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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

UK solar “farms” collect more taxpayer funds than sunlight

You may have thought that solar panels were designed to collect sunlight and convert it to electricity. But obviously the real aim of solar industrial plants is to attract government handouts and convert them into yachts.

Solar farms receive more cash from green subsidies than selling the energy they produce
“Total subsidy provided to solar electricity generators last year was about £1.2bn

Energy producers were encouraged to start solar farms with generous handouts funded by a ‘green levy’ on taxpayers’ bills.

But many of them now make the majority of their cash from the subsidy – instead of the electricity they produce.

This was part of the £5.6billion subsidy paid to green energy producers, which critics say inflates household energy bills.

Owl Hatch is the largest solar subsidy farm in the UK, harvesting £3.8million from captive UK taxpayers which allowed it to sell £2.5million of electricity. Supposedly, it can provide enough clean energy to power around 12,600 average UK homes. The 49.9MW Owls Hatch Solar Farm was constructed in just 12 weeks, showing just how fast subsidy sucking infrastructure can be created.

Owl’s Hatch Solar park collected 65% more money from subsidies than from sales of solar energy. (Another government “winning pick”). Owl’s Hatch only has to increase revenue from solar energy by 250% in order to legitimately earn the same total income as “sales plus subsidy” currently bring in.

The idea of subsidies was to help the new industries find their feet. Solar feet apparently take 15 – 20 years to find, as that’s how long the subsidies were guaranteed for.

The expected lifespan of the solar farm is only 25 years:

Councillors were ultimately swayed by the conditions attached to the permission – including that the farm be dismantled after 25 years and that council officers be satisfied that concerns about flooding were properly addressed.

Is there a penalty if the farms ends the same year that the subsidies do?

h/t GWPF

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (74 votes cast)
UK solar "farms" collect more taxpayer funds than sunlight, 9.8 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

88 comments to UK solar “farms” collect more taxpayer funds than sunlight

  • #

    I like to understand the figures.
    Wholesale electricity prices are around £40-£50 MWh.
    This implies that a 49.9MW solar farm with £2.5 million of sales is working at 11-14% of capacity.
    In Britain, the highest consumption of electricity is during the winter evenings. In the winter sunlight is not very strong even on clear days and daylight is between 4 and 8 hours on mainland Britain in late December. So much of the electricity is just reducing the capacity of coal and gas-fired power stations.

    250

    • #
      RickWill

      Solar in the UK produced 5.9TWh in 2017 from reported rated capacity of 12.8GW. This gives CF of 5.3%. Places in Australia can get CF as high as 20%.

      If the GBP1.2bn is correct then the subsidy corresponds to GBO0.21/kWh or AUD0.39.kWh. That is a handsome subsidy.

      80

      • #

        5.9TWH across the whole year. Now that’s a huge amount of power, and that’s from every solar plant in the UK. Just amazing really.

        You know, the same amount of power delivered from Bayswater in 120 days.

        See why Nameplate is the go-to figure for renewable supporters here.

        12.8GW, or 4.85 times bigger than Bayswater.

        Tony.

        200

  • #

    The blurb says

    This project covering 212 acres is one of the UK’s largest solar farms, generating enough power for 14,000 homes.

    Britain has an acute housing shortage because of stringent planning laws. That land could have been used for over 2000 houses, selling at about £300,000 each. £600m+ in sales revenue compares to £62m in electricity sales and £95m in subsidies over 25 years.

    260

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And they could have put solar panels on all the roofs – for what good they do.

      200

    • #
      toorightmate

      Common sense is forbidde

      50

    • #
      Phillip Bratby

      Actually there is no housing shortage in Britain – there is a large surplus in housing stock. You seem to have fallen for the UK government propaganda which states, without looking at the proper evidence, that “the housing market is broken” and that there is a “housing crisis”. What there is is an affordability gap, i.e. young people cannot afford to buy their first house because of high prices and the need for large deposits to get a loan.

      70

      • #
        rapscallion

        Not helped mind by the influx since 1997 of uncontrolled immigration, courtesy of the EU. When you consider that when the Ugandan Asians were kicked out by Idi Amin, the total was some 27,000 in just one year. It was considered the largest influx of immigrants since 1066. Nothwitstanding that, bear in mind that the current immigration figure is roughly 300,000 per year. And yes, they could use “brown field” sites, but don’t.

        50

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Maybe some of you can answer these questions and thereby enlighten me and others who read here.
    1) Is there anything in so-called renewable energy that ever benefits the electricity consumers? The nation?

    2) Is there anything in so-called renewable energy that benefits anyone but the renewable energy companies and installers, etc?

    310

    • #
      Yonniestone

      1) No. 2) No.

      Apologies for the short reply but I have to leave for work to fund the takers.

      310

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      1) The solar panel+battery power points for remote emergency telephones and warning lights. For regular grid use NO.
      2) NO except that those on the renewables are making so much money that they aren’t worrying about other schemes to get government provided money.**

      ** A bit optimistic in the UK where there is the Nuclear scam, the Tidal scam, the wood burning scam, and the biogas scam, but the UK Energy policy is basicly “Help Yourself to money”.

      222

    • #
      RickWill

      Answers to questions:
      1/ No to both parts.
      2/ Yes – If the country has a policy that guarantees electricity price rises by connecting intermittent generators to the grid then there is economic sense in having intermittent generators located at the load.

      In mainland Australia the break-even for rooftop solar and battery is a unit price of around AUD0.50/kWh. If the household takes the subsidies on offer then the break-even is even lower. South Australia has already reached this level.

      30

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        RickWill:
        I did a quick calculation using $12,000 as the cost of a battery with a connection switching ( on blackouts ) solar PV from mains output to battery charging and got a breakeven time of 7.5 years. That doesn’t allow for the cost of solar which would have to be already installed. Wondering about off-grid with generator cost added which would mean more battery capacity.

        50

        • #
          RickWill

          Graeme#3
          With term deposits yielding around 3.5% a payback in 7.5 years looks spectacular if you have spare cash and are retired or setting up for retirement in your existing residence.

          This is my thoughts on experience and possibilities.

          In Melbourne I can rely on sunlight at 99.9% certainty of 2 hours in 48 hours. The lowest sunlight day I ever had was 20 minutes. So If you have an average demand of 6kWh you need 6kW of solar panels and 12kWh of battery. You really need that size battery to run a toaster and jug at once or large oven anyhow. So a battery less than 12kWh will not run normal household loads.

          The 2 hours sunlight in 48 hours works all the way up the east coast. I checked the insolation after one of the cyclones came all the way down the east coast as a rain depression.

