        It seems that I left out something important, the fact that this is only 35% of total.

        The upgraded estimate as a percentage of total home and industrial and government usage will now be about 23%.

        KK

        10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I knew I was going to mess that up.

          As soon as I hit the go button I saw it.

          The real, true and final figure is 2.8%.

          KK

          40

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Sorry.

            After reading someone else’s post it seems I am out by another factor of 10.

            There may be 8 million homes.

            This means that it’s a real true and final figure of 0.28%.

            KK

            00

  • #
    PeterS

    Greens, the baseload deniers….

    Yes but they are not the only baseload deniers. So are the LNP and ALP. Australia is being lead by all politicians down the wrong path. One has to ask the question why? All other countries are building their new coal fired power stations in such large quantitative and in such great speed as though their economies depended on them. Oh wait a minute! They do! So why are we as a nation so detached from reality? What sets Australia apart from the rest of the world such that we are committing economic suicide alone? There can be only two possibilities. One, we are simply stupid and so we deserve what’s coming. Two, because we are so rich in resources certain countries have decided to influence our politicians to cause our economy to fail deliberately so we can be taken over and our resources plundered. Of course the first possibility is the most likely one but that doesn’t matter. The end result is the same in either case, namely an economic collapse, either self induced or deliberate. Unless something changes and the strong belief renewables is stopped by either major party, there is no hope for us. A good litmus test for the population would be if Turnbull is rolled and the new leader takes to the next election a promise to cancel all subsidies to renewables, get rid of the RET scheme, and provide intensives for new super critical coal fired power stations. If the nation as a whole is not as stupid as I think they are then the LNP will be re-elected convincingly and Australia saved from an economic disaster as the prmises are carried out just in time. If they don’t win then the ALP+Greens will assist in maintaining the current trend to disaster. In the end the LNP have nothing to lose if they do that as they have lost the next election anyway.

    110

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘ One has to ask the question why?’

      A majority of Australian politicians must think there are votes in it, but they are ignorant of the science and will eventually lose their seats. World temperature has to fall below the Spencer line and stay there for a few years, then politicians of all persuasions will see the writing on the wall.

      Some may talk their way out of a political dilemma, but for the CC zealots it will be all over bar the shouting and laughter.

      Do not be concerned about economic disaster, the Third Way beckons. Global warming was a hoax and Beijing will move from being the largest provider of renewables in the world, to something a little more traditional like coal fired power stations.

      50

      • #
        PeterS

        A majority of Australian politicians must think there are votes in it,

        If that is the case, and I am not doubting it, then the voters must be driving that thinking. The politicians are stupid but surely they are not so stupid to be ignoring the majority. The impression I get from family and friends is most don’t really care as to what is happening in the electricity scene despite the rise in cost. My thinking is the vast majority are not hurting as most are still so well off they are absorbing the cost rises with perhaps a little anger but nonetheless they are still getting by – “I’m all right, Jack” sort of attitude. We need prices to go much higher before people start waking up to the situation and reacting. Meanwhile though more and more businesses fail and the economic decline accelerates to the point of no return. That’s the real worry for Australia.

        30

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘…then the voters must be driving that thinking.’

          Shonky polls tell us that three-quarters of the electorate believe fossil fuels cause global warming.

          ‘…economic decline accelerates to the point of no return.’

          The Greek Method, it won’t happen here because we have a quarry and a respected services industry. Admittedly from a micro business point of view they will have to put up their prices or go under.

          Mass immigration is the key to a healthy economic future.

          21

  • #
    Kim

    And how long will these batteries last? I would say only a few years and as such they would be a spending disaster!

    60

    • #
      John Watt

      Lithium batteries raise a few questions :
      Procuring the lithium…some fairly scary stories about the mining condtions.
      How do we dispose of spent batteries..is recycling a cost-effective proposition or do we have a real pollution issue?
      Just like Snowy 2.0 there are energy losses in storing energy for later use..in this case converting from dc to ac. Ironically we have Tesla to blame for this. Nikola Tesla’s demonstration of ac’s superiority over Thomas Edison’s dc means that our world is powered by ac…a pain in the neck for the lithium battery.

      40

      • #
        PeterS

        Wouldn’t it be ironic if one day as such batteries become widespread the disposal of those batteries becomes more of a problem than the disposal of traditional waste from nuclear power stations? It would not surprise me if that turns out to be the case.

        30

    • #
      tom0mason

      Kim,

      They *might* manage to get 10% or so more life than your average phone battery — very dependent on number of charge/discharge cycles and temperature. Li batteries have performance issues at extremes of temperature (neither too hot or too cold for best performance, just like good porridge).

      Have a look here for what the car batteries are up to…
      http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096801_tesla-model-s-battery-life-how-much-range-loss-for-electric-car-over-time

      20

  • #
    Ken1

    If the battery can power 100,00 homes for 8 hours (very impressive), then do the maths. According to Wikipedia there are 1,926,617 homes in Victoria, that is if we ignore retail, manufacturing and ALL other users of electricity. this means the big battery can power all victorian homes for around 24 minutes before it goes flat.

    How do the Greens plan to run the state after that.
    1/ how do they plan to charge the battery (wind is currently running at 40% , which is the highest it has been all week – it was down to 10% on Wednesday) using what excess capacity? The breakup today at 10.15am Friday for Victoria is gas and coal 4,691MW, hydro 2,519, wind 2,255, large solar 156 and small solar 1,531. Take gas and coal out and everything goes black.
    2/ Do they have any plans to keep retail and industry going, or just shut the lot down. I can’t find any figures on retail and industrial etc. usage to see what % of the total they use, can someone help me there?

