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

Renewable snowflake investors false tears for “certainty” (Gimmedat guaranteed income!)

When investors cry for certainty, what they really want is “no risks” and “your money”

The renewables industry only exists because of government largess. What the government giveth, so can it sucketh.

Now that the bountiful wheel of the Turnbull government is turning slightly toward other beneficiaries, the Australian renewables industry are holding crisis meetings. Feel the entitlement! Sophie Vorrath reports in RenewEconomy on the green industry disappointment with the NEG — (the theoretical new Australian plan for Weather-Management-with-Socialist-Electricity-Grids.)

The government is still picking winners, it’s just different winners:

NEG will block renewables, favour hydro and big retailers

Oliver Yates, head of UPC Renewables:

Yates said that setting emissions compliance cost on a path to zero could “pull the carpet out” from under existing solar and wind energy investments and actually stop future investments. “This is very bad for our industry and very bad for the nation as a whole, as this orderly investment and orderly transition towards using new generation assets is required.”

And – “as a banker” – Yates also warned against the mentality that the NEG could be legislated now, and tweaked later, under a future Labor government, or a more enlightened Coalition.

According to the Smart Energy Council, no one in Australia knows more about renewables finance than Oliver Yates. Boy is this industry in trouble.

“It is impossible to invest on the assumption of election results,” he said.

Dear Oliver, coal investors and everyone else, have been doing it for decades. It’s called “risk”.

“You cannot explain to your board, when you’re asking them to put money into a transaction, that the structural price of power could bounce around wildly, depending upon the outcomes of various state or federal election campaigns.”

The problem is not that governments and voters may change their minds, it’s that they should never have been messing with this market in the first place.

There is more than one path to “certainty”

Yates again:

“The only way that we can get certainty… is if the federal emissions level set within the NEG is around 50 per cent for the electricity sector.

No. No and double No. We get far more certainty with the free market where the price, demand and need for green electrons is zero, and the certain profits are nothin’. Since the effect of CO2 has been minimal for the last 500 million years, the price of CO2 will trend toward its true value. This is the kind of certainty that will last until the Sun goes supernova. We’ve got the next billion electoral cycles covered. How long will your bubble last?    

Shovel it on with a spade:

“I can ensure you that no investor ever anticipated that the electricity sector would only reduce its emissions between 26-28 per cent by 2030.

Then, shovel it on with a Front End Loader:

“That outcome, that little level of emissions reduction will be a shock to the financial markets, and actually it’s a shock to many of us who are concerned, deeply, about climate change.

“Diddums”. Do your homework. The government’s role is not to save investors who make stupid decisions from being shocked that the government is only hoping to achieve what it said it would aim for. Investors who read skeptic sites know the right level of emissions reductions is zero. They know that CO2 doesn’t control the climate, and that renewables aren’t competitive. They knew grid prices would rocket, households would hurt and voters would run.

PS: If you are a sophisticated investor who does understand risk, and can see a great opportunity coming by helping to capitalize on snowflake investors who face some reality shocks, check out Cool Futures. Things are steaming ahead with an international team coming together. I’ll need to update the info I posted previously. David and I have an interest and are involved in this — see the Risk, Disclosure and Disclaimer on that post.

PPS: A rare event coming –  I’ll be speaking at in Sydney with Ian Plimer in a few weeks at the Friedman18 conference.  Join us! You can get a 10% discount with the code Nova18. See an amazing line up of speakers this year on May 25-27 in Sydney.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (66 votes cast)
Renewable snowflake investors false tears for "certainty" (Gimmedat guaranteed income!), 9.6 out of 10 based on 66 ratings

177 comments to Renewable snowflake investors false tears for “certainty” (Gimmedat guaranteed income!)

  • #

    Simply put, it’s easier to hand out public money to green cronies than to ordinary cronies. Because that’s all this is: crony capitalism.

    If you dish out dough and favours to a cigar-chomping business type who makes ball bearings or jellybeans you might be in trouble. If the same cigar chomper is making something less useful but sanctified by the new green religion, it’s open slather. (If the cigar chomper is dealing in a fragment of thin air, even better. Won’t even have to leave his armchair in Zurich. Of course, some bank employees have to do the hard yards and serve as presidents, prime ministers, premiers etc for a bit, but their sacrifices won’t be forgotten.)

    Crony capitalism. That simple.

    280

  • #
    Tdef

    Renewables applies to the wind and sunshine. We are paying for windmills and solar panels which are not Renewables. They are very short term replaceables.

    A factory which can be maintained is renewable. Like a coal power station. That is a worthwhile investment. Windmills are flakey, unreliable and unserviceable with an unknown lifespan. They cannot be justified or profitable even with the world’s highest electricity prices.

    So the short termist investors have to take their own risks. Why should we guarantee their incomes? The RET must stop now. We will risk drowning in our beds tomorrow.

    They could also explain how we have a reduction in CO2. How the people of South Australia have benefited for all the suffering. Show how well our investment, not theirs is going in reducing world CO2. Explain the good they have done with our billions. Or go home and find another job.

    350

    • #
      TdeF

      It is also not the job of government to buy or build batteries to make these ridiculous ‘investments’ viable, whether Weatherill’s 4 second battery or Tunrbull’s Snowy II. It is throwing good public money after bad private money which took lots of our money with it.

      Consider the $98Million ‘invested’ in Flannery’s hot rock scheme in South Australia where all the directors were on $400,000 a year. What’s our return on that? Zero? It ‘failed’.

      Where’s our return on the hundreds of millions of Climate money given to the UN or Clintons? Or is public money just free cash to buy party tickets in New York to hang around with the rich and famous?

      As Margaret Thatcher said, the government has no money. It only has our money and that on the presumption that they can spend it more wisely than we can. She doubted that. We the people agree. One profligate Australian government after another buying into the energy story and blowing up power stations which they now say would take billions and a decade to rebuild. They why destroy them? We owned them. Now we have nothing.

      Then you get the Greens and Mr Vesey and his AGL working out how to unseat Tony Abbott’s preselection by paying activists to join the local Liberal party. That is wrong business publicly interfering with government to keep the Green swill in the trough. It should be illegal and organized by Liberal game player Michael Photios who is the shadowy figure manipulating Turnbull’s Liberals. Lord Monckton warned us they would try to get rid of Abbott before Paris. Now they are trying to get him out of their Liberal party. They fear his return so much. As does Turnbull, our pretend PM.

      So we have the openly communist Greens Lee Rhiannon and Adam Bandt trying to bring down democracy on one side and Capitalists opportunists like American Vesey trying to corrupt our political system on the other. It is not about saving the planet. It is about power and profit. Rivers of cash.

      440

      • #
        Latus Dextro

        So we have the openly communist Greens Lee Rhiannon and Adam Bandt trying to bring down democracy on one side and Capitalists opportunists like American Vesey trying to corrupt our political system on the other.

        There is also that scintillating bastion of liberty and prosperity, the EU. The EU and the Australia Framework Agreement and forthcoming EU-Australia Free Trade Agreement. You’re now irretrievably wedded to that den of vipers and thieves.
        Time to submit applications to join that gravy train.

        230

      • #
        Eugene S. Conlin

        TdeF: Are you sure you’ve spelt “Bandit”correctly? ;)

        60

      • #
        Eugene S. Conlin

        TdeF: Are you sure you’ve spelt “Bandit” correctly? ;)

        20

    • #

      Spain is broke and the gloss has gone right off European funding and cooperation. So it will be interesting to see how the country pays to fix and maintain its enormous wind infrastructure as it ages. The 20 year mark is not far off.

      According the Science Direct “almost no new wind turbines have been installed since 2013 due to a drastic change of legislation, referred to as ‘Energy Reform’. The new regulation entailed a complete removal of subsidies and incentives, such as the prior feed-in tariff and feed-in premium schemes…”

      If the euro-globo Rajoy conservatives are replaced by euro-globos of the left Spain will still be broke and EU largesse will still be tight. I’ve walked through one of those ghost towns built before the GFC. Everything brand new, wind-turbines turning on the Rioja hills…and not a human being in sight. It makes you realise how much things have changed since the days of the economic miracle coupled with the energy miracle.

      Well, at least they have journos and academics who can come up with some spin. Maybe they can recount that glorious day when the wind blew just right and those nuked-up Frenchies had to take power from Spain. Unlike every other day.