          In Adelaide you might get away with fewer panels. You could certainly reduce your solar panels by having a small generator. The generator does not need to be very big because you can recharge that battery at say 1 to 2kW and you only charge enough to get you to the next day. Obviously it gets more complex to set up auto charging but simple enough for most electricians. I would only use a diesel for a auto start generator because I do not like the idea of having to transport/handling high volatile fuel other than in a car petrol tank.

          Once you are off grid you save the service fee. If you are only using 6kWh per day then the supply connection charge is a big chunk of your costs.

          If you have electric hot water you will use maybe 4kWh more per day. It is definitely worth having direct solar heating unless you have heaps of room for solar panels and want to keep it simple. So far I have not seen good reports on any heat pump hot water but I expect we will see these do better with time.

          If you have electric heating, even heat pump, you will be using a lot more than 6kWh per day and the highest demand occurs at the wrong time although clear nights tend to be colder than overcast nights. I have generally worked on reducing heating demand by better insulation and sealing. However the ducted heating uses gas with an electric circulating fan. These days a reverse cycle heater could heat our main living area with less power than the ducted gas heater uses in circulating.

          Over the next 5 to 10 years I expect there will be many more back up system for solar/battery. It would be nice to have a little NG internal combustion generator to run off the gas supply. It would be even better to use excess power in summer to make gas that is stored for winter. That is likely a lot more than 10 years away though. I know Telstra are using solar to gas in the so-called “bottled sunshine” but the prices are not at a level to challenge even SA power costs yet.

          The first steps to look at are why and how you are consuming electricity before you commit to a system. It is most cost effective to look at every item that uses power and determine if it is needed and is the best way. For example, a friend saved about 30% of his power consumption by chucking out the 30 year old fridge in the garage that held a few bottles/cans of beer and replacing his 20yo fridge/freezer in the kitchen with a smaller modern fridge/freezer. Who needs TV recorders on standby when there is streaming available on most shows.

          This chart shows my usage/generation in February:
          https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgnpY3HlgWIaUHlKr
          We had 10 days away and you can see through that time the usage not met by the grid solar was 0.6kWh/day corresponding to 25W average demand. Standby actually averages 54W but the solar was meeting that during sunny periods. That is the stuff that is on standby like oven clock, power boards etc. The fridge and freezer were left on but they run off grid. Point is it is useful to know what amenity something offers and what it is costing.

          50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I use an average 8.4 kWh per day, the majority for the hot water service. My average cost is 36¢ per kWh. Yes, the service charges (and associated GST, levies for various past government ideas etc ) add to make the total cost equal to 61¢ per kWh.
            Fortunately I have a very generous feed-in tariff because years ago I was told by a Greenie that it was “my moral duty to install solar PV”. I did my sums and installed solar ASAP thinking it was about time I got something back from the government, even if it seemed to be insane. The installation nearly paid for itself in 7 years until the inverter failed, so another year to pay it off. Without that lunatic feed-in tariff it would never have paid for itself as the costs of what is consumed went up and up. Right now my idea is to avoid another 3 or 5 day blackout.
            And I don’t have natural gas on-line, but bottled gas has gone up approx. 18% in 10 years. I use it for heating** and the stove, both working despite blackouts.
            ** Yes, it is expensive but I am prepared to pay for the convenience.

            10

            • #
              RickWill

              It might be worth your while looking at the payback on a better insulated water heater. There are some Rheem and Aquamax models around the 170l capacity that have standby loss around 1.6kWh per day.
              http://reg.energyrating.gov.au/comparator/product_types/58/search/?paginate_by=250&order_by=__decl_stand_heat&order_direction=asc&page=1

              I made a hot water heater using a 200l drum with a copper could for heat transfer. It losses about 1kWh per day but it has 200mm thick insulation all around. I used it for two summers running from the off-grid panels but did not bother this year. It saved about $1.50/day over the gas so not really worth the bother. I can only use it from September to April.

              Most of the gas usage on the gas heater is standby; roughly twice ther actual usage with just two in the house. I have reduced the temperature to around 50 degrees to reduce the standby loss but do not have any data on that yet.

              10

  • #
    Ruairi

    Without subsidies, solar farms flop,
    And give warmists a handy cash crop,
    Selling expensive watts,
    To pay for their yachts,
    With us taxed for their Green agitprop.

    280

  • #
    Dave Ward

    Including that the farm be dismantled after 25 years

    What will continue to provide power AFTER these much trumped periods expire? None of the proponents ever seem to explain that conundrum…

    140

    • #
      ivan

      Very close to the end of the 25 years the company will go bankrupt so the local council will have the responsibility of dismantling the place so the cost is again carried by the public.

      20

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    Same in Australia. Hepburn Wind, a community wind farm in Victoria – their Annual Report shows $700k income from LRET certificates vs $450k from selling stupid electricity. Nice work for some! No wonder so much new solar and wind generation is being installed. Thank you federal government. With subsidies like this, why should unsubsidised businesses even bother? Are we living in fairyland or what?

    240

  • #
    Mark M

    How many solar panels must the UK instal before the UK prevents it’s first Beast from the East?

    90

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I’d be more concerned about the beast from Whitehall…..

      60

      • #
        Phillip Bratby

        Yes, she’s called Claire Perry – another useful green idiot (the latest in a long line of them) who is in charge of our energy policy, hence the approaching train crash.

        50

  • #

    Renewables are an egregious mistake responding to misinformed subsidy. It is not simply a matter of increased cost. The energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime. Without the energy provided by other sources, renewables could not exist. They can only exist now because fossil fuels are still used to power industry, heat our homes, power nearly all vehicles, power farming, etc.

    250

  • #

    “Commie, I’d like you to meet crony capitalist.”
    “Oh, no need for intros. We’ve met. In fact, we’re family.”

    130

  • #
    Robber

    Similar to Hepburn Springs windmill in Victoria, annual report for 2016/17.
    Sale of electricity $618k, $59.67/MWhr. “Our energy yield was low this year, the lowest on record. This was due to a combination of unfavourable weather patterns and electrical plant issues”.
    Sale of certificates $625k, $85.46/MWhr. So more money from subsidies (that are included in retail electricity prices) than from generating electricity.

    160

  • #
    King Geo

    The “RE Madness” has cost ~20,000 British lives this past Winter/early Spring in the UK – and no doubt most of those lives lost were the poor who couldn’t afford to heat their homes. “Leftie Feel Good Idealism” taking a real human toll – how obscene!!!!