    The Greens seem to be under the impression that you buy a battery charged, and you don’t have to do anything else, you now have limitless power. I don’t think recharging has really come into their thinking.

    Another question. If rooftop solar is fed back into the grid, I can’t see how it can get past the few homes on your street. Most of the power lines in the street are carrying a much higher voltage and then supplying to houses via a step down transformer. How can 212v rooftop solar get past the transformer? If everyone in the street is at work in daylight hours, where is the “excess” generation going if it is not being used locally, or is it just wasted – in spite of the household being paid a generous “feed in ” tariff.

    30

    • #
      RickWill

      The DC voltage from the solar panels is inverted to 240VAC in the inverter. It then goes into the AC system and gets stepped up from there as it goes back into the distribution and transmission network.

      One of the new network problems is increasing the capacity of suburban networks to handle the peak generation from rooftop solar. It is no longer the load demand that sets the size of components in new residential developments but the peak solar output. It is another cost that the wider community carry for those of us with rooftop solar. In older areas the rooftop solar can be beneficial for the local network

      SA is getting close to having to limit network input from rooftop solar as it risks destabilising their network at lunch time on sunny days.

      In some older areas of Melbourne the network providers are installing batteries with diesel back up to avoid need to enhance the network capacity as the area load grows. When the sun shines the solar energy produced locally can be stored locally for use at periods of high demand.

      20

    • #
      tom0mason

      Ken1.

      It doesn’t matter say the greens, get rid of the base-load… get rid of those 1,926,617 homes in Victoria with all those demanding customers wanting power any time at all, 24/7/365. Put in batteries and all the (pixie-dust) power will be available always, for ever and ever.
      And Recharging happens automatically! (By unexplained Green majic!)

      :)

      21

  • #
    TdeF

    Consider the absurd, destructive Green position put forward by avowed communist Bandt.

    No coal, no nuclear, no more hydro, no firewood, no briquettes, no more gas. Billions more of our money while we are still paying off $100Bn for desalination plants which sit idle, six billion dollars a year for windmills which do not turn when needed and billions more in solar subsidies for private solar power for which we have to pay cash again to the new owners.

    Plus attacks on British traditions, British history, Australian history, Christian churches, the right of free speech and open debate and on anyone who dares speaks out. They are called Deniers and Fascists. They are shouted down and denied even the right to speak. On any subject. The long march through the public institutions has now reached corporates including Westpac, Qantas, AGL and more, companies who openly instruct their employees how to vote.

    Would be Napoleon Bandt wants nothing more than discord and social revolution, so he and his friends can take over. With 75% of the world’s governments being military dictatorships, he wants another communist state. This has nothing to do with democracy and saving the planet. “Tell them what they want to hear and when we take over, we will do what we like”. Adam said this to me when he was chasing a seat on the Melbourne City Council.

    As with Lee Rhiannon, it is a continuing attempt to destabilize the country and destroy its traditions and economic base. Sadly, it is working. He cannot believe people are listening and think he is a caring environmentalist. Giant Batteries? Flying pigs.

    81

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      O.K.

      That’s the problem.

      But I can’t see any way that this frog is going to jump out of the pot!

      I had dreams that the exorbitant price of electricity, the associated job losses, the dumbing down of our school system, the loss of our TAFE system and on and on: all this should get a reaction from the voters.

      Unfortunately, and understandably, the average voter just hasn’t got the time to assess all of this mess and votes in a manner that is conditioned by glib media output.

      Is there a solution.

      Blackouts may help.

      KK

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        Blackouts will help focus the people.

        The Federal Government should be worrying about trade, defence, immigration, debt not social issues. More and more laws about what you can do, what you can say and to whom. Laws which allow people to prosecute a cash against a bishop for his faith, as has already happened in Hobart. Laws to stop you picking up sticks in the forest. Fishing. Agisting cattle. Looking for gas. Laws about electricity.

        The worst is the law which forces us to pay billions to make third parties rich. This is called the RET. People who put in home solar charge us for electricity they do not want and we cannot use. So do wind farms.

        The nett result. No electricity. No manufacturing. Now on the front of the Australian, a sharp decline in retail spending as the price of goods goes up, the price of running a business goes up, manufacturing jobs vanish and people stop paying taxes. This will hit the Federal budget hard with growth running at half their prediction as the rivers of borrowed money go overseas again as a gift and our Federal debt passes half a Trillion dollars.

        None of this is unintended, but you are right. Blackouts may help focus the minds of the inner city elites who worry more about whether their avocadoes are ripe than who really paid for them.

        60

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Another interesting slant on things.

          It would be interesting to list every law made in the various state and federal governments over the last 10 years and categorise them.

          It may be that essential housekeeping has been overshadowed by social intervention, green control type legislation that only costs us big bucks and foments unhappiness.

          Is there a Leader in this country?

          Why have we gone from being a hard working, optimistic and forward looking as a nation to one which is now eating itself alive and collapsing into vicious community destroying backbiting?

          KK

          40

          • #
            RickWill

            Why have we gone from being a hard working, optimistic and forward looking as a nation to one which is now eating itself alive and collapsing into vicious community destroying backbiting?

            You are getting older and the average age is increasing. It is a fact across the developed world.

            Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
            This maxim – variously attributed to Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and Victor Hugo, among others – neatly captures the common notion that to be on the left of the political spectrum is to be young and idealistic, while to be on the right is to be older and more pragmatic. But is there any evidence for this?

            30

  • #
    RickWill

    This link underscores the futility of wind and solar power generation:
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters
    These charts extracted from the link:
    https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cbhighcharts/Consumption+emissions/Transfers+bar.html

    Even though domestic emissions have fallen 27% in the UK between 1990 and 2014, once CO2 imports from trade are considered this drops to only an 11% reduction. Similarly, a 9% increase in domestic US emissions since 1990 turns out to be a 17% increase when trade is included.

    This table looks specifically at steel production by country:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production
    It is immediately apparent how the heavy lifting is being done in China while EU, for example, has almost halved steel production since 1990.

    Germany has a net intake of 106MtCO2 with trade, increasingly importing the energy intensive materials and equipment it needs to build its wind and solar generation. Australia remains a net exporter of CO2 but that will end when the last aluminium smelters close.

    Looking from afar it would appear the world has gone mad. Consuming huge amounts of energy, predominantly from fossil fuels burnt in China, to produce millions of massive structures dotting the globe that can rotate in the wind to reduce bird populations.

    For Germany to get to 100% renewable it needs 15 times more wind capacity than now installed. That is a lot of Chinese steel.

    30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Rick

    “That is a lot of Chinese steel.”

    Some comments in here as to the quality that might be expected too

    http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/110120-blacksmithing/

    10

  • #
    Whalehunt Fun

    Bandt and his ilk are dangerous and utterly irrational. They must be rounded up sedated and deported. Syrian army is in need of canon fodder.

    51

  • #
    pat

    5 Oct: Stanford Uni: Soil holds potential to slow global warming, Stanford researchers find
    The land under our feet and the plant matter it contains could offset a significant amount of carbon emissions if managed properly. More research is needed to unlock soil’s potential to mitigate global warming, improve crop yields and increase resilience to extreme weather.
    By Rob Jordan, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment
    The work, published in two overlapping papers Oct. 5 in Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics and Global Change Biology, emphasizes the need for more research into how soil – if managed well – could mitigate a rapidly changing climate.

    “Dirt is not exciting to most people,” said Earth system science professor Rob Jackson, lead author of the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics article (LINK) and co-author of the Global Change Biology paper (LINK). “But it is a no-risk climate solution with big co-benefits. Fostering soil health protects food security and builds resilience to droughts, floods and urbanization.”…

    The greatest near-term threat comes from thawing permafrost in Earth’s northern reaches, which could release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
    Despite these risks, there is also great promise, according to Jackson and Jennifer Harden, a visiting scholar in Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences and lead author of the Global Change Biology paper…

    However, funding pressures such as federal cuts to climate science, combined with turnover in science staff and a lack of systematic data, threaten progress on soil carbon research…
    “If we lose momentum on carbon research, it will stifle our momentum for solving both climate and land sustainability problems,” Harden said.

    Funding for the papers came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Swedish Research Council, the Inter-American Institute Collaborative Research Network, the Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica and the Proyectos de Investigación Plurianuales, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bolin Climate Research Center at Stockholm University, the EU JPI Climate Consortium, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The paper resulted from a 2017 International Soil Carbon Network workshop funded by Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.
    http://news.stanford.edu/2017/10/05/soil-holds-potential-slow-global-warming/

    10

  • #
    pat

    more or less correct!

    read all:

    5 Oct: CarbonBrief: Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
    by Zeke Hausfather
    Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades…

    Carbon Brief has collected prominent climate model projections since 1973 to see how well they project both past and future global temperatures, as shown in the animation below…

    While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account…

    Conclusion
    Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
    Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time…

    Methodological note
    Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli helpfully provided a list of past model/observation comparisons, available here. The PlotDigitizer software was used to obtain values from older figures when data was not otherwise available. CMIP3 and CMIP5 model data was obtained from KNMI Climate Explorer.
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

    00

    • #
      RickWill

      The carbon brief link demonstrates what data homogenisation can achieve when combined with careful selection of model output.

      The temperature predicted by CMIP3 models are nothing like the UAH satellite data.
      http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itas_cmip3_ave_mean_sresa1b_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1970:2020_a.png
      http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_60_0-360E_-90-90N_n_a.png

      To claim models have skill is ridiculous.

      20

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      These “things” are NOT models and never have been.

      The proposition that models have been created which link human origin CO2 to world atmospheric temperature FAILS in all respects. Models have been chosen as the CAGW alarmists vehicle because the claimed science surrounding the dreaded CO2 just won’t support them.

      In all this time we have not seen a single laboratory experiment which assesses the effects of increasing concentrations of CO2 on air temperature when exposed to an infrared source roughly equivalent to ground origin IR.

      KK

      23

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        J’accuse

        Cess 1976 made a fundamental Physics’ mistake – to claim OLR/theoretical ground IR emission was Earth’s radiative emissivity. This was puerile and claimed falsely increased ground IR emission absorbed by the atmosphere by 40%.

        Also in 1976, NASA claimed this was offset by an opposite flow negative convection, which is impossible. Hansen later admited this was a ‘fudge’. So NASA has admitted the 1976 fraud.

        To hide the fraud, which was obvious to any professional, the Met. Office devised a fake Kirchhoff’s claim based on faulty cloud physics, that also creates false positive feedback. The person responsible for this frauds was Reading Universities’ late husband of Julia Slingo. There is a hitherto undiscovered increase of extinction coefficient in rain clouds missed by Hansen in 1969. This gives fake positive feedback when in reality low level cloud removal of latent heat from the surface plus peculiar properties of 16 – 23 micron water vapour nearly exactly offset GHG warming.