      290

  • #
    RobK

    Ironically, it’s renewables that are the uncertainty that started the problem. They were the response to CO2 by invoking the precautionary principle.
    If you invest in an experiment, be prepared to carry it’s failure.

    280

    • #
      Another Ian

      RobK

      From a comment at https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/w-o-o-d-26-april-2018/#comment-94167

      “http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2

      He discusses the difference in treatment needed for thin tail and fat tail problems and how the need for the precautionary principle depends on both the type of risk (thin tail, fat tail) and how broad the risk can spread as well as its direct impact.”

      So the first question to anyone waving application of the precautionary principle should be

      “Do you know if it has a thin or fat tailed distributon?”

      Which they are likely not to know (or have anty idea of the subject)

      And then lead (via risk weighting etc) to the precautionary principle indicating that the precautionary principle should not be applied

      20

  • #
    BoyfromTottenham

    TdeF – good comment as usual, but would not the government get sued by the renewables generators (e.g. under s51xxxi of the Constitution -’the acquisition of property on just terms etc’?) if they rescinded the LRET and didn’t cough up a wad of $$$ to them for their loss of property (i.e. their government legislated LRET ‘renewable energy’ certificates, currently worth about A$85.00 per MWH sent to the grid? I have asked this question before in several sceptical forums, but have never received an answer. My suggestion fwiw is for the government to simply reduce to near zero the current $65.00/MWH penalty on retailers for failing to buy sufficient of these certificates (on the pseudo ‘market’ that the various bits of ‘clean energy’ legislation created). The renewables generators would still get their certificate per MWH, but they would be almost worthless because the ‘market’ price would be close to zero as the retailers would simply pay the trivial penalty rather than buy LRET certificates. I wonder if the renewables generators could then use s 51xxxi to sue in this case, because they still be getting their certificates, but the ‘market’ (rather than the government) would decide that they are now worth zilch. Just a thought.

    241

    • #
      wal1957

      I like the idea that you have proposed. It does seem to tick the necessary boxes that my frazzled brain can think of.

      On another point, I can’t see how the NEG will provide us, the consumers with cheaper electricity. My understanding is that it just provides certainty of supply? Can someone elaborate on this please.

      130

      • #
        Robber

        Wal, Dr Finkel reported cost of wind without backup $92/MWhr, cost of new coal $71/MWhr. Now to make wind “despatchable” someone must add backup – gas or hydro or batteries. So you have to double up on the investment. Cheaper electricity with intermittent “renewables”? Tell ‘em they’re dreaming. While our electricity bills continue to provide nightmares.

        According to the ABS, changes to the CPI (consumer price index) and the consumer electricity index for Melbourne are as follows:
        2000 CPI 70; Elect 45
        2010 CPI 98; Elect 85
        2018 CPI 112; Elect 150
        So from 2000 to 2010 electricity prices increased by 89%
        And from 2010 to 2018 electricity prices increased by a further 76%

        80

    • #
      TdeF

      No. Sue? We are not demanding they hand over anything, just turning off the cash. They own the windmills. They can make with our money, surely, without more cash?

      Besides, did Daniel Andrews worry about sovereign risk when he tripled the price of coal overnight to force the closure of Hazelwood?
      No government is obliged to hand over cash, especially our cash directly from our electricity bills.

      It is doubtful that the RET is even legal. Anyone receiving this river of unearned cash knows it is all fake. They cannot sue to continue the unjustified handouts based on some fantasy of Global Warming caused by CO2. These are opportunists. Leave them clutching their wallets. They haven’t invested in windmills, we have. They own them and cannot make a dollar with them and want us to pay again to operate them? Pull the other leg.

      290

      • #
        Ross

        I was talking to one of our MPs in NZ last week and he told the Wind “farmers” are at least suggesting , if not lobbying hard, for them to be paid on the basis of their name plate capacity, not what they produce. How is that for the ultimate in troughing !!!

        140

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Brilliant idea and yes for the lawyers to slug it out .

      40

    • #
      RickWill

      Without a higher target the LGCs will tank. The 2021 forward price is down to $35/MWh:
      https://www.energetics.com.au/insights/thought-leadership/the-outlook-for-lgc-prices-from-a-corporate-perspective/

      That is why there is so much noise about the investment prospects. Once supply exceeds demand the price will collapse. The only way to overcome that is to lift the RET.

      Wind generators can cover operating costs with the current wholesale price so the existing ones should keep operating if the LGC price goes to zero.

      The most significant cost of run-whenever-you-like generators is the destruction of base load requiring high cost gas to substitute for low cost coal. That is the fundamental behind rising prices. It is far greater cost than the transfer payments to meet the RET.

      60

  • #
    Michael Spencer

    So now is the time to really start up a pro-nuclear push; get rid of the ridiculous bans on matters nuclear – brought about by ideological fear-mongering by the ignorant. New “Generation IV” nuclear units are about to start to roll off a production line (NOTE: Production Line!) and these will be a complete game-changer. Fans (pun intended) of “renewables” will be well-advised to steer clear!

    Rather than carry on about it here, download my interactive PDF about the weather http://galileomovement.com.au/media/ShouldYouReallyBeAlarmed.pdf and check pages 4 to 7. Good news awaits, except for those who have invested in making money from tax-payer subsidies!

    I rest my case …..

    150

    • #
      NB

      ‘now is the time to really start up a pro-nuclear push’
      Yes. We’d be mad not to go nuclear.

      160

      • #
        el gordo

        Preferably in South Australia.

        70

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well the nuclear thing started in SA with Maralinga…..

          60

          • #
            el gordo

            No due diligence by Menzies, the man was a complete nong who loved his queen. “I did but see her passing by …” made Liz blush.

            40

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              I saw the actual video footage of this comment…she actually cringed…clear as day….

              10

        • #
          Hanrahan

          Nuclear plants need a lot of water, preferably fresh, which is in short supply in SA. And their interconnector is already at capacity.

          Put one on the Burdekin as close to Collinsville as possible, it will have plenty of water and HV capacity to the south although some of the output will be used in the north. Then again you couldn’t get a skilled workforce to live in Collinsville. It may not be the aole of the world but you could stand on a milk crate and see it from there. :)

          50

          • #
            Michael Spencer

            Ah Hanrahan! That’s just the point of the new reactors: they don’t use dihydrogen monoxide, but rather molten salts as the coolant – far more efficient. And for that reason, steam turbines are not used for electricity generation but rather more efficient, much smaller sealed gas units. For this reason you could install one at Outer Woop Woop, no problems.

            Of course, if you want to desalinate sea water as a by-product then, obviously, these units would need to beside the ocean with pipes running inland, with pumps powered by el cheapo electricity. In this case, water is still not the coolant (as above). And these units will be running at normal atmospheric pressure too, so no elaborate cooling systems, no expensive containment domes, etc. Absolutely different to the present light water reactors.

            I suggest you download the PDF linked above and quietly wrap your mind around it. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

            30

          • #
            Michael Spencer

            And I forgot: a skilled workforce will not be needed, as far as I understand it. This is mainly because these units, some of which could fit on the back of a truck, virtually look after themselves requiring only periodic replacement of the central reactor unit by a refurbished one. Anyway, you will find out about all of this if you check the material in the PDF, as suggested.

            30

          • #
            sophocles

            Hanrahan: the old Mk 1 High Pressure Breeder Reactors need lots of water. They’re the equivalent of the Mk 1 telephone with a rotary dial.

            The new LFTR reactors (Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors) are like the Smart Phone. Because they aren’t pressured they win on safety and because they can burn anything radioactive down to non-radioactive “ash” they win on waste products.

            See the link above.

            20

            • #
              sophocles

              …there’s even a LFTR Deployment Plan for Australia. It might be portable to other countries …

              30

              • #
                Michael Spencer

                Sophocles! Thank you so much for that link. Excellent stuff, so simply explained. Even some of our pollies might understand it.

                I’ll see if I can get in touch with Alex. The more that are singing this song to our decision makers, the better!

                One of the nicest things to see is that there are now considerable numbers of internationally-renowned environmentalists who have discovered this technology and, having overcome their previous “green” ideological ignorance and prejudice, are now enthusiastic nuclear supporters – of LFTRs.

                10

  • #
    robert rosicka

    To be fair we were an easy mark and the trough was rather large (if not bottomless) and all our political masters were singing from the same song sheet but yes any business that relies on governments and their subsidies for a living better have a plan B .

    140

  • #

    Imagine this, and wonder why renewables owners are complaining.