    161

    • #
      PeterS

      Nothing new about the fact cold is far worse than any global warming at killing people. It’s also nothing new about the fact one can mitigate the deaths caused by cold by way of heat (wow! How many centuries did it take to discover that?). Since it’s becoming more and more expensive to generate heat from electricity, more and more poor people will not do it. So anyone who argues that the increasing cost of electricity as a result of relying more and more on renewables is not a significant factor in the deaths is being dishonest and/or ignorant. How many deaths have to occur before something is done about it? 100,000? A million? Much more?

      121

      • #
        Annie

        There are some people in this world who would be happy to see the deaths of billions of their fellow human beings.

        82

      • #
        King Geo

        20,000 deaths is 20,000 too many. The UK Govt has “blood on its hands”. As Gomer Pyle would often say “SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!!”

        80

        • #
          King Geo

          Not forgetting the 71 lives lost in the “Grenfell Tower Fire” last Summer (June) – more blood on the UK Govt’s hands. They have learned from that tragedy – but not it seems the much larger number of fatalities resulting from their “RE Policy” thus driving domestic energy costs through the roof and leaving its poor unable to keep themselves warm during severe Winters – more “SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!!”

          60

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    Peter S – Totally agree – see the famous graph here (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=napoleon+retreat+from+moscow&rlz=1C1NOOH_enAU505AU505&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIkYSgxq7aAhVTPrwKHYpFBY4Q_AUICigB&biw=1517&bih=707#imgrc=NtxbUkFjbxRC-M :) that shows this in spades – Napoleon’s army gets reduced from 450,000 to 10,000, mainly by not having suitable food and clothing to deal with the extreme cold of the winter of 1812-13.

    80

    • #
      PeterS

      I wound’t worry too much. After listening to Julie Bishop being interviewed she sounded so smooth and eloquent. She BS’s so well. Hence, she would make a far better PM that Turnbull. I suppose that’s why she is more popular than Abbott. :-( People just love BS artists.

      70

    • #

      Would you believe…Napoleon and his army hardly spent any winter time in the Russian Empire and no winter time at all in what is present day Russia. Autumn 1812 was enough, though for a while it had seemed quite mild. Of interest is the delay of harvesting in England that autumn, due to cold and damp.

      Something else of interest is that the deadly cold of 1812-13 and 1813-1814 actually preceded the eruption of Tambora. 1812 in England was the year without a summer four years before the Year Without a Summer following Tambora. It’s one of those facts that get glossed over because they might intrude on someone’s story, perhaps. You know…the volcano ate my homework etc.

      60

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Subsidy farms is a better description. And what do subsidy farms do? They transfer wealth from the middle class and poor to elites and their cronies. The immorality is disgusting, but it’s all dressed up as moral.

    130

    • #
      Dennis

      In Queensland a coastal strip sugar cane farmer converted a large area of his family farmland into a solar farm and when questioned by neighbours explained that his accountant had recommended the project which would return far more on investment than growing sugar cane.

      In northern Queensland a motel owner sold his property and purchased land he cleared to make way for a solar farm which is now his primary income source.

      60

  • #
    PeterS

    We all have to understand that the main reason why we are in such a mess over renewables is because some time ago certain rich people with big mouths and egos decided to promote a scam to make more money by scaring people into believing the world was going to heat up too much due to man-made CO2, despite the fact we only produce a tiny fraction of the total CO2 input into the atmosphere from all natural sources. It’s not really any surprise solar and wind farms have become a big money making business. It will continue for as long as people allow it to continue, which appears to be for a long time given both major parties are in agreement about the CAGW story. The people have the option to exercise their democratic right and vote for another party that rejects the paradigm but of course most people are either too lazy of too indifferent to the issue to bother and exercise that right appropriately. It’s really up to the people to decide, not the politicians. After all, that’s how our democracy is supposed to work. Let’s see what happens at the next federal election. If the policy on climate change doesn’t change then we might as well become a dictatorship like China and not bother with elections. It’s almost at that point now given the two major parties are more aligned than ever before in several areas. Of course that’s not surprising given the LNP has made a sharp turn to the left thanks to the likes of Turnbull. I suspect this will act as a turbo charging effect on the voting behaviour on the tradition that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. If so it means Shorten will become our next PM by a landslide. Good luck Australia.

    100

    • #
      Robdel

      When the lights go out the people will cease being lazy and will not vote for major parties any longer.

      30

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    The only winners in this solar renewables rubbish are those involved in the industry; the investors, the manufacturers, the rent receivers, the power distributers and all the hangers on. The rest of them just pay the cost and carry in sublime indifference, afraid to speak out against the warmist mantra;
    They don’t have a clue about what is really going on.
    GeoffW

    60

    • #
      RobK

      You are right GeoffW, but those who are benefiting from the parasitic sudsidies will need a plan B in less than a decade because as parasites they will have killed the host.

      70

  • #
    pat

    it’s all about MEE/Xi:

    9 Apr: ClimateChangeNews: China’s new environment ministry unveiled, with huge staff boost
    New offices required to house mega-department, but will climate change survive as a priority after being shifted out of the powerful development commission?
    By Li Jing in Beijing
    On Sunday, senior cabinet cadres officially unveiled the nameplate of China’s newly-created Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE)…

    Yet it is worth noting that the reshuffle, part of a massive cabinet shake-up as Chinese president Xi Jinping starts his second term, is aimed at “strengthening the Communist Party’s overall leadership” of the state, and making the ministries better answer to Xi…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/04/09/chinas-new-environment-ministry-unveiled-huge-staff-boost/

    9 Apr: CarbonPulse: China aims for realtime CO2 data for power stations in ETS
    China’s climate change office has asked for assistance from the power industry to develop realtime CO2 emissions data reporting for power stations covered by the national emissions trading scheme, a move that if successful would make it the world’s first carbon market to deploy such equipment.

    10

  • #
    pat

    clear as mud:

    9 Apr: CarbonBrief: Zeke Hausfather: Analysis: How much ‘carbon budget’ is left to limit global warming to 1.5C?
    While calculations based on Earth System Models (LINK) (ESMs, see below) used in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report suggest that we have only a few years left (LINK) at our current rate of emissions before we blow the 1.5C carbon budget, some recent studies (LINK) have suggested that the remaining carbon budget is much larger…

    In this article, Carbon Brief assesses nine new carbon budget estimates released by different groups over the past two years. Most show larger allowable emissions than were featured in the last IPCC report. A number of studies suggest that carbon budgets estimates based on ESMs may be on the low side as a result of limitations with how some models represent the carbon cycle.