        So, we have a story of deliberate fraud in climate modelling since 1976. It is proven. Reality is now entry to a new LIA as tsi falls.

        14

  • #
    pat

    5 Oct: Politico: EPA’s climate rule withdrawal will include big changes to cost calculations
    By EMILY HOLDEN
    The Trump administration will consider fundamentally limiting the way the federal government counts benefits from curbing climate change and air pollution in an upcoming proposal to rescind former President Barack Obama’s signature climate regulation, according to multiple sources familiar with recent drafts.

    In nixing the Clean Power Plan, EPA will suggest changing the benefits it counts, which would bolster its arguments that the rule’s economic burdens would outweigh its gains from cleaner air, reduced illnesses and greater energy efficiency…

    President Donald Trump has long vowed to erase Obama’s restrictions on coal plants, and then announced he was pulling out of the Paris climate accord, so it’s no surprise he plans to eliminate the rule. But the fine print will have big implications for the inevitable yearslong legal fights to come. It could anger environmental advocates while satisfying some industries and conservative states…

    The agency will decline to consider any social or economic benefits the rule creates outside the United States — unlike the Obama administration, which included worldwide impacts in its calculations.

    And it will count far fewer of the health benefits that might have come from reducing air pollutants that cause premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma hospitalizations…

    The rule’s supporters are already accusing Trump and Pruitt of promoting fake math…

    But EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said that if anyone’s numbers were questionable, it was Obama’s.
    “While it appears you are writing a piece ***based on rumors about CPP, the facts are that the Obama administration’s estimates and analysis of costs and benefits was, in multiple areas, highly uncertain and/or controversial,” she said in an email Thursday night…
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/epa-climate-rule-withdrawal-cost-calculations-243520

    ***can’t vouch for Politico’s reporting above:

    4 Oct: Newsbusters: Politico Dumps Embarrassing Pile of Corrections on Puerto Rico Article
    by P.J. Gladnick
    The corrections paragraph to a Politico story that is so long that it calls the entire article into question. One wonders why Politico even allowed the October 1 story by Puerto Rican freelance journalist Alejandra Rosa to remain since such a large corrections section casts huge aspersions upon the veracity of the rest of her story still remaining. Will there be yet more corrections that will cause the already large corrections section to grow further and eat up the rest of the story?…

    (EXCERPT NOT YET RETRACTED)
    We’re told the federal government is sending help, but we don’t see it. And, in the meantime, Donald Trump, our president, is tweeting about football, reminding the world how Puerto Rico’s tragedy hurts Wall Street or castigating San Juan’s mayor as she tries to get relief for her people. If Hurricane María had landed in the U.S. mainland, I doubt Trump would be tweeting about football…
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/10/04/

    20

  • #
    pat

    posted 5 mins ago – being theirABC, Greens get the last word:

    6 Oct: ABC: Nick Xenophon to give up Senate seat and return to South Australian politics in ‘do or die’ effort
    By Matt Coleman and Matthew Doran
    Senator Xenophon said Labor and the Liberals in his home state were more interested in fighting about who got their snouts deeper in the trough, rather than fighting for real people…

    He said since South Australia’s massive power blackout last year and record power prices, he concluded the state’s problems could not be fixed in Canberra without first fixing what he called a “broken political system back home”.
    Senator Xenophon will remain in the Senate until the High Court determines his citizenship status…

    “While my lawyers are confident I will succeed, whatever the outcome, once that decision is handed down I will be in a position to leave the Senate.”
    He will then contest the South Australian seat of Hartley, centred around Adelaide’s inner north-eastern suburbs…

    Senator Xenophon said in the days and weeks ahead he would be announcing other candidates who would run for State Parliament with him under his “SA-BEST” banner…

    SA state politics ‘broken’ and ‘politically bankrupt’
    Senator Xenophon has described the state of South Australian politics as “a triumph of low expectations”.
    “Just keeping the lights on over the next summer will be presented by the Government as a major achievement to be lauded and applauded. It’s embarrassing,” he said…

    The Greens have wished Senator Xenophon “good luck” with his new move.
    “We need more non-major party MPs in lower houses chambers across the country,” Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said.
    “More diversity in houses of government is good for democracy…
    (LINK) Nick Xenophon’s full statement
    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-06/xenophon-to-return-to-south-australian-politics/9022266

    00

  • #
    pat

    the original exclusive:

    5 Oct: Reuters: Trump EPA to propose repealing Obama’s climate regulation: document
    by Valerie Volcovici
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose repealing the Clean Power Plan – the Obama administration’s centerpiece regulation to fight climate change – and plans to solicit input on a rule to replace it, according to an EPA document seen by Reuters…
    The EPA document, distributed to members of the agency’s Regulatory Steering Committee, said the EPA “is issuing a proposal to repeal the rule.”…

    Industry sources following the rulemaking process expect the proposal to repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan to be released as soon as the end of this week…

    Janet McCabe, who headed the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation under Obama, said an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking could take years – meaning the replacement for CPP could be a long way off, or possibly never emerge.
    “It certainly will draw the process out,” she said.