    Take the biggest Wind Plant in Australia, Macarthur.

    It has a Nameplate of 420MW and at a Capacity factor of 30% it generates a total of 1100GWH of power a year. Other than the subsidies it gets, it only has the sale of electricity as a source for its income.

    Every generating entity gets the same cost for every MWH of power it generates.

    Bayswater generates 17,500GWH of power each year.

    That’s just under 16 TIMES the income from the sale of electricity as Macarthur.

    Is it any wonder Renewables want ‘certainty’ about all their other sources of income.

    Tony.

    360

    • #
      Peter C

      Other than the subsidies it gets, it only has the sale of electricity as a source for its income.

      So, they all get the same for the Sale of Electricity.

      BUT….. MacArthur gets guaranteed access for all its electricity.
      And on top of that it gets the Strike Price (as determined by the intermittent Coal fired plants (which have to make up the shortfall).
      And on top of that it Gets a Subsidy,
      And on top of that they want more “Certainty”

      Is there any surer indication that “renewables” cannot survive in a Free Market?

      260

  • #
    NB

    As TdeF’s argues, an alternative term to ‘renewables’ is required.
    Using the term loses half the persuasion element before we even start with counter-arguments.
    .
    The green industrial complex’s arguments are confusing because:
    1) they claim harvesting sunlight and wind energy is cost effective (examples below). If so it does not need subsidy.
    2) they insist on the removal of political risk. That’s a rare promise in a democracy, and unnecessary if solar and wind power is cheaper than coal.
    3) they want to be gifted money over and above what they will get from their viable business model.
    .

    The way the solar and wind industries think (or want us to think):

    http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-is-coal-still-cheaper-than-renewables-as-an-energy-source-81263

    New supercritical coal power:
    $75/MWh, Finkel review of the National Electricity Market
    $80/MWh from the 2016 report by the CO2 Cooperative Research Centre
    $84-94/MWh from the 2012/3 Australian Energy Technology Assessment .

    New wind power:
    $60-70/MWh in current prices over the 20-year contract period (which is similar to a levelised cost).

    Oh, but one little thing: ‘the comparison in this FactCheck does not include the cost of intermittency for renewables.’
    This is absurd. It also invites the question of what else has been removed from wind and solar costing, and what else has been added to the coal costing.

    Here is the contradiction in a nutshell:
    https://medium.com/thebeammagazine/100-renewable-electricity-worldwide-is-a-new-cost-effective-reality-595e33d42547
    ‘The study shows that there is no reason to invest any single dollar in fossil fuel or nuclear power production. It also proves that energy transition is no longer a question of technical feasibility or economic viability, but of political will.’
    .
    Summary: Wind and solar energy are economically viable, but not competitive in the market place.

    132

    • #
      TedM

      “As TdeF’s argues, an alternative term to ‘renewables’ is required.”

      NB I suggest that disposables would be more honest.

      130

      • #
        Eddie

        If considering the life of a typical ‘renewables’ plant compared to a coal plant then disposables has it about right. Whereas the fuel source may be free when it decides to show up.

        What use is free labour that only shows up when it feels like?

        130

        • #
          Hanrahan

          If considering the life of a typical ‘renewables’ plant compared to a coal plant then disposables has it about right.

          Comparing the life of a windmill to a hydro generator is almost a divide by zero sum. True, the turbines are lifed but the dams and tunnels aren’t.

          81

      • #
        robert rosicka

        TedM , why not call it free energy and let them run with it under the guise of give them enough rope !

        50

        • #
          Robber

          Robert, I like it – Free Energy! Great marketing slogan. And then in the fine print, not really free, not very reliable, not long lasting.

          40

      • #
        TdeF

        Replaceables, unserviceables, unpredictables, unreliables, unjustifiables, unprofitables, inadequates, fantasies or follies and inadvisables. Just a few.

        140

      • #
        Another Ian

        Maybe “Throw-away electricity”?

        20

    • #
      sophocles

      an alternative term to ‘renewables’ is required.

      Unreliables.

      It’s totally honest.

      110

    • #
      jpm

      NB
      They also seem to forget the RET subsidies when pricing wind. Also, they compare wind to supercritical coal power. Why not conventional coal fired as now in use. Ah, that would not show wind in a good light would it. The USC (ultra super critical) power stations only matter if you believe the CO2 fairy tale. Conventional coal-fired power plants are just fine.
      It seems to me that renewables receive subsidies for construction from both state and federal governments while coal fired do not. Actually most of the coal-fired plants were built by state governments and subsidies are not to be considered. You don’t subsidies yourself, do you? That also was not considered.
      The RET also guaranties that the power produced by renewables will be bought when ever available while fossil fueled producers must bid to sell on to the grid and can be fined for not supplying when they have agreed to. That doesn’t apply to renewables, they have a free ride.
      OCGT plant can bid very very high rates for filling in when renewables suddenly and without warning fail.
      The intermittent operation of coal fired plant caused by wind’s intermittent behavior drives the price coal fired electricity. Maintenance costs soar under such conditions and the costs must be spread over a smaller amount of production.
      All of these add to the cost of wholesale spot price of electricity.
      John

      50

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      NB.

      “Wind and solar energy are economically viable, but not competitive in the market place.”

      If they are not competitive in the market place, they are not economically viable.

      00

  • #
    pat

    perhaps someone can access and excerpt some of the following, including who has written the piece:

    Coal has a future in Japan where there are plans for 36 new plants
    The Australian-16 hours ago
    Energy Security Board chairwoman Kerry Schotts claim that coal has no future is belied by the fact that Japan has fired up eight new
    The cost of renewables is not the cost of provision when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing but the costs imposed on the system — new transmission lines and standby plants…

    140

    • #
      Robber

      Pat, coal future in Japan is actually a letter to the editor by Michael C, West End, Qld.
      “The Japanese government plans that coal will provide 26 per cent of Japan’s electricity in 2030, abandoning its former 10 per cent target. The cost of renewables is not the cost of provision when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing but the costs imposed on the system — new transmission lines and standby plants — that can provide power on demand when renewables fail, but which have been rendered uneconomic by renewables’ subsidies and low marginal cost of supply.”

      70

  • #
    pat

    A MUST-READ:

    7 May: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Victoria wind and solar farms warned of curtailment
    Owners and developers of existing and planned wind and solar projects in north-west Victoria have been warned that their facilities run a high risk of “curtailment” – a deliberate cut back of their generation capacity – because of the weak grid in the area.

    The warning, given by the Australian Energy Market Operator, specially mentions three new wind projects and five new solar projects that are due to come online within the next year.

    AEMO also warns of a likely further decrease in “marginal loss factors” – the key calculation that acts as a multiplier of the estimate output delivered by power generators – and advises that some projects may need to consider battery storage to avoid output being spilled…

    Marginal loss factors have already become an issue in north Queensland and western NSW, and to a lesser extent in Victoria, as the shape of the grid changes, and more renewables are built in certain areas, and major demand errors also shift.

    Victoria is emerging as one of the next major crunch-points because of the strength of the state’s renewable energy target – 40 per cent by 2025 – and the relative weakness of the existing grid, particularly in the western part of the state…

    The problem was identified in a major report that we wrote about last year – Victoria’s big renewable energy plans face major network hurdle – when AEMO warned that curtailment rates of up to 50 per cent could be experienced if the network was not upgraded…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/victoria-wind-and-solar-farms-warned-of-curtailment-81267/

    170

    • #
      TdeF

      Interesting how people take public money to build their own windmills and then require us to build the ifrastructure (transmission lines) to get it to market. The code for this vast expense is “AEMO warned that curtailment rates of up to 50 per cent could be experienced if the network was not upgraded“. Now who pays to get these Green electrons to market? We do.

      80

    • #
      RickWill

      I placed this comment on that blog:

      Curtailment or system constrained output is the inevitable result of run-whenever-you-like generation increasing market share. Once the connected intermittent generating capacity exceeds the minimum demand it is inevitable that they will become system constrained.

      South Australia provides a good example. AEMO are forecasting the minimum demand in SA to be ZERO by 2024 due to the high take up of rooftop solar. That means that the grid scale wind generators in SA will rely completely on the interstate interconnections to have load. If other states have the same level of rooftop take-up as SA, all the grid scale wind and solar will have zero demand.