    However, there is still a wide range of variation in these new carbon budgets, arising from differences in approaches, timeframes, estimates of warming to-date and other factors. Recent studies suggest the remaining carbon budget to limit warming to “well below” 1.5C might have already been exceeded by emissions to-date, or might be as large as 15 more years of emissions at our current rate (LINK)…

    Large uncertainties remain…
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-carbon-budget-is-left-to-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c

    10

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    My hat is off to whoever conceived of and implemented this pseudoscientific scam.

    It’s brilliant!!

    Who would ever have believed that democratically elected governments would pay people to pretend to make electricity.

    Surely the penny must drop soon and those responsible taken to the U.N. for trial??

    KK

    110

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Sorry.

      That’s no good. The U.N.is one of the guilty parties.

      It will have to be the Hague.

      70

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Sorry.

        That’s no good either, the Hague is in the EU, and it’s one of the guilty parties.

        90

    • #
      PeterS

      The problem is by the time the penny should drop there won’t be any more pennies left.

      70

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Maybe that’s when the revolution starts, to get all those pennies back and send the message that we want honest government.

        30

  • #
    pat

    behind payWALLS:

    8 Apr: UK Times: Green Queen joins with David Attenborough to tame climate
    In his latest television spectacular Sir David Attenborough encounters an exotic species living in a unique environment. The 91-year-old broadcaster was visiting Buckingham Palace to interview the Queen.

    In a striking change from his celebrated studies of meerkats, albatrosses and whales, Attenborough provides an intriguing glimpse of a controversial issue that turns out to be close to the Queen’s heart.

    In an hour-long programme to be broadcast on ITV1 on April 16, the Queen, who is also 91, unveils her ambitious plans for a global environmental project to plant and protect forests in Commonwealth countries in the hope of reversing the impact of climate change.
    It is thought to be the first time the Queen has publicly acknowledged the issue of climate change and her plans for the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy leave no doubt of her concern.” The project aims to create a network of forest conservation initiatives across all 53 Commonwealth countries…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/green-queen-joins-with-david-attenborough-to-tame-climate-mgkvv8b2q

    8 Apr: UK Sun: Her Majesty’s Tree-tment: When does The Queen’s Green Planet start on ITV and who’s in the documentary with David Attenborough?
    The two national treasures team up to discuss everything from climate change to conkers
    By Joe Brophy
    The monarch says she hopes to “change the climate again”, which Attenborough replies that would be a “wonderful legacy”…

    Beloved nature broadcaster Sir David Attenborough returns to our screens this year.
    Alongside him, The Queen’s Green Planet will also follow Prince Harry as he plants trees in the Caribbean.
    “I think I’m closing in on my half-century of trees planted,” Prince Harry commented, “but I reckon the Queen is up in the thousands.”…

    The documentary will see Prince William and his family in Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest and follow Angelina Jolie’s conservation work with the Namibian government…

    FOLLOWED BY: PROMOTED STORIES
    Solar Energy Is Taking Australia By Storm
    byEco Experts
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/6002277/the-queens-green-planet-bbc-one-documentary-david-attenborough/

    41

  • #
    pat

    am I the only one wondering if Charles & the writer are having a few “budgie smuggler” digs at a certain former Prime Minister?

    9 Apr: Daily Mail: The green Queen: Her Majesty joins climate change fight to plant trees across the Commonwealth as she chuckles with Sir David Attenborough in ITV documentary
    It came after Prince Charles was pictured putting on a grass skirt in Vanuatu
    By Tim Stickings For Mailonline and Robert Jobson For The Mail On Sunday

    The ambitious plans will be discussed at a Commonwealth heads of government meeting in London later this month, the Sunday Times reports.

    As he happily chats to the Queen, Sir David says: ‘I suppose, actually, the trees with which you will be presented are going to change as our climate changes and there will be all kinds of different trees growing here in another 50 years’ time.’
    In response, the Queen says: ‘It might easily be, yes. I won’t be here though,’ at which Sir David laughs…

    The Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy project was the brainchild of Labour MP ***Frank Field (Member of Parliament for Birkenhead since 1979), who had a vision of creating a collection of forest and woodland conservation initiatives…
    ITV’s head of factual, Jo Clinton Davis: ‘Rare is the project that starts as a finite one hour documentary and ends up generating the momentum for a timeless campaigning event.’…

    It came after Prince Charles was pictured in Vanuatu lamenting that he will never again fit into a pair of skin-tight ‘budgie smugglers’…
    He even admitted, somewhat alarmingly, that his advancing years coincided with ‘bits falling off’…

    His swimwear lament came during a speech at a reception in Brisbane where Charles described his great love for Australia, a nation he first visited as a teenager.
    ‘It is hard now, I find, to believe that all these years have actually passed by, or that I shall soon be 70. It’s not very long ago I remember my parents being 70, let alone my grandmother being 70!

    ‘I do know only too well – and understand – the strange feeling of disbelief that this is actually happening and that never again, for instance, will it be possible to squeeze into a pair of budgie smugglers! I don’t know about you but now bits of me keep falling off at regular intervals! ‘Don’t worry,’ they keep telling me, ‘you have brilliant genes!’ But the trouble is, I can’t even get into them either!’

    Charles is being accompanied on his seven-day tour Down Under by the Duchess of Cornwall. But he made a brief trip alone to South Pacific island Vanuatu – where his father, Prince Philip, is worshipped.

    There, he was made a ‘Paramount Chief’, complete with his own grass skirt and giant palm leaf. Wearing a lightweight suit and tie with the skirt wrapped around his waist and a garland round his neck, the Prince posed happily in his native attire.

    More comfortable, perhaps, than a pair of budgie smugglers.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5591359/Queen-plans-plant-forests-Commonwealth-countries.html

    ***Wikipedia: Frank Field is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead since 1979…
    In March 2015,(Frank) Field was awarded the Grassroot Diplomat Initiative Honouree for the co-founding of environmental organisation Cool Earth, a charity that works alongside indigenous villages to halt rainforest destruction as a bottom-up solution to an ageing problem…
    Field believes strongly in fighting climate change. He co-founded the charity Cool Earth with ***Johan Eliasch…