    Some industry groups want a replacement to give utilities regulatory certainty and avoid possible lawsuits by environmental groups. But conservative groups have urged the EPA to scrap the CPP without replacing it, effectively ending U.S. regulation of carbon emissions…

    Obama’s greenhouse gas regulations were based on the broad scientific consensus that carbon dioxide and other emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving global climate change, triggering flooding and droughts while making powerful storms more frequent.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-carbon-exclusive/trump-epa-to-propose-repealing-obamas-climate-regulation-document-idUSKCN1C90BY

    5 Oct: Breitbart: James Delingpole: Trump to Repeal and Replace Obama’s ‘Stupid’ and ‘Job Killing’ Clean Power Plan
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/05/delingpole-trump-to-repeal-and-replace-obamas-stupid-and-job-killing-clean-power-plan/

    10

  • #
    pat

    5 Oct: UK Sun: WARM WINTER WELCOME: Energy cap knocking £100 off bills could be in place THIS winter, minister suggests
    The plans announced by Theresa May yesterday will cut gas and electricity bills for MILLIONS of households
    By Steve Hawkes and Natasha Clark
    The Sun last year revealed customers on SVT’s were paying as much as £300 a year more for their energy than those on cheaper online deals.
    Iain Conn, the chief exec of British Gas owner Centrica yesterday insisted a cap was the wrong way to proceed.
    And he sparked uproar by admitting standard variable tariffs were the industry’s “mechanism for making money”.

    “We don’t support price caps,” he said.
    “There is clear evidence that they don’t work. They tend to limit choice, reduce competition and prices tend to bunch around the cap,” he told the Today programme.
    “We have seen it in many markets where the cheap deals go because the mechanism for people to make money out of the market is changed.”…

    Campaigners said the extraordinary comments proved the industry needed radical change…READ ALL
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4619800/energy-cap-to-help-working-brits-save-hundreds-could-be-in-place-this-winter-minister-suggests/

    behind paywall:

    Centrica tumbles as May revives energy price cap
    Financial Times-4 Oct. 2017
    Shares in British Gas-owner Centrica extended their losses after Prime Minister Theresa May said the government would publish a draft bill…

    00

  • #
    pat

    fake news:

    5 Oct: Reuters: U.N. chief hopes storms will sway climate skeptics like Trump
    by Michelle Nichols
    United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on Wednesday he hoped recent devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean and southern United States would convince climate change skeptics like U.S. President Donald Trump that global warming is a “major threat.”

    Guterres, who will visit the Caribbean islands of Antigua, Barbuda and Dominica this weekend to see damage from last month’s hurricanes Irma and Maria, said the world must be more determined in pushing for ”a clean, sustainable energy future.”
    “I have not yet lost my hope that what is happening will be making those that are still skeptical about climate change to be more and more realizing that this, indeed, is a major threat for the international community at the present moment,” he said…

    “It is rare to see so many storms of such strength so early in the season,” Guterres told reporters. “Scientific models have long predicted an increase in the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes. This is precisely what is happening – and even sooner than expected.”

    The secretary-general said innovative financing mechanisms would be crucial in helping countries, such as those in the Caribbean, cope with such significant external shocks…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-usa-climatechange/u-n-chief-hopes-storms-will-sway-climate-skeptics-like-trump-idUSKBN1C92HO?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

    00

  • #
    pat

    our best and brightest?

    5 Oct: TheConversation: Europe will benefit hugely from keeping global warming to 1.5°C
    by Andrew King, Climate Extremes Research Fellow, University of Melbourne
    Disclosure statement: Andrew King receives funding from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science.
    From heatwaves to intense rainfall and severe cold weather, Europe experiences its fair share of weather extremes…

    As the world warms up, so does Europe, although more in the Mediterranean and the east and less over Scandinavia and the British Isles…
    We studied changes in a few different heat events, including hot summers like the record of 2003 in Central Europe…

    Our study projects hot summers like 2003 will become more frequent at 1.5℃ and 2℃ of global warming. At 2℃ of global warming, Central European hot summers like 2003 would very likely occur in most years…

    … But fewer, and less intense, cold extremes
    The December of 2010 was exceptionally cold across the British Isles, as a lack of weather systems crossing the Atlantic allowed air from the north and the east to frequently cross the region. There was a new cold temperature record for Northern Ireland and persistent cold weather across the UK and Ireland, with long runs of sub-zero days. Heavy snowfall caused widespread disruption for days at a time.

    Our analysis finds that such a cold December was already very unlikely to occur in the current climate, and would be extremely unlikely under either 1.5℃ or 2℃ of global warming. Future cold weather events would still be associated with similar weather patterns, but the background warming in the climate system would make them less intense than in the world of today or under pre-industrial conditions…

    However, limiting global warming to 1.5℃, rather than 2℃ or more, would reduce the frequency with which these extreme event responses would need to be implemented.
    Put simply, to prevent a more extreme future for Europe’s weather, we need to keep the lid on global warming.

    FROM THE 13 COMMENTS:
    John McKeon: And thank you, Andrew, and you, David Karoly for keeping us up to date with this absolutely critical weather and climate research work.

    David Arthur (resistance gnome) In reply to John McKeon: [hand up] Seconded!

    Georgina Byrne, farmer: In reply to David Arthur (resistance gnome)
    And from me too…Thirded?
    https://theconversation.com/europe-will-benefit-hugely-from-keeping-global-warming-to-1-5-c-85009

    10

  • #
    pat

    unlearn farming and create a new UN bureaucracy:

    5 Oct: BBC: Food and farming policies ‘need total rethink’
    By Claire Marshall
    Can farming and food production be made less damaging to the planet?
    A big meeting in London will look at how reforms could help halt species extinction, meet climate goals, limit the spread of antibiotic resistance and improve animal welfare.
    The organisers of the Extinction and Livestock Conference say diverse interests will be represented.
    They include multinational food corporations, native breed farmers, ***neurologists and naturalists.