      To meet the current NEM demand with 100% wind, the capacity factor would fall to 7%. To get 100% from solar the capacity factor falls to 4%. That is for the minimum cost option based on present price of battery storage, price of wind generators and price of solar generators considering the variation in wind and solar insolation across mainland Australia.

      So far no reply to it. At least it has been left in the comments. Most sites promoting run-whener-you-like power censor negative comments.

      20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I just love it how greens make amazing claims of 100% renewables by 20xx as they’re so reliable and comparable but scream bloody murder when free money dries up and suddenly they can’t compete on their own.

    If I wanted to compete in the world level 100m sprint and could only do a PB of 14 seconds but demanded I get a 5 second head start to be competitive how’d yo think I’d go?

    Then again with recent athletes and gender fluidity……….

    130

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Ah yes. The 100M race.

      The green enviro-fascists’ view of the economic system is that of the racehorse handicapper. The most competitive get more lead put into their saddle bags to slow them down. If they still win they get even more lead put in and so on, until they eventually can no longer win or breakdown trying. Even then they don’t escape – their next and last bit of lead is through the head.

      80

    • #
      sophocles

      how’d yo think I’d go?

      Yonniestone:

      I think you would go away.

      It’s nothing personal … just that head start, that distortionary “non-level” plane in the “marketplace.” playingfield.

      I don’t believe in “fluid genders” — they can run downhill to where they belong. But I would have to, in the circumstances, demand a 6, 7 8 second start for myself.
      :-)

      60

  • #
    manalive

    In the UK, for instance, CO2 emissions from electricity generation have fallen from 2006.
    No doubt that fall is partly due to the increase in mainly wind and biomass but mostly due to a fall in electricity consumption.
    The ‘renewables’ are really just window-dressing for the principle aim viz. through ‘renewables’ to reduce consumption by increasing cost.

    90

  • #
  • #
    PeterS

    What did the solar and wind farm companies expect and want? Do they now demand they get paid even when they are not generating any power? That would be like a car company getting paid by the government for ghost cars they didn’t produce. It’s about time the scam industry was halted, not in years to come but right now.

    150

    • #
      sophocles

      a car company getting paid by the government for ghost cars they didn’t produce.

      Great idea! Quick, Let’s do it! Before anyone figures it out … :-)

      Oh, hang on, that’s why Ford and Holden shut their factories … the subsidies dried up.
      Nah, forget it.

      60

  • #
    Mark M

    No risk here.

    Burying trees to stop the 97% climate change is 100% crazy talk …

    May 8, 2008:
    Burying Trees: Brilliant Or Crazy?

    “Zeng estimates that, each year, some 60 gigatons of carbon is temporarily sequestered in plant life, which is then continuously returned to the atmosphere when those plants die and decompose.

    If you could bury, say, a bunch of trees underground before they decompose, that carbon would be stored for a significantly longer period of time—and voila, you’ve pulled it out of the cycle.”

    https://newrepublic.com/article/41734/burying-trees-brilliant-or-crazy

    70

    • #
      robert rosicka

      When you think they pay farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars not to run livestock I’m amazed they’re not paying people to bury trees .

      70

    • #
      sophocles

      Making coal … :-)

      50

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Value adding ?

        40

        • #
          sophocles

          See how it burns after it’s dug up and decide then.

          40

          • #
            Hanrahan

            There will be nothing to burn, bacteria will have decomposed it.

            No matter how high the CO2 concentration and lush the vegetation, coal cannot be be formed now because of this bacteria. Millions of years ago when the coal seams were laid down there were no bacteria to break down the cellulose. At least that’s what I read once. Someone more knowledgable than I may expand or correct.

            40

            • #
              ROM

              Burying trees ?
              A line of thinking that is closer to reflecting the the current debacle of a non viable energy production system based entirely on when and if the wind blows and when and if the sun shines and the clouds are few or absent.

              The missing fundamental in such a proposal apart from the sheer ignorance and stupidity being displayed by suggesting something so impractical and so ultimately stupid in the first place, is the total lack or inability to think through the whole proposed package fromm beginning to end and then doing the sums on all the ancillary needs required to successfully bury trees so as to ascertain the end viability of the project.

              How much fuel is going to be used to cut down the trees, transport / drag them to the burial pit.?
              Then digging the burial pit/s , gathering together and transporting across the country to each pit location the machinery required to do all of this, calculating the land losses and the potential values and loss of potential profits that could be made from alternative uses of the trees and the land they are pitted in, placate the greens who claim that /farmers in particular have cut down all the trees, this despite nealrly all the eco-nazi greens rarely venturing into farming areas in any case.

              And that above is only the first cut of the huge ancillary costs of doing such a project.

              There are numerous more financial costs plus rather large amounts of fossil fueled energy required and involved when one digs a bit deeper apart from the stupidity inherent in ever suggesting such a course of action to reduce that “extremely dangerous carbon”.

              But the basics as above in this bizarre suggestion are precisely the type of ancillary costs and costly problems that have been ignored in their totality by the promoters and advocates of the replaceable energy industry.

              After all, the replaceable energy industry will try to claim that all those other very costly in money and fossil fuel used items are the responsibility of the governments of the day.
              The replaceable energy industry is supposedly there doing its job of generating electricity — sometimes when and if the wind blows and when and if the sun shines and the clouds stay away!

              [ as an addendum ; In my fifty years of gliding / flying over western Victoria my strong impressions derived from observation from 3000 hours of flying is that the amount of tree cover in western Victoria very roughly doubled over those fifty years.
              What were large open relatively tree free spaces back in the 1960's as seen from aircraft now today have the almost total coverage of the, as seen from altitude, close to black looking coverage of the foliage of high numbers of full grown trees and shrubbery. ]

              40

    • #
      Hanrahan

      If you could bury, say, a bunch of trees underground before they decompose, that carbon would be stored for a significantly longer period of time—and voila, you’ve pulled it out of the cycle.”

      Here’s a novel thought: Log it and use it structurally. Hardwood framed homes are recycled for the use and pleasure of the great grand kids.

      80

      • #
        Another Ian

        Hanrahan

        That sounds like the potential for a competition for which ancient building wins the prize for retaining CO2 the longest

        20

  • #
    Bruce

    Our “Leaders”, both Left and Right have been indoctrinated to the point, that they are in awe of their prideful selves and cannot discern truth or love of their own nation state.

    150

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Don’t give the leaders of the left so much credit. They know exactly what their objective is

      As for giving credit for stupidity, the leaders of the Right can have that!

      100

      • #
        PeterS

        Good point Ted. One can say the left in the ALP are at least open and honest with what they stand for but the left in the LNP are pretenders and dishonest when they claim they are conservatives/moderates/right yet their actions are the same as leftists ideals. No matter. In time we will see the impact on the nation when more coal fired power stations begin to close down due to the policies of the two parties. Who knows, perhaps the ALP will do a “Hawke/Keating” under a new leader and build new generation coal fired power stations and so steal the thunder right under the noses of the LNP. Stranger things have happened. Of course now I’m just dreaming.

        70

        • #
          Another Ian

          PeterS

          After last week in Qld trees

          “ALP – From Tree of Knowledge to Forest of Ignorance”

          And

          “Remember that the Tree of Knowledge was supposedly poisoned but the poison was not identified?

          They were looking in the wrong place – it died of shame”

          10

          • #
            PeterS

            Actually it wasn’t the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Big difference. Also the tree was not poisoned – it was simply forbidden, and so the punishment was death for disobeying.

            10

      • #
        Hanrahan

        Ted, the left is deliberate in their objective to destroy nation states. In my naivety I was shocked to hear Tony Blair say, with no embarrassment, that British labour opened the doors to all comers to boost their vote. I never thought that anyone could be so treasonous.

        What arrogance makes them think they will be welcomed into the elites? Blair MAY be offered a seat in a lifeboat but all these low level operatives will be unwelcome in the New World, whatever that may be.

        80

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Agreed. That and he and his QC wife participated in pagan mayan rebirth ceremonies while as PM…..
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-465798/Is-Cherie-Blair-misunderstood-bonkers.html

          Kinda makes me uneasy….for good reason.

          Driving behind a car with Victorian plates the said “Victoria the education state”… All i could ” see” was “Victoria the re-education state”.

          Funny how stuff works out…

          60

          • #
            PeterS

            Yes I often look at titles and labels, and see the exact opposite meaning. I have experienced it myslef first hand when I was working for American companies here. Some of the salespeople ought to get the gold award for effectively explaining to customers how black is white. Of course I also knew most of the Australian customers saw right through them but that was then. Today it’s not working like that any more since more and more of the customers are of like mind to the Orwellian-speaking leaders.