    ***Wikipedia: Johan Eliasch is a Swedish billionaire businessman, and the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Head N.V., the global sporting goods group, and a former special representative of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom…
    He is on the board of directors of Equity Partners, Aman Resorts, London Films, the Foundation for Renewable Energy and Environment, Longleat. He is an advisory board member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Polar Regions, Brasilinvest, Societe du Louvre, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Capstar[specify], Centre for Social Justice and the British Olympic Association…
    He is the first president of the Global Strategy Forum…
    Eliasch is the grandson of G. A. Svensson, a leading Swedish industrialist who “made a killing in real estate”…
    Eliasch, a conservative, served in the British Government, as the non-political Special Representative of the then Labour Party Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Deforestation and Clean Energy from 2007 to 2010…
    In 2005, Eliasch created the Rainforest Trust and purchased for preservation purposes a 400,000-acre (1,600 km2) rainforest area in the heart of the Amazon rainforest near the Madeira River…
    In 2006, he co-founded Cool Earth, a charity he co-chairs, which sponsors local NGOs to conserve endangered rainforest and has over 120,000 registered members…

    2008: UK Telegraph: Johan Eliasch, Gordon Brown consultant, fined for illegal Amazon logging
    A company belonging to a Swedish businessman with close links to Gordon Brown has been fined £137 million for illegally cutting down Amazon rainforest, Brazilian officials said yesterday.
    (Eliasch) is a former deputy treasurer of the Conservative Party and now an environmental consultant to the prime minister…

    The fine followed reports in Brazil’s O Globo newspaper last month that police were investigating Mr Eliasch’s interests in the country. The paper reported that Mr Eliasch was being investigated for allegedly claiming that foreigners could buy the entire rainforest for “$50 billion”.
    In fact, Mr Eliasch said, in a speech in 2006, that hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico had cost insurance companies “$75 billion” and it might be cheaper to save the rainforest for “$25 billion”, thereby preventing deforestation and making hurricanes less frequent.
    At the time, sources close to Mr Eliasch accused the Brazilian paper of misquoting this speech as part of an “entirely fabricated” story…

    50

  • #
    Russell

    To my mind neither solar or wind energy farms are “renewable”, since they will never be able to reproduce themselves, let alone mitigate the CO2 cost of producing and running them.
    Russ

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    Similarly with the Hepburn Springs private windmill. These caring Green recipients of Awards and Victorian government support now own their windmill, an amazing ten years early by their own estimates! Even with the world’s highest electricity prices though, they can only break even making electricity. All of their substantial profit comes from being handed $2 cash for every $1 they actually sell.
    Why? This is not a subsidy. This is theft.

    Why should windmill electricity cost three times as much as other electricity, especially as we bought the windmill for them? In fact to break even without the massive ongoing handout, electricity prices would have to double again. There are needier people than windmill owners with no debts. Mainly the millions of poor people who are being forced to hand their cash over, to make others rich.

    110

  • #
    David Maddison

    Intermittent power is utterly useless. Its power rating should be calculated on the same basis as a fossil fuel, nuclear or traditional hydro generator, that is, the minimum continuous power output which in the case of windmills or solar cells is zero. If there is battery backup, whether it be electrochemical or pumped hydro this should be included and appropriately costed.

    It is unfair to use reliable generators to back up wind or solar so they can pretend that they provide useful power.

    Also the sheeple, including politicians, have absolutely no clue of the shear size of a solar or wind plant with associated battery backup that is equivalent to a relatively small size reliable power plant it is meant to replace.

    In fact any wind or solar plant with a battery to give it continuous power output would be infeasibly large and expensive but it would at least be honestly priced.

    111

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      What we, as a Democratic nation, are being subjected to is worse than war and invasion because the theft, manipulation and abuse we are suffering is being controlled by those living next to us.

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    The myth of bulk battery storage

    ///It is found that installing enough battery storage to convert intermittent wind/solar generation into long-term baseload generation increases total capital costs generally by factors of three or more for wind and by factors of ten or more for solar, even at $100/kWh. Clearly the Holy Grail of energy policy is still a long way off.///

    https://stopthesethings.com/2016/08/31/bulk-battery-storage-of-wind-power-a-myth/amp/

    51

    • #
      RickWill

      That is far from the entire story. The factor of three is only true if the wind and solar generation is not demand constrained. The basis is steady output over a year so there is no load constraint. If you look at the linked detail they are only talking about meeting 25% of the demand with wind or solar. However on this basis the size of the battery would handle a larger steady load in some locations other than Northern Europe.

      With demand constrained generation, aiming for higher than 25% wind or solar market share the cost factor rises rapidly as the market share increases because the system needs overbuilding with the extra generation. Actual factor is in the range 7 to 10 times the unconstrained cost for battery buffered wind and larger than 10 for for the unconstrained cost for battery buffered solar; much higher than a factor of 10 in Germany because solar basically does nothing from November through February.

      The calculation does depend on the relative cost of storage and solar arrays. With current prices it works out around AUD.055/kWh under Australian conditions for 100% solar with low cost of finance. That would equate to AUD550/MWh wholesale price so retail price up around AUD700/MWh.

      41

  • #
    yarpos

    The UK keeps bring up stories like this, the importing of wood pellets, farmers heating empty barns for subsidies etc. Yet the caravan rolls on, as it does here in Australia.

    Seems inevitable now that there will no pull back until they finally blow something up comprehensively. Then emergency measures and expense (SA style) will become necessary and the pollies of the day will expect to be treated like heros for “saving” us from the mess they created.

    I think (again SA style) the issues will escalate here more quickly as we have neither economies of scale nor neighbours of the hydro/nuclear kind to lean on as they have in the EU/UK and US. The system needs to be broken first. WA, QLD and TAS should continue to enjoy reasonable energy security, however the rest of us can look forward to something else, so the quicker we get it over with the better.

    81

    • #
      TdeF

      Why not blow up the Snowy Mountain scheme? Wind and solar are free. Water should run free to the ocean. It is unconscionable that it is trapped against its will. We can always use solar and wind. There is no need to punish water.

      50

    • #
      yarpos

      The real question in my mind is whether the coming destruction will be creative destruction or just a pause as we pour on more stupid, “this time it will be different” style.

      20

  • #
    Rob Leviston

    Surprise! Surprise! Solar panels make more money from subsidies, than they do from the actual power they produce!
    The exact same for wind power too! One of our local (small) wind farms, makes more money from the LRET, than they do fro the sale of power. Almost 2 to 1 if my memory serves me correctly!
    Just goes to show what the renewable energy bandwagon is really about! Its about making money, and as much as you can, for basically doing nothing!
    And with the progressive closure of our coal fleet, and with each closure pushing up the price of wholesale electricity, its easy to see why they chant ‘Coal is Dead’! Its about maximising their profits! God help us! We will be priced out of the market, and become a power poor nation! :(

    70

  • #
    Rob Leviston

    Surprise! Surprise! Solar panels make more money from subsidies, than they do from the actual power they produce!
    The exact same for wind power too! One of our local (small) wind farms, makes more money from the LRET, than they do fro the sale of power. Almost 2 to 1 if my memory serves me correctly!
    Just goes to show what the renewable energy bandwagon is really about! Its about making money, and as much as you can, for basically doing nothing!
    And with the progressive closure of our coal fleet, and with each closure pushing up the price of wholesale electricity, its easy to see why they chant ‘Coal is Dead’! Its about maximising their profits! God help us! We will be priced out of the market, and become a power poor nation! :(

    50

  • #

    Prob’ly off-thread.