    McDonalds, Tesco and Compass will be rubbing shoulders with those from the Sustainable Food Trust, Quorn and WWF. The 500 delegates come from more than 30 countries…

    Their wide interests illustrate the complex and difficult issues arising from global livestock production.
    ‘Catastrophic impacts’
    The two-day conference is being organised by Compassion in World Farming (CiWF).
    The campaigning organisation warns that “there will be catastrophic impacts for life on Earth unless there is a global move away from intensive farming”.
    The world is on track to lose two-thirds of its wildlife by the end of this decade, largely because habitats have been destroyed to produce food for humans…

    CiWF believes that there should be a total rethink of food and farming policies, enshrined in the framework of a UN Convention…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41504155

    00

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT , since when have the ABC been allowed to do advertising for company’s other than the ABC ?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-06/australia-needs-electric-vehicles-more-than-any-other-nation/9022252

    20

  • #
    pat

    6 Oct: Australian: BOM’s ‘hottest September day’ reading under scrutiny
    by Sam Buckingham-Jones
    The head of the Bureau of Meteorology, Andrew Johnson, has been asked by Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg to release extensive temperature data from a weather station in Victoria after requests from an independent scientist.
    Dr Johnson has also agreed to meet with Jennifer Marohasy, a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, to discuss the integrity of the bureau’s temper­ature measurements as she pushes ahead with calls for a parliamentary inquiry…

    Late last month, Dr Maro­hasy, who also works at the Noosa-based Climate Lab, wrote to Mr Frydenberg expressing her concerns that the bureau’s electronic weather station equipment had been recording temperature data using a method that did not comply with World Meteorological Organisation guidelines.

    “The Australian Bureau of Meteorology appears to have put in place a measurement system guaranteed to provide new record high and low temperatures,” she said in the letter.
    “Just last Saturday (September 22), the Bureau of Meteorology announced a September record for Mildura, in northwestern Victoria, of 37.7C.
    “This record cannot be judged against any documented standard, and therefore cannot be verified. It is disingenuous for the bureau to claim the temperature recorded at Mildura on Saturday was a new record for September and higher than any temperature previously recorded since 1889.”

    Dr Marohasy requested the daily temperature measurements for Mildura Airport between October 1, 1989, and October 13, 2000, when the bureau station had both mercury and electronic thermometers installed. ***She has also asked for the last year of one-second recordings through to September 25…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/boms-hottest-september-day-reading-under-scrutiny/news-story/706763103c86f3c9e6a6f5d4cbf9e4b8

    the unquestioning MSM!

    Sweltering September smashes Australia’s temperature records
    The Guardian-4 Oct. 2017
    For the first time this year, New South Wales recorded a September temperature above 40C…

    How twin bursts of ‘unprecedented’ early-season heat scorched eastern Australia
    The Sydney Morning Herald· Oct 5, 2017

    Climate change: Australia has sweated through its hottest ever September day
    NEWS.com.au · 17 hours ago

    BoM Confirms Sizzling Start to Spring
    My Sunshine Coast· 22h ago

    40

  • #
    Bob in Castlemaine

    I’m not sure where Mr Bandt’s 400GWh – 450GWh storage figures come from but if he’s talking the whole eastern grid I think that figure is likely inadequate. The average daily energy delivered by the Australian eastern grid is around 530GWh. But if we accept his ~425GWh as adequate storage then there are still problems with his numbers.
    Bandt’s $2.2B seems to be understating the cost of his giant battery by around $125B. Not much I suppose when it comes to Green imaginings but enough to scare the hell out of many of us mere mortals struggling with already unaffordable electricity bills.
    If we take the cost of lithium-ion batteries as $0.3Wh, a conservatively low estimate, then the cost of Bandt’s you-beaut giant Tesla battery is $127.5B not $2.2B?

    50

    • #
      Chad

      You are on the mark with that costing.
      The last reported cost for a large scale Tesla utility battery installation was at US$350,000 /MWh installed..
      So that Au$2.2 bn, would buy you approx 5.0 GWh of battery..
      Or alternatively, , the 425GWh would cost Au$190.0 billion
      …and would directly add $0.06 per kWh to electricity cost !
      These people are not just dumb, but dangerous !

      11

      • #
        Chad

        Actually it gets worse…
        i just noticed tha Bandt and SHY were suggesting susidising domestic battery installs..(tesla powerwalls etc)

        Australian households and businesses would receive incentives to install batteries alongside their solar systems if the Greens have their way.

        ….if so,.that would mean an installed storage cost of over Au$700 /kWh
        …and make their 425 GWh ambition cost over $300 billion !
        OR.. That $2.2 bn will buy them approx 3.0 GWh of storage !

        21

  • #
    RickWill

    This is what the people think according to ReachTEL survey:
    https://www.solar.org.au/industry-news/the-people-have-spoken/

    The Climate Council has found that public support for a clean energy target spans the political spectrum, with more than three quarters of Australians (77 per cent) recognising its importance and young people (83 per cent) particularly supportive. Even six in ten liberal voters agree on the need for the target – surely this sends a strong signal to the coalition? The Climate Council recently commissioned three polls, each of which focused on aspects of the energy mix: most interviewed said the Liddell Power Station had no place in the future; also the majority expect home battery storage to be “as commonplace as dishwashers” within just a decade.