            20

          • #
            Another Ian

            OS

            Mad Magazine used to run series where they completed the advertising slogan – a good example being

            “Coors Beer – brewed with Rocky Mountain spring water. Lots of it”.

            Victorian plates used to have the surround

            “The State to be – from”

            So we can believe that Victorian slogan using “education = negative education”

            10

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Our “Leaders”, both Left and Right have been indoctrinated …’

      On the surface it looks like virtue signalling, but it goes much deeper, they have been severely brainwashed on both sides of politics.

      10

  • #
    richard

    Off-piste but the CO2 meme.

    I find it strange that the whole scam is based on a test tube experiment of CO2 at 500-000-1,000,000ppm when the earth’s atmosphere is at 410ppm.

    That really is gaming the system.

    100

    • #
      Peter C

      I find it strange that the whole scam is based on a test tube experiment of CO2 at 500-000-1,000,000ppm when the earth’s atmosphere is at 410ppm.

      Whow.

      Actual test tube experimental evidence at last.

      Richard, can you give the reference?

      50

      • #
        richard

        I asked this question on WUWT and got that reply. Actually I don’t know but this question should be asked again and again and especially to those who continue this scam. I would imagine the amounts to be this high based on the way the experiment is done. Moreover to be a serious experiment the amounts used should be revealed.

        What does Jo think?

        70

        • #
          sophocles

          Richard:
          Here’s an experiment you could ponder, or even replicate … by a Swiss physicist [pdf]
          and a second paper focused more on the properties of the atmospheric gases [pdf]

          40

          • #
            richard

            We need to know what the ppm of co2 used in the test tube experiment were and the basis of alarmism that the world is doomed.

            If indeed the ppm used was between 500,000- 1,000,000 how does this relate to the earth’s atmos of 410ppm and in fact the experiment has no value as such.

            40

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            A big discussion in a previous thread was regarding nitrogen and it’s temperature properties. From your first link:- “…there was practically no difference between ambient air and pure nitrogen/oxygen 4:1 mixture. Furthermore, no pressure influence could be detected”. Page 16.

            It does look like Nitrogen is the guiding temperature gas of the world.

            Ha. I’m doing science wrong again, I’m reading the studies :)

            00

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            More on page 16:
            The rise in temperature of all gases measured, was identical. The maximum temperate was different, but the increase was identical.

            He then goes on to explain why this refutes the greenhouse effect of certain gasses, saying that the effect is true for all gasses. Therefor there is no greenhouse gas, they all do the same thing.

            00

      • #
        richard

        Problem #2—None of these table top “greenhouse effect in a bottle” experiments test CO2 at 560 ppm vs. CO2 at 280ppm

        The big debate about CO2’s effect on global surface-level air temperatures is what will happen when atmospheric CO2 doubles in concentration from pre-industrial times, i.e., increases from 0.026% (280 ppm) of the atmosphere to 0.056% (560 ppm). Yes, 0.056% is a “doubling” of the amount of CO2 in the air from pre-industrial times but it is still a minute amount. None of these table-top “greenhouse effect in a bottle” experiments test the effect of a CO2 level of 0.056% vs. a CO2 level of 0.026%. They all test CO2 levels of 50-100% compared to regular air and even then on average they still only get a temperature rise of several degrees due to CO2‘s lower specific heat.

        Based on computer models, the “climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide” hypothesis asserts that a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial times, from ~260 ppm to ~560 ppm, will result in 2-6 °C of global warming. These table top “greenhouse effect in a bottle” experiments demonstrate that the atmosphere would have to be 50-100% CO2 (500,000 – 1,000,000 ppm) to get that much warming but even then the extra warming would not be from a “greenhouse effect”, but rather would be a result of CO2’s lower specific heat value.

        https://principia-scientific.org/does-carbon-dioxide-trap-heat/

        50

        • #
          Hanrahan

          ……. CO2 levels from pre-industrial times, from ~260 ppm ….

          When was CO2 at that level? Agriculture and forestry must have struggled. Surely that is near starvation levels.

          30

    • #
      TdeF

      1,000,000 ppm?

      50

      • #
        sophocles

        1,000,000 ppm

        … an atmosphere of pure CO2 … sure: Venus is almost there and so is Mars. Both are over 90% CO2 …

        50

        • #
          TdeF

          That would explain why they are so hot. Proximity to the sun has nothing to do with it.

          40

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    “setting emissions compliance cost on a path to zero could “pull the carpet out” from under existing solar and wind energy investments and actually stop future investments.”

    Well, whadderyaknow!

    Keep the man talking!

    80

  • #
    Peter C

    Gimme Dat, Gimme Dat, Gimme Gimme Gimme Dat Thing!

    Jo, in her introduction post refers to Gimmedat which I thought referred both to the original song and the Grasping Entitlement Mindset of the rewnewables industry.

    So i went to remind myself of the original song by the (one hit wonder) the Pipkins;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEEy615Jzg4

    You will be surprised. It does not have any overtones that I could identify, It was a dance song.

    50

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    It is difficult to see how an investor would not love a dual fuel coal/natural gas plant.
    Both are plentiful. Both are relatively easy to transport and store. Gas pipelines are
    very efficient, as are coal unit trains. Coal can be dumped in piles, you do have to build and maintain tanks for gas.
    Coal requires a fair effort to control for particulate emissions gas not so much.
    You have an investment with a very long projected useful life. You have a proven operating model that
    nonetheless can and has been tweaked for greater efficiency. You can meet you market needs for
    a stable reliable power source very well. With coal, especially terrorism opportunities are minimized.
    the longevity of your known fuel sources in measured in centuries.

    When you look closely ate large investments in such fuels, and the mechanisms to transport them…and you can do so in the US because very large investors are required to list their positions….you realize than many wealthy folks are spouting liberal claptrap and supporting leftists idiots as a prophylactic against political intrusion in their affairs, as their financial feet are firmly planted
    in fossil fuels and the infrastructure to support them.

    Government created millionaires ‘own’ solar and wind. Real billionaires own railroads, pipelines, and oilfields.
    They tolerate the millions to protect their billions. Lest you start to buy the liberal hatred however, recall this.
    The billions came because they satisfied the needs and wants of their customers better than the competition. Cheap and
    reliable kerosene, gas, and electric power.

    Parenthetically, that’s the conundrum of Trump. He is setting out problems the folks have, and using govt power to actually address
    needs, after generations of foggy bottom flailing at straw men to manipulate feelings while suppressing the real economy.

    The patricians flail at Trump, but the real issue is the exposure of their game; the failure of the renewables ‘industry’ is another brick in the wall.

    It’ll be hard, because here are many customers of big government, whose satisfactions is getting something for nothing…well, for a vote, which is almost nothing. But there’s a squeeze on, because government turns out not to be very efficient, even at giving stuff away. Saving the planet is less fun when it’s really expensive.

    60

    • #
      sophocles

      Coal requires a fair effort to control for particulate

      Electrostatic precipitators in the exhaust stacks. That’s old and well-known technology in common use.

      60

  • #
    Kim

    Did Solar Hart and Solar Edwards have government subsidy? not that I know of. What’s good enough for them is good enough for everyone else.

    50

    • #
      Joe

      Yep, they certainly did. Hot water systems were part of the ‘rebate’ scheme from the very early days and later the RET earning STC’s just like solar electric systems. These hot water heaters practically doubled in cost when the ‘rebates’ were introduced. Solahart and Solar Edwards probably did ok out of all of these ‘rebates’ as they both became part of Rheem and Rheem got the monopoly market on locally made solar heaters. Probably not the best example of a successful ‘free market’ venture I dare say.

      50

    • #
      Another Ian

      If you bought one you got a subsidy IIRC

      We bought two and now have a Rinnai gas

      10

      • #
        Another Ian

        Elaborating – when we the first one the payback was about 20 years. The tank rotted out in about 7.

        We got a second at about the price of off-peak electric and wiring, which lasted about 12 years (run on rain water when possible, plenty of anode left).

        Hence the Rinnai. Plumber who installed that knows of only two solars left in the district – where sunshine hours aren’t the problem.

        10

  • #
    pat

    could someone deciper para marked *** please?