    ‘The system needs to be broken first.’ … Gee I dunno, Yarpos.
    Not easy to put Humpty back together again once he’s broke.
    Yr old Magna Carta trial and error evolution ver-suss anti-western
    -civilization-lefties welcoming chaos. Yr Cultural Revolution! -(

    A good swamp-draining, yes! But I’m with Edmund Burke on this …
    Burke, writing in 1791, his cautionary letter ‘Reflections on the
    Revolution in France,’ seeing threats to those basic principles,
    the observance of which sustained western constitutional government
    and a free society.

    Burke recognized the problem of cavalier exercise of authority
    demonstrated by events in Paris that were based on Rousseau’s
    doctrine of natural rights, a doctrine that Burke perceived as
    gaining ground in England. Burke wanted to shake the complacency
    of those who believed that the French were simply imitating the
    modest English Revolution of 1688, which he argued was restorative
    of constitutional and established rights and very different from
    the clean-slate France.

    Burke was wary of the untutored and unsocial impulses that lie
    beneath men’s acquired civility. He thought that the social
    institutions that have evolved in a a complex, historical
    process and have stood the test of time are what allow men to
    live together in any degree of peace and freedom. The political
    creed to which Burke subscribed, an off-shoot of the ‘Glorious
    Revolution of 1688,’ was united by hatred of arbitrary power
    and by a wish to be guided by and governed by the certain rule
    of law. The Revolution of 1688 did not seek to overthrow Britain’s
    onstitutional law but to preserve ‘ancient indisputable laws and
    liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is
    our only security for law and liberty.’ (‘Reflections,’ Oxford
    Press, P31.)

    Listen up Malcolm.

    50

    • #

      “Ancient indisputable laws and liberties”. How true that is. Home-as-castle, quiet enjoyment, property, privacy, free speech, strong fences and definite borders…it’s odd how we advance away from all these hard-won things in the name of freedom from terrorists or freedom to marry a favourite Hills Hoist.

      Won’t be easy getting it all back. Took a few centuries just to persuade my lot to extend these good things to serfs. Now we toss them like McDonald wrappers.

      50

    • #
      sophocles

      Thomas Paine had a lot to say, most of it not at all complimentary to Mr. Burke, about the writings of Mr. Burke and the Declaration of 1688, in his “The Rights of Man.” Mr. Paine waxed rather vitriolic in places.

      The “Revolution” of 1688? Interesting way of putting it.

      It is somewhat extraordinary that the offence for which James II was expelled, that of setting up power by assumption, should be re-acted, under another shape and form, by the Parliament that expelled him.

      The only difference is (for in principle they differ not) that the one was an usurper over the living, and the other over the unborn; and as the one has no better authority to stand upon than the other, both of them must be equally null and void, and in no effect.

      From what and from whence. does Mr Burke prove the right of any human power to bind posterity forever?

      [The Rights of Man; Thomas Paine].

      I don’t side with Mr Paine nor Mr Burke. That’s a part of history I’m not familiar with—yet. I’m reading The Rights of Man at present and I have yet to read the “other side.”

      20

      • #
        • #
          sophocles

          Thank you, I’ll watch it. :-)

          I’ve John Locke’s writings, Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Men,” Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” tract and much of the history itself to go, as my knowledge of the time is poor. But I have first to finish Tom Paine’s book, which is the one I started with for a different reason. Then there’s digestion and thinking …

          That all should keep me quiet for a time. :-)

          30

  • #
    Serp

    Renewables has been determined to be Our Future by yer fiscal Powers That Be.

    Unfortunately it is such a lucrative enterprise that it will be displaced only by a bigger rort –something to look forward to?

    50

  • #
    Julian Flood

    Renewable energy isn’t exactly taxed in the UK, electricity companies are compelled by law to take it at a high price whenever it is available, ignoring the fact that they could buy cheaper power elsewhere. The old, the sick and the poor use disproportionate amounts of power, so these are the people subsidising the rich landowners who lay out the solar farms and erect the wind turbines.

    A couple of years ago when he was UK’s Minister for Energy (probably also ‘for Climate Change’), The Rt Hon. Matthew Hancock bounced up to me at a public meeting with a big smile on his face.

    “Julian, good news. Solar panels are so cheap that the price of solar electricity is now competitive!”
    “Yes, Minister, but you still have to store it.”
    His face fell.
    “Yes Oh yes. Of course. Yes. You have to store it.”
    He bounced off.

    The Minister for Energy (and probably Climate Change) didn’t know that you use electricity or it’s gone. His civil servants hadn’t briefed him, or they didn’t know either.

    First Class PPE Oxon.

    Ye. Gods.

    JF
    Don’t blame me, I stood for UKIP)

    110

  • #
    TdeF

    Definitely off topic, Judith Sloane says Malcolm should ignore Abbott..”Malcolm Turnbull has two ways to win the next election: do something about electricity prices and cut immigration.”

    This is absurd, although well meant. Malcolm hates everything about Abbott and these are two of Abbott’s best policies. Having failed to get the Greens on his side, Malcolm has been forced to follow Abbott policies so far and he is being told that in the total absence of any ideas of his own, he should follow direction from Abbott?

    Malcolm wants energy prices through the roof. Malcolm wants Liddell closed. Malcolm is a Green, not Labor royalty like his mother. He hates Labor, hate the Nationals and loves the Greens but the Greens hate him. He did his best to wipe out Labor at the last election by a partnership with the Greens and nearly lost his job. Di Natalie reneged at the last minute and a sure thing became a one seat majority.

    So expecting Malcolm’s government to do anything at all about anything, especially electricity prices is asking too much. Malcolm will run away at the last moment, unwilling to take the drubbing he most richly deserves. The wisdom of Rudd and the ethics of Gillard.

    Then you get AGL, running a current television advertisement where a two chimney power station is blown up in the background. Just like Liddell. With the concrete chimneys collapsing in the background, AGL is making very clear they agree with Malcolm, Liddell must be blown up. The profits are in windmills.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    Sorry, found the AGL advertisement on Youtube. Three chimneys, the cooling towers, so not Liddell. 8 Seconds in. Then rubbish about AGL making energy affordable. That’s not what they do.