    What continues to amaze me is that the majority of people think wind and solar are the lowest cost energy despite prices increasing as more is connected to the grid.

    Of course local rooftop solar with battery will inevitably be cheaper than the same distributed source connected to the grid – already the case in SA.

    Seeing survey results like these makes me more confident than ever that the NEM is cactus.

    41

    • #
      RickWill

      This highlights how screwed the thinking has become:

      Fifty four per cent of the 2176 people polled said they will have to trim their household budget for groceries, holidays and entertainment should energy prices continue to rise due to investment in higher cost energy, such as coal and gas.

      40

  • #
    pat

    6 Oct: Bloomberg: Trump Is Said to Argue Obama’s Clean Power Plan Violates Law
    By Jennifer A Dlouhy With assistance by Jennifer Jacobs
    The Trump administration will formally propose repealing former President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by arguing it went beyond the bounds of federal law, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News.

    The Environmental Protection Agency will not prescribe an immediate replacement to the plan, and instead will soon ask the public to comment on how best to curb carbon-dioxide emissions from coal and natural gas power plants, according to a draft of the proposed rule and other government documents…

    Because of legal challenges, it never actually took effect: The U.S. Supreme Court put it on hold in February 2016.
    The Obama-era rule dictated specific carbon-cutting targets for states based on a complex formula tied to their 2012 power plant emissions — and then gave them broad latitude to decide how to achieve those reductions, including such things as promoting energy conservation.

    This was a unique and controversial approach. The EPA’s other air pollution regulations — promulgated under the same provision of federal law — are based on a system that “can be applied to or at a single source,” the draft proposal says.
    The Trump administration is arguing that such forced “generation shifting” is inconsistent with the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

    “The Clean Power Plan departed from this practice by instead setting carbon dioxide emission guidelines for existing power plants that can only realistically be effected by measures that cannot be employed to, for, or at a particular source,” the document says…

    First, in coming days, it will issue its proposed rule to rescind the earlier regulation. Later, it will issue a formal notice asking the public to comment on whether the EPA can or should develop a replacement rule — and, if so, what options are legal, feasible and appropriate for curbing emissions of power plants. That could mean requiring modest efficiency upgrades or the installation of carbon-capture technology at the sites…

    The EPA has not determined whether it will promulgate a new rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, according to the documents.

    The Trump administration is set to argue that repealing the Clean Power Plan could spare an estimated $33 billion in compliance costs in 2030. Details of that economic analysis were not immediately available.

    The Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment on the authenticity of the documents.
    “The Obama administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far that the Supreme Court issued a stay – the first in history – to prevent the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ from taking effect,” EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said by email. “Any replacement rule that the Trump administration proposes will be done carefully and properly within the confines of the law.”
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/trump-is-said-to-argue-obama-s-clean-power-plan-violates-law

    00

  • #
    pat

    5 Oct: New American: Warren Mass: EPA Proposes Eliminating Obama Administration’s Costly “Clean Power Plan”
    While the Reuters report claimed that the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas regulations were based on the “broad scientific consensus that carbon dioxide and other emissions from burning fossil fuels are driving global climate change,” so many scientists have disputed that climate-change theory that there is hardly a “consensus.” Besides scientific correctness is not determined by “consensus.” Science is not a popularity contest; it’s about providing facts, figures, tests, and data to back up suppositions.

    In our August 4, 2015 article about former President Obama’s unveiling of the “Clean Power Plan,” during which he asserted that the plan was necessary to “to combat climate change,” we observed that even many Republican opponents of the plan failed to address a fundamental question that should form the basis for opposition to such executive branch overreach on environmental policies: “Is there conclusive scientific evidence that manmade activities such as carbon emissions have had any significant effect on the world’s climate?”

    In that article, we noted that many reputable scientists think there is no such evidence, and that there is even evidence suggesting that the natural cycle of global warming has reversed itself in recent years and that global temperatures have actually decreased.

    While The New American has published numerous articles supporting the arguments of those who challenge the prevailing “global warming” theorists, in our article about Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” we cited just a few examples…READ ON
    https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/27063-epa-proposes-eliminating-obama-administration-s-costly-clean-power-plan

    00

  • #
    Ve2

    Funny how they always use houses as an example, 100,000 homes is the equivalent of how many trains, trams, factories, hospitals etc. or for that matter electric cars.

    31

  • #
    Amber

    Why is it that a one trick pony political party with pathetic voter support
    is robbing tax payers through the absurd pretence of adjusting the earth temperature ?
    The only reason this crap continues is because Australia and other countries currently have an unlimited
    ability to run up tax payer debt .
    If there were scarce resources and God forbid balanced budgets the global warming con-game would be over .
    Show some backbone Australia if not for your own citizens then for millions of fuel poverty victims of the
    climate caper .
    Why should citizens be straddled with massive debt and high energy costs all to support a fraud ?
    Enough is enough .

    21

  • #
    RickWill

    Wind and solar are not going away any time soon>. The partial grid defection is well under way:
    https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/four-shopping-centres-go-behind-meter-major-commercial-solar-deal/

    Over the past two years, numerous major shopping centre owners have switched to solar, including the Northam Boulevard Shopping Centre in WA, which is now sourcing almost half of its energy needs from a 665kW solar carpark installation.