    “The discrepancy between the 20% installed capacity and 17.6% of generation is attributable to the intermittency of renewable sources” does not make sense to me even if much of it refers to hydro:

    2 pages: 6 May: Forbes: Renewable Sources Account For Most New U.S. Power Capacity
    by Robert Rapier
    (Robert Rapier has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries, and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production, and currently serves as Director of Engineering for Arizona-based ZHRO Power. He is author of The Energy Strategist at Investing Daily, and of the book Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil. Robert has appeared on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, Business News Network, CBC, and PBS, and his energy-themed articles have appeared in numerous media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and The Economist.)

    ***At the end of 2017, all renewables (including hydropower) accounted for more 20% of the nation’s installed generating capacity — up from 15.4% in 2021. Renewables accounted for 17.6% of total electrical generation in 2017, compared to 15.3% in 2016. The discrepancy between the 20% installed capacity and 17.6% of generation is attributable to the intermittency of renewable sources…
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/05/06/renewable-sources-account-for-most-new-u-s-power-capacity/#50879f185971

    30

    • #
      sophocles

      Pat, I stayed right away from the Forbes article so as not to be “polluted”. I’ve made some assumptions so my “translation,” while making sense, may not be at all accurate. For example: 2021 may have come from “digital dyslexia” as in mixing up fingers on the keyboard. However, for whatever it’s worth, here it is:


      By the end of 2012, renewable sources of electrical generation (including hydro) formed 15.4% of the nation’s overall generation capacity. By the end of 2017, all sources of renewable generation had risen to more than 20% of the overall generating capacity, an increase of over 4.6%.

      The renewable sources accounted for 15.3% of total electrical power generation over 2016, compared with 17.6% over 2017. The difference between the installed capacity and the actual generation is attributed to the intermittent nature of the renewable sources.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/05/06/renewable-sources-account-for-most-new-u-s-power-capacity/#50879f185971

      Typical semi-illiterate journalese … Any better?

      20

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Someone posted a link in this august blog a month or so back saying that it was COAL that filled the breach and provided the extra power needed in the USs cold winter. They explained that nuclear was running at capacity already and that gas was limited because so much was needed for heating homes. King Coal rode to the rescue.

      Would the coal have been available had not Trump relaxed the EPAs strict edicts? “Muddling through” was once thought of as British behaviour, now it is universal. I see no evidence of long term fact based decision making. How could the UK simultaneously rule that petrol/diesel cars, including hybrids, will be banned in the near future AND destroy the grid needed to charge the EVs?

      20

  • #
    Ruairi

    Subsidized sauce for the goose,
    As the government placed a great noose,
    On the stable old gander,
    Then mindlessly pander,
    To Greens, to wreck grids were let loose.

    140

  • #
    pat

    7 May: CarbonPulse: Australia’s budget to provide no new cash for ERF -AAP
    Australia will not replenish the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) in Tuesday’s budget even though the ERF is quickly running out of cash, news agency AAP reported Monday.

    above is clearer than this AAP headline:

    7 May: SBS: AAP: No change to direct action climate fund
    The federal budget is expected to leave funding for the Abbott-era Emissions Reduction Fund unchanged.
    The Turnbull government won’t be adding any money to its “direct action” climate plan in Tuesday’s budget.
    The Emissions Reduction Fund was originally set up by the Abbott government in 2014 with $2.55 billion for a range of carbon abatement programs, from vegetation management to energy efficiency and transport.
    The fund has $265 million left in the kitty, having supported 438 projects at an average abatement cost of $11.90 a tonne.

    AAP understands there will be no funds added to the ERF for future auctions, nor will there be funding withdrawn.
    The next auction round will be held in June…
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/no-change-to-direct-action-climate-fund

    nothing going on in China!

    7 May: CarbonPulse: Carbon Markets: National ETS delay dampens trade in China’s pilot markets
    Traded volumes in China’s eight pilot emissions trading schemes fell by two-thirds in April compared to the same month last year, as the delay of the national ETS has seen many traders exit.

    10

  • #
    ROM

    Oh! how the greens and the alarmists and most particularly the so mis-called renewable energy industry glorified in destabilising the long established, ultra reliable, politically and technologically stable coalfired energy generator system.

    The renewable energy promoters have used every nefarious method yet invented to establish themelves within the nation’s power generation system whilst creaming off immense profits from the populace as mandated by the majority of the politicals and bureacracy who are now owned by the renewable energy industry.
    All industry based entirely on supposedly preventing global warming and to” save the planet”, their main and only mirage like selling point.

    But they convinced the politicals and a nearly all of the MSM, the intelligentsia in their ivy clad and isolated from reality bubble towers as well as the elites who made damn sure they got a good cut of the loot and finally, a goodly part of the populace that they were genuine and pure and would never mislead the public.

    The fact that a cheap and utterly reliable power generation system that had operated for close to three quarters of a century providing power to perhaps 90% or more of Australians was never mentioned.

    The fact that the influx of the never ever called for or asked for or voted for by the public, “renewable energy” in the form of wind and solar in all its horrendous faults being as could be expected the bastard child of the green eco-nazis, was never called for and was never catered for in the construction of australia’s grid and energy generation system.

    The green eco-nazis and the renewable energy promoters gloried in upsetting the long stable former coal fired energy generation system and using this supposed instability and excuse of reducing the so called emmissions of the supposedly deadly “carbon ” to ingrate themselves with the politicals, the media and the intelligentsia in their ivy clad bubble towers remote from the real world and the ordinary citizen.
    ,

    Those same politicals and media and elites and intellligensia who were ALL too damn dumb, to damn stupid and to damn ignorant to ask the hard questions on the viability, cheapness, reliability and predictability, affordability and and despatchability of wind and solar before they were sweet talked into providing massive subsidies, mandated and paid for by the customer who was NEVER ever asked if he/ she wanted such a development.

    Plus the outright and extraordinary stupidity on the part of the politicals of granting an unpredictable, unreliable, far more costly solar and wind power generation system the irrepressible right to be first in line to supply power to the grid over and above the proven, reliable, cheap and long established coal fired power generators and then massively subsidise the unreliability and unpredictability of the wind and solar generators is truly unbelievable in its ultimate stupidity.

    Plus then bestowing incredibly lucrative grants, rights and subsidies to the renewable energy scammers without any apparent covenants covering any rights of the customers and consumers of power, those little folk down at street level.

    And so from destabilising of the long established central coal fired power generators, the green eco-nazi , media and political backed renewable energy generators figured they had reached a point where they were in a strong enough political position to force the coal fired and fossil fuel fired generators out of business over the next few years and then they would be in the box seat in power generation , collecting those lucrative subsidies for as long as could be seen into the far future.

    Of course, the renewable energy promoters knew all along that power prices would rise quite dramatically for the consumer.
    But the consumer wouldn’t have any options if they wanted power.
    The consumer would have to pay and bad luck for them if they couldn’t pay for or afford the new and greatly increased charges for the “clean” power that was occasionally delivered by the renewable energy operators.
    .

    The renewable energy industry plus its green backers and supporters all of whom would fall into the catergory of being near psychopaths who have no empathy with those further down the social ladder nor could they imagine living on less than their munificent salaries, there has been NO expressions of regret at all from anywhere within the renewable energy industry about the costs of power and its increasing llack of affordability.

    In fact the precisely opposite has happened with the renewable energy promoters claiming over and over again, despite the overwhelming evidence in every consumer’s power bill, that energy is now cheaper from wind and solar than than it ever was from the coal fired power stations.

    The renewable energy industry and the greens and eco -nazis in the totality of their hubris and arrogance have overlooked a coiuple of very major items in their glee at the demise of the coal fired generators, a demise that has been created by political and financial instability the renewable energy industry created so as to gain entry to the grid power supply system.

    Those couple of overlooked or dismissed as irrelevant items were the power consumers, kept in line for a while with propaganda and the politicals who make the rules being in the pay of the renewable energy industry.

    The other item being something called Elections where the politicals hope to get re-elected if their constituents think they might just scrape through regarding performance or they will be put out to then political knackery for the duration of their lives as political failures if their voting constituents think they aren’t working in their interests.
    .

    When it comes to consumers of power, Mark Twain or others before him got that saying right.

    You can fool all of the people some of the time.
    You can fool some of the people all the time
    But you can’t fool all of the people all the time

    So now in just a matter of months since SA had its Black Out and collected an unwanted world wide opprobium for its renewable power policies, the political, financial and most of all the consumer ground swell of increasing questioning of the realities of renewable energy over the long term plus the increasing instability politically about the programs and policies supporting renewable energy has begun to create very large instabilities in the outlook for renewable energy and its promoters and its future here in Australia.