    52

  • #
    cedarhill

    The location is around 51 1/3 deg North with an average of about 4 hours per day of sunshine not to mention how many migratory birds will be roasted.

    No one has yet to be able to explain how the economics of generating power, on average, of 4 hours a day and then leaching power for 20 hours per day from some magical, infinite reserve.

    Now I understand the quaint English term: barking mad.

    70

  • #
    pat

    being touted by the MSM and Renew Economy, which omits most of the important bits, see EurActiv link:

    9 Apr: RenewEconomy: Portugal reaches 100% renewables, ends fossil fuel subsidies
    By Sophie Vorrath
    Portugal’s renewable energy sources generated enough power to exceed total grid demand across the month of March, a new report has found, setting a standard that is expected to become the norm for the European nation.
    According to Portuguese grid operator, REN, renewable energy output over the month reached 4,812GWh, surpassing the nation’s total electricity needs for March, which only topped 4,647GWh.
    In that time, power generated by Portugal’s hydroelectric dams accounted for 55 per cent of monthly consumption – boosted by drought-breaking rainfall of four times the monthly average – and wind power, 42 per cent.
    The achievement comes nearly one year after hydro, wind, and solar power helped push the Iberian country to run on 100 per cent renewable electricity for 107 hours straight. Last March, however, the average renewables supply was 62 per cent…

    The new record coincides with the move by the Portuguese government, last Tuesday, to suspend annual subsidies of around Euros 20 million for guaranteed power supplies paid to producers – most of which goes to fossil fuel pants left in stand-by mode…

    The group noted that while fossil fuel plants still worked for short periods to complement the electricity supply, those were fully compensated by other periods of greater renewable production.
    “These data, besides indicating a historical milestone in the Portuguese electricity sector, demonstrate that renewable energy can be relied upon as a secure and viable source with which to completely meet the country’s electricity demands.”
    The effort was also praised by Green MEP Claude Turmes, who cited Portugal’s example as evidence that the EU should support a renewable energy target of more than 27 per cent for 2030…
    (MOST COMMENTING LAP THIS UP)
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/portugal-reaches-100-renewables-ends-fossil-fuel-subsidies-32820/

    Wikipedia: Renewable energy in Portugal
    The renewable energy produced in Portugal fell from 55,5% of the total energy produced in 2016 to 41,8% in 2017, due to the drought of 2017, which severely affected the production of hydro electricity (8)…

    4 Apr: EurActiv: Portugal breaks 100% renewables mark but remains isolated
    By Sam Morgan
    But a dearth of energy connections with the rest of Europe remains problematic…
    That meant that the average for the month reached 103.6% from renewables, outstripping the previous contemporary record of 99.2%, set back in February 2014. In the last 40 years, Portugal has not managed to match March’s efforts.
    In fact, during the same period last year, renewable energy was only able to meet 62% of Portugal’s electricity needs…

    ***But Portugal’s clean energy triumph was not all shining solar panels and whirring hydro turbines, as during some hours fossil fuel power and imports were needed to balance supply…

    But the country’s location on the very edge of mainland Europe and the fact it only shares a land border with Spain, mean its isolation could stymie its clean energy efforts. Despite being totally connected with the Spanish grid, its peripheral location is a difficult challenge.
    Interconnectors, especially electricity cables, are essential to the EU’s Energy Union plans of having a true internal power market, as they allow surplus energy to be shifted from one member state to another depending on demand.

    This is particularly important for ever-increasing renewable energy capacity, as the old adage of ‘the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow’ is still true, and storage solutions are still not developed enough to satisfy energy needs.

    For example, on 11 March, Portugal generated 143% of its power from renewables but without a robust connected energy grid or ample storage (either in the form of advanced batteries or pumped hydro) that energy could go to waste.

    That is why Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa in December announced that he would host a mini summit with Spanish counterpart Mariano Rajoy that would focus on interconnectors. French President Emmanuel Macron and Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker were also slated to attend…

    Member states are meant to hit a 10% interconnection target by 2020, where a tenth of generated electricity can be exported across borders, but both Spain and Portugal are lagging behind that goal, along with ten other EU countries.

    Portugal is trying to overcome its isolation from the rest of Europe by looking into third-party interconnectors. A cable across the mouth of the Mediterranean to Morocco is well on its way to completion.
    But Costa’s meeting was pencilled in for February and there have been no indications in 2018 that the summit will indeed be held. A spokesperson for the Commission told EURACTIV that a date still has not yet been confirmed…

    Although the Bay of Biscay cable between France and Spain will boost the latter’s integration, it looks likely Portugal’s admirable progress on renewables might bump up against the glass ceiling of grid isolation.
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/portugal-breaks-100-renewables-mark-but-remains-isolated/

    10

  • #
    pat

    another claim which seems to be a little deceptive, but is being touted online:

    4 Apr: Bloomberg: Google Bought Enough Clean Power for Whole Company and Then Some
    By Brian Eckhouse
    Company consumed about 7 terawatt-hours of power last year
    Google is world’s biggest corporate buyer of renewable energy
    The Alphabet Inc. unit used about 7 terawatt-hours of electricity to run all of its global operations last year, and it sourced even more than that, according to Neha Palmer, its head of energy strategy…

    While part of the motivation is to advance sustainability goals, they’re also finding that clean energy is often the cheapest electricity available. Big technology companies have been leading this trend, and Google has been the biggest of them all. It’s planning five new U.S. data centers this year, so Palmer expects the company to sign more power-purchase agreements…
    ***She declined to say how much clean power Google bought last year…

    Companies signed long-term agreements for a record 5.4 gigawatts of clean capacity globally last year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, up from 4.3 gigawatts in 2016. That’s enough to displace at least 10 coal-fired power plants.
    Google signed its first clean power-purchase agreement in 2010, and since then it’s arranged about 25 more, prompting more than $3 billion in new clean-power plants. Google has agreed to buy the output from about 3 gigawatts of clean-power plants globally, according to New Energy Finance — more than double that of Amazon.com Inc., the next biggest green consumer…

    “It’s a significant investment, leading to lots of new renewables projects,” Kyle Harrison, a New York-based analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said in an interview. “It’s a long-term bet on clean energy, a hedge against wholesale prices.”
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-04/google-bought-enough-clean-power-for-whole-company-and-then-some

    not behind paywall – some extra bits of info:

    4 Apr Financial Times: (Google’s) Alphabet becomes biggest corporate renewable energy buyer in US Tech group purchases enough green power to match its global needs
    by Leslie Hook
    https://www.ft.com/content/3f259ae2-381a-11e8-8eee-e06bde01c544

    4 Apr: Google Blog: Meeting our match: Buying 100 percent renewable energy
    by Urs Hölzle, Senior Vice President, Technical Infrastructure
    We say that we “matched” our energy usage because it’s not yet possible to “power” a company of our scale by 100 percent renewable energy. It’s true that for every kilowatt-hour of energy we consume, we add a matching kilowatt-hour of renewable energy to a power grid somewhere. But that renewable energy may be produced in a different place, or at a different time, from where we’re running our data centers and offices…ETC
    https://www.blog.google/topics/environment/meeting-our-match-buying-100-percent-renewable-energy/

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***Deutsche Welle lists a 6 percent drop in US renewable investment ahead of 36 percent drop in Europe. wonder why! links to report:

    5 Apr: Deutsche Welle: Srinivas Mazumdaru: China leads in global shift to renewable energy
    Investment in renewable energy continues to grow at a record pace as countries look to move away from fossil fuel-based power production to eco-friendly generation. Over half of world’s new solar capacity is in China.
    A record 157 gigawatts of renewable power were commissioned last year, up from 143 gigawatts in 2016 and far out-stripping the net 70 gigawatts of fossil-fuel generating capacity added (after adjusting for the closure of some existing plants) over the same period, revealed the Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2018 (LINK) report, released on Thursday by UN Environment, the Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Center and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

    Last year was the eighth in a row in which global investment in renewables exceeded $200 billion (€163.2 billion), the report states, adding that since 2004, the world has invested about $2.9 trillion in green energy sources…
    In total, solar power drew investment worth $160.8 billion, up 18 percent year-on-year. It accounted for about 57 percent of last year’s total investment for all renewables (excluding large hydro) of $279.8 billion.
    The number far outstripped new investment in coal and gas (WHY ISN’T OIL MENTIONED?) generation capacity, estimated at a lowly $103 billion…

    “The extraordinary surge in solar investment, around the world, shows how much can be achieved when we commit to growth without harming the environment,” said the head of UN Environment Erik Solheim in a statement.
    “By investing in renewables, countries can power new communities, improving the lives and livelihoods of the people who live in them, and at the same time cleaning up the air they breathe.”…

    China was at the forefront of this solar boom, adding some 53 gigawatts of capacity, equivalent to more than half the global total. The Asian giant’s total investment in renewables — at a record $126.6 billion — was also by far the highest in the world.
    Despite being the largest investor in renewable energy, China has faced an uphill battle transitioning from coal, which is used to generate roughly three-quarters of its power…
    Renewable energy investment in some big markets like Europe and the US, meanwhile, have suffered a decline, according to the report.

    ***The US saw a drop of 6 percent in investment, amounting to about $40.5 billion, while Europe faced a much bigger fall of around ***36 percent, to $40.9 billion.

    Investment in Germany — viewed as a pioneer of renewable energy technologies — slipped 35 percent due to “lower costs per MW [megawatts] for offshore wind, and uncertainty over a shift to auctions for onshore wind,” the report notes.

    “In countries that saw lower investment, it generally reflected a mixture of changes in policy support, the timing of large project financings, such as in offshore wind, and lower capital costs per megawatt,” Angus McCrone, chief editor of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and lead author of the report, said in a statement…
    http://www.dw.com/en/china-leads-in-global-shift-to-renewable-energy/a-43266203

    20

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    7 Apr: UK Telegraph: The UK will spend trillions to reduce C02 emissions while the real offenders do little
    By Christopher Booker
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/07/uk-will-spend-trillions-reduce-c02-emissions-real-offenders/

    Homewood has most, if not all, the text here:

    9 Apr: Paul Homewood: The UK will spend trillions to reduce C02 emissions while the real offenders do little
    (Christopher) Booker “celebrates” the 10th anniversary of the Climate Change Act!
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/the-uk-will-spend-trillions-to-reduce-c02-emissions-while-the-real-offenders-do-little/

    20

  • #
    pat

    4 Apr: YaleClimateConnections: Does a changing climate require a change in vocabulary?
    Do ​persistent low-water conditions in the Colorado River Basin warrant a more​ enduring term than ‘drought’ to convey long-term and chronic​aridity?
    As the snowpack and moisture in the Colorado River Basin show large areas of moderate to extreme drought, some are wondering if the term “drought” is misleading people into thinking it’s a temporary situation. Do we need a new vocabulary to describe conditions in the West?…

    Instead, (Doug Kenney who directs the Western Water Policy Program at Colorado University in Boulder) describes the conditions along the Colorado River as “aridification,” meaning the region is becoming more arid and that’s what needs to be talked about, not drought. “Aridification” conveys the notion that what’s happening is a process of going from one climatic regime to another, and as soon as people understand this, the conversation will improve as to what we need to do about it…

    Tom Philp of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, recently wrote in Water Deeply that “drought” and “normal” need to be swept into the dustbin of history. He says it’s more important to focus on the overall trend. Philp said new terms like “aridification” or even “chronic semi-drought” are important because they get you out of what’s happening right now and gets you thinking much more about what’s been happening in the last ten years and what we think is going to happen in the decades to come. Decisions about water are made for the next generation, for your kids and for your kids’ kids. That’s the mindset that a water agency has to have…

    Both Kenney and Philp agree that being prepared means using a new vocabulary to have needed conversations.
    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/04/does-a-changing-climate-require-a-change-in-vocabulary/

    6 Apr: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology: Should cities embrace their heat islands as shields from extreme cold?
    Jiachuan Yang and Elie Bou-Zeid, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University LINK
    Abstract
    The higher temperature in cities compared to their rural surroundings, known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI), is one of the most well documented and severe anthropogenic modifications of the environment. Heat islands are hazardous to residents and the sustainability of cities during summertime and heat waves; on the other hand, they provide considerable benefits in wintertime. Yet, the evolution of urban heat islands during cold waves has not yet been explored. In this study, ground-based observations from 12 U.S. cities and high-resolution weather simulations show that UHIs not only warm urban areas in the winter, but also further intensify during cold waves by up to 1.32 ± 0.78 °C (mean ± standard deviation) at night relative to precedent and subsequent periods. Anthropogenic heat released from building heating is found to contribute more than 30% of the UHI intensification. Urban heat islands thus serve as shelters against extreme cold events and provide benefits including mitigating cold hazard and reducing heating demand…ETC
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0265.1?af=R&

    10