    And Stockland Property group in February installed a 925kW array at its Wetherill Park Shopping Centre in western Sydney, marking the company’s fourth commercial-scale shopping centre installation, including a 1.22MW rooftop array on its Shellharbour shopping centre, also in NSW.

    20

  • #
    Bob

    I would have thought that $2.2b would go a long way to build a nuclear plant, which will actually produce electricity all the time.

    10

  • #
    crosspatch

    I have an idea.

    The primary problem with a power provider that uses renewables such as wind and solar is the volatility of supply. Power often comes when you don’t need it and is lacking when you do. There is a way to handle this problem in a market-based way that completely decentralizes the problem and allows individuals to set their own economic destiny with regard to power.

    Simply allow customers to sign up for a pricing plan where power is priced according to supply at the moment. Have the power utility transmit at regular intervals, say every 6 seconds (10 times per hour) down the mains where a smart meter can receive it. It would have a standard jack which a smart controller could connect to and read the current grid price of power.

    Now a person could choose, if they desire, to purchase batteries. You might have your charging controller set to draw a steady load from the mains regardless if your current in-house load, either drawing the excess from the batteries or charging the batteries depending on your activity at the moment. Or a great burst of wind might arrive and suddenly there is an abundance of power. The power utility could then transmit a greatly reduced price of power down the lines. Your controller would see that and decide to increase the amount being drawn to store in the batteries (buying the power when it is cheap to use when it is expensive).

    From the perspective of the utility, the load is now dynamic and matches supply. When supply is plentiful and the price is low, the load is high. Now when the wind stops and load is high the price transmitted increases. This causes your charging controller to reduce the load on the grid. This helps to stabilize the grid. You have a dynamic load that response to a dynamic supply. A customer can purchase their power in the off hours or when supply is unexpectedly high and save money.

    The conventional billing plans would be available but those with a system that could make use of a market priced system would likely save a good bit of cash. Nobody is forcing anyone to purchase batteries or the charging system. All the utility needs to do is simply transmit the price of power down the line and the market will take care of the rest. Many businesses might like such a system. An office much purchase power from midnight to 5 AM to use during the day and keep their draw from the mains flat during the day regardless of fluctuations in load.

    Should be simple enough for a utility to do.

    10

    • #
      • #
        crosspatch

        Rather than the government or electric monopoly buying a bunch of batteries and trying to manage storage of power at great expense to everyone, simply transmit the current price of power down the line at regular intervals based on supply and let the end users purchase their own batteries and manage their own load based on their own self-interest. Over time it works out better for everyone and the utility has nothing additional to manage except the current price of power.

        00

  • #
    Chad

    You mean, pass the problem on to the individual consumer to solve ( if they can afford to) rather than fix the problem at source by generating continuous , reliable , power.
    ….Have you considered a career in politics ?

    00

    • #
      crosspatch

      Not “passing” anything to anyone. It would be completely voluntary. The problem is that wind and solar are intermittent. The utilities know this. They know they must cut off wind providers when there is excess wind but pay them anyway. If the load could respond to supply, they would have to do this less often meaning people get more value for their money and less waste of money from paying wind farms for power they are not producing. If the grid load responded to the increase in supply, the grid becomes more stable. The easiest way to do that is using regular market supply/demand forces rather than the system we have now where they are forced to pay for power that is never provided. It reduces the inefficiency.

      Nobody would be required to do anything, but the option would be made available to consumers to be able to buy power when it is cheap and abundant to use when it is more expensive. It is like any other shopping, it allows you to buy more power when power is “on sale at a special price”.

      In fact, you should be able to do this even if the provider is NOT using any wind. Lets say it is a very hot summer day or a very cold winter night and the grid is coming under strain. The price of power could be increased and people who had a smart charging controller would reduce (or possibly cut off) their load. Again, this would help stabilize the grid. In fact, if the system were integrated enough, a person might have a natural gas generator and if grid price climbed too high, the controller would charge the batteries from the generator instead. The effect of this is to mode-shift power generation to gas but in a decentralized way.

      The only thing the power provider would be required to do is transmit the current price and offer a service plan that bills according to that price. The consumer would not be required to move to that plan but it would not take long for industry to offer controllers that allowed people to take advantage of it and save money by purchasing power when it is at least cost.

      It’s free market economics, I can understand why some might be against that.

      00

    • #
      crosspatch

      Also, the same principles could be used to encourage wind providers to install their own battery storage without the utility buying any. Many agreements with wind suppliers pay the supplier when they are cut off the grid based on their potential generating capacity. In some cases in the US, a good number of a wind farm’s turbines are inoperative. They have the potential to make more money when they are cut off of the grid than when they are operating. Pay the providers based on the average of the power they have actually delivered over the past 30 days rather than an amount based on their generation capacity. This gives them an incentive to keep their supply consistent and high. Also, if they DO get cut off the grid, it gives them an incentive to store power they are generating to sell later when they are on the grid but there is no wind. Again, it uses free market principles to increase efficiency and reduce waste.

      And in the same way that the consumer price varies according to supply, the utility buy price can be varied in the same way. So when prices are low due to abundant supply, a provider might elect to divert power to storage in order to sell at a later time when prices are higher.

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Many agreements with wind suppliers pay the supplier when they are cut off the grid based on their potential generating capacity”

        And then some of them still get paid when the don’t supply !

        And this is the idiocy

        Why don’t coal and gas get the same deal. ;-)

        They get paid for what they could have provided when they are forced to ramp down to let wind/solar energy into the system.

        01