    And now we begin to hear the bleeding of the renewable energy industry as it becomes unsettled as public and political sentiment begines to turn against it as is occurring in Germany and Britian and parts of the USA.

    Its future is becoming far more unsettled as consumers and their representatives, the politicals who draw up the rules and legislation become fed up with the costs and the arrogance and the increasing realisation that the renewable energy industry is lying through its teeth on its output and its performance and its impact on industry and the environment and just about every other aspect of power production that it is involved in..
    .

    What the renewable energy industry has sown so shall they reap.

    And the harvest will be bitter for those many who openly denigrated the reliability and cheapness of coal as they watch their world of energy domination fade into a harsh reality that less and less of those they had conned for so long with their propaganda and their lies and their claims believe them.

    The Great Wheel of Time and History rolls on and what was on top today, tomorrow becomes just the dust of history ground down, that is gone forever.

    110

    • #
      Another Ian

      ROM

      There is a 4th leg to that

      “When you are caught trying to fool people everything you say is seen in that light”

      20

  • #
    sophocles

    Treason used to be a capital crime …

    50

  • #
    Reasonable Skeptic

    I have no formal education in economics, but even I know that if your investments are hung on government policy decisions that comes with a huge risk. If your “unregulated” business catches the eye of governments watch out and if government is pushing in a direction you have great potential for earning lots of tax payer money, if you are willing to carry the risk.

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It does seem to be easier to spend someone else’s money than your own, doesn’t it?

    But wait, government has no money of its own so the only money they can spend belongs to the taxpayers.

    What bothers me the most is that there’s a lot of history of government trying to force behavior by spending my money and they never learn from it, not ever. It’s full throttle ahead and just try a little harder this time and it’ll work. And yet it never works.

    A hundred years from now, assuming there’s still a society that can function on a level higher than tribal, someone will write a book discussing all the mistakes of the past. It will languish away on some shelf unread while the same thing continues to happen.

    The last time anything government did here that actually worked out was when the congress decided it would be a good thing to have a transcontinental railroad. They gave the already rich barons of industry huge tracts of land from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean on the condition that they build the railroad. Talk about incentive to do something…wow! But private money built it. And that railroad began the transportation system that moved goods and passengers and America began to be an unstoppable industrial power. And the moguls became even more wealthy selling the rest of the land they owned, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

    A lot of harm was done by building that railroad so there’s always a price to pay. But the railroads were crucial during WWII.

    After that we have only failures. And the greatest of all is the failure to learn.

    When the congress decided air transport should be encouraged they gave the airlines protection and guaranteed the ticket price needed to be profitable but forced them to fly unprofitable routes for the sake of the flying public. But they were protected from normal competition. Flying in those days was always a pleasure, you got good food and good service. Then the protection ended and the airlines were thrown to the dogs. Suddenly they had to fight each other for survival and many disappeared and the rest became just a shadow of their former self. And the tragedy in that was that the government wasn’t spending a dime of my money to protect the airlines. And yes, the protection should never have been started. The industry had incentive enough to go ahead anyway and the whole thing would have grown up by itself and been a different thing than what it is today.

    Thank you, United States Congress for not letting them down slowly enough that they could adapt instead of scramble for survival. Thank you for being fools.

    Yes, we have a long history from which everyone could learn. But no thank you. I know better. :-(

    70

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Jo said it all with one sentence.

      The problem is not that governments and voters may change their minds, it’s that they should never have been messing with this market in the first place.

      100

    • #
      Hanrahan

      It is only since Trump got involved that I have taken any interest in US politics. I now know more than many Americans do and I don’t like what I see: CORRUPTION.

      How does a community organiser/senator/president become a multi millionaire? Government jobs don’t pay THAT well. And he is not alone, even your resident communist, Bernie, is a wealthy man. Ron Paul looks to have been the only one not on the take and maybe you can even disabuse me of that thought. :)

      40

      • #
        Another Ian

        Hanrahan

        One of the go-to sites is

        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/

        Keep an eye on what comes from Sundance and a few other commenters – most of the rest not so much IMO

        10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Hanrahan,

        I tend not to worry about how much money they have unless they got it illegally. What I worry about is how much power they accumulate and how they use it and of course, how they use their money. If you go into public life the opportunity to make money will drop right into you lap and you almost can’t help making a killing some way or another. Just do it withing the law and your rules of ethics.

        Our community organizer was as dishonest as I’ve ever seen. And the worst of him is that without a doubt in my mind, someone is behind him, trained and groomed him and then unleashed him on an unsuspecting society. He was the perfect stooge.

        I never worry about what anyone says, only about what they do and about the results of what they do.

        And the beauty of Trump is simple, take away all his shoot from the hip statements and ignore his detractors and he suddenly looks like the perfect president. He knows what our real problems are and they aren’t unisex restrooms. He wants and is getting results that count for something. He’s made it clear that America isn’t going to draw any more phony red lines in the sand but will enforce them instead. “We keep our promises,” he said yesterday.

        10

  • #
    RAH

    Looks like it won’t be long until the renewable chickens come home to roost in the state of New York.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/07/looming-catastrophe-power-grid-collapse-now-in-sight-in-new-york/

    50

    • #
      beowulf

      That was Audrey Zibelman’s (boss of AEMO) first achievement. Now she’s over here doing the same to our Ozzie grid. We’ll send her back for free. Maybe use her for a wheel chock under your truck RAH. About all she’s good for.

      30

  • #
  • #
    Mark M

    Certified climate alarmist is terrified.

    May 5, 2018: A decade ago climate experts were deeply worried.

    Now they are terrified – Tim Flannery.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/a-decade-ago-climate-experts-were-deeply-worried.-now-they-are/9727414

    June 2005: “In three years we will know whether I’m being alarmist or not, for that’s about how long Sydney’s water supplies will last under the conditions that have prevailed since 1998.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Forecast-deteriorates-for-the-dry-country/2005/06/05/1117910183888.html

    More news at 11.

    70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I reckon he might need a new supply if hair clips as the last lot fly off as he runs around in ever decreasing circles , arms in the air while shrieking…..

      He he

      60

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Prior to 1976 there had been no coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.’

      That is a lie.

      60

      • #
        Mark M

        2012 study of Great Barrier Reef corals shows major die off during 1930’s & 1940’s coinciding with 1930-50 GlobalWarming & ElNino.

        1950-1980 GlobalCooling showed no coral bleaching events.

        Palaeoecological evidence of a historical collapse of corals at Pelorus Island, inshore Great Barrier Reef, following European settlement

        http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1750/20122100.short

        10

        • #
          Mark M

          ICYMI;

          abc Media Watch.

          episode 7 may 2018:
          Rowan dean ice age warning.

          http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4840141.htm

          But Rowan Dean was able to cite data from NASA that showed:

          “… from February 2016 to February 2018 global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius.

          — Outsiders, Sky News, 29 April, 2018

          And those figures are certainly accurate.

          And it would be interesting to see what ACMA would make of them if anyone bothered to complain. “

          10

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    The hand wringers are at it again…..

    May i have panuc and nonsense for 200 please?

    https://www.bordermail.com.au/story/5386444/climate-change-experts-at-melbourne-forum/?cs=7

    “Victoria’s first emergency management commissioner Craig Lapsley is among the home-grown leaders and international experts to speak at a three-day conference about how to adapt to climate change.

    The sixth national Climate Adaptation Conference is being held in Melbourne from Tuesday to Thursday.

    Speakers will share how they and the agencies they represent have been adapting planning and practice based on climate change.

    Parties will discuss the legal risks in land use planning decisions, how indigenous communities are taking action to reduce risks, and whether messaging on climate change is effective.”

    51

  • #
    pat

    lol.

    7 May: ClimateChangeNews: Sunday talanoa: climate negotiators ‘talk to each other like people’
    Advocates say Fiji’s kava-fuelled story time helped to break down barriers between government representatives and campaigners
    By Megan Darby
    It was a “milestone” that “broke down barriers” between national negotiators and the wider world: “Everybody talked to each other like people, not like parties.”

    Campaigners who took part in Fiji’s climate change “talanoa” on Sunday were effusive after the event. The Pacific-inspired format put researchers, activists and lobbyists on an equal footing with government representatives, sitting in a circle and sharing their stories…

    Fuelled by kava, Fiji’s mellow alternative to coffee, wildly diverse interest groups set aside hostilities to listen to one another…

    Juan Pablo Osornio of Greenpeace said at a press briefing on Monday his favourite story came from Samoa. The island state’s representative talked not just about the impact of cyclones, but also how people used humour to cope with their fears. “She made it very organic, very personal and I really appreciated that.”…

    Not everybody embraced the informal style. For every homespun anecdote, there was a familiar policy talking point.

    Kim Carnahan of the US state department, for example, boasted of American leadership in clean technology innovation, listed shale drilling and coal power among the solutions to climate change – and skimmed over president Donald Trump’s plan to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement: “Our position on the Paris Agreement remains unchanged.”
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/05/07/sunday-talanoa-climate-negotiators-talk-like-people/

    20

  • #
    pat

    8 May: ABC: Origin says renewables are the future amid $230m plan to double capacity of Shoalhaven hydro scheme
    ABC Illawarra By Chloe Hart
    Origin Energy has announced a $230 million plan to expand the Shoalhaven hydro electricity scheme from its current 240 megawatt capacity to up to 500 megawatts.
    The scheme, based near Kangaroo Valley on the NSW South Coast, has been pumping water up hill from Lake Yarrunga to power stations at Bendeela and Kangaroo Valley to generate electricity for more than 40 years.
    Origin Energy CEO Frank Calabria announced the expansion plans at the facility on Monday in response to demand for reliable power and to reduce emissions…

    “Australia’s energy market has been dominated by baseline coal for such a long time, but as we transition we have more renewables coming in, coal fired power station are getting older and leaving the system we need reliable power.”
    The plant can be put into operation in just a few minutes and helped provide energy during last year’s summer heatwaves.

    “Shoalhaven would provide more reliability in peak times of energy use, like those really hot summer days,” said Origin Executive General Manager of Energy Supply and Operations Greg Jarvis.
    With the Liddell coal-fired power station slated to close in 2022, Origin says the enlarged Shoalhaven Scheme could contribute to NSW’s electricity mix in the future…
    “We have a lot of the pipeline routes already there, the substation, the switchyard and it means we can develop the expansion much more cheaply than other hydro options,” Mr Calabria said…

    The expansion would transform Shoalhaven hydro into a 500 megawatt scheme that could power an additional 80,000 homes…
    At this stage the cost of the project is not yet known…
    A feasibility study is in the works and discussions are underway with the Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenburg, the NSW Minister for Energy and Utilities Don Harwin, and local councils and politicians…

    Origin says the expansion will create hundreds of construction jobs, provide more work for existing employees ***and possibly create two full time ongoing jobs…

    The energy powerhouse says it supports the objectives of the National Energy Guarantee to ensure retailers provide reliable supply and cut emissions, but says the target set is just a minimum.
    “We support more ambitious targets and a transition to net zero emissions by 2050,” Mr Jarvis said.
    Currently only 10 per cent of Origin’s energy generation is renewable, but it wants to triple that by 2020, with goals to produce 1200 megawatts from wind and solar.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-08/shoalhaven-hydro-set-to-double-capacity/9735686

    20

    • #

      Shoalhaven pumped hydro – Now there’s a big supplier of power eh!

      This last week:
      Tues- 120MW for 3 hrs. Wed – 120MW for 3 hrs. Thurs – 120MW for 1 hr. Fri – zip. Sat – Zip. Sun – 120MW for 3 hrs. Mon – 120MW for 4 hrs

      So over the last 168 hours (one week) Shoalhaven has had one Unit (of two Units at a Nameplate of 240MW) running for 14 hours in total.

      All those hours of operation were at the Peak Power consumption for NSW, so Shoalhaven was delivering 1.4% of what was being consumed in NSW for an average of 2 hours a day.

      Sounds like a real life saver to me.

      Tony.

      70

  • #
    pat

    ***what ABC omitted to mention:

    7 May: SMH: Origin’s plan to double its hydro power at Shoalhaven
    By Cole Latimer
    Origin is currently undertaking a $5 million feasibility study ***and working with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency on funding for the project.
    https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/origin-s-plan-to-double-its-hydro-power-at-shoalhaven-20180507-p4zdv3.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    7 May: Phys.org: Low-carbon energy transition requires more renewables than previously thought
    The transition to a low-carbon energy society will require more renewable energy sources than previous estimates if current levels of energy consumption per capita and lifestyles are to be maintained. This is one of the main conclusions of a study recently published in Nature Energy by Lewis King and Jeroen van den Bergh of the Institute of Science and Environmental Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB).

    Following the Paris Agreement, several global energy transition scenarios have been presented. While these tend to be analysed in terms of gross energy, the authors of the study consider the need to calculate energy requirements by distinguishing between gross (total energy yielded) and net energy (gross energy minus the energy used to produce it).

    They also considered energy return on investment (EROI), which represents the amount of useful energy yielded for each unit of energy input in the process of obtaining that energy. The lower an energy source’s EROI, the more energy input is required to produce a given energy output, resulting in less net energy available for consumption. According to researchers, coal and hydroelectricity have high EROIs, while nuclear energy, oil and gas have medium EROIs, and solar and wind power are characterized by medium to low EROIs…

    Thus, in the face of a future scenario based on renewable energy sources (with low-EROI rates), the researchers indicate that net energy per capita is likely to decline in the future between 24 percent and 31 percent from 2014 levels, unless substantial investments are made in energy efficiency.

    “To maintain net energy per capita at current levels, renewable energy sources would have to grow at a rate two to three times that of current projections,” states Lewis King. The results further indicate a prioritization in phasing out fossil fuels, namely first coal, then oil and finally gas. This can be achieved by implementing a carbon price, which would discourage coal use more than oil, and oil more than gas…(LINK)
    https://phys.org/news/2018-05-low-carbon-energy-transition-requires-renewables.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    attributed to The Age at bottom, but can’t find it anywhere but here:

    7 May: Ballarat Courier: Opposition against Australia’s biggest windfarm at Rokewood
    by Adam Carey, The Age
    The biggest wind farm in the southern hemisphere will be built between Ballarat and Geelong, powering an estimated half a million homes a year by 2025, if the Andrews government gives the project the green light.
    The proposed wind farm would sprawl across 167 square kilometres of farmland near the small town of Rokewood in south-west Victoria, about 40 kilometres south of Ballarat.
    It would have 228 wind turbines, each 230 metres tall at their highest point. By way of comparison, just four skyscrapers in Melbourne are taller.

    The largest operating wind farm in Victoria, at Macarthur, has 140 turbines that are up to 140 metres high.
    According to planning documents published on Friday, the wind farm would produce up to 3500 gigawatt-hours of energy a year – equal to the average annual energy consumption of at least 450,000 homes.
    The local Coalition MP attacked the project as a wasteful folly that would do little to secure Victoria’s energy supply.

    Its proponents, the German-backed, Gisborne-based company West Wind Energy, argue the project will help to reduce electricity prices and help Victoria and Australia meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets.
    It will cost an estimated $1.7 billion to build.

    Dubbed the Golden Plains Wind Farm, it will have an energy generation capacity of between 800 and 1000 megawatts, slightly more than half the capacity of the shuttered Hazelwood coal-fired power plant.
    The project has been in development since 2006, but still requires planning approval from the Andrews government. A planning panel will consider the proposal at a hearing due to begin on July 30…

    The 39 landowners on whose properties the turbines will be built will be given lease payments, the documents say, without stating how much.
    Polwarth state Liberal MP Richard Riordan said the project was an ideologically driven folly that would scar the landscape and create intermittent energy supply.
    “If this ideological government gets its way it’ll cover my entire electorate in Rialto-sized concrete pylons that would work 20 to 30 per cent of the time,” Mr Riordan said.
    “If these turbines are so harmless and so pretty to look at, why not put them up in Port Phillip Bay along the Esplanade, or in open spaces in Fitzroy and Collingwood,” Mr Riordan said.

    Planning Minister Richard Wynne ruled last year that an environment effects statement was required, because of the project’s potential impact on native plants and animals…
    https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5384698/opposition-against-australias-biggest-windfarm-at-rokewood/

    20

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    Solar power: Queensland postcodes top nation for number of units …
    Courier Mail-20 hours ago
    ???Natural Resources Minister Anthony Lynham said solar is now the state’s largest power generator, with more than 2075 megawatts of installed solar capacity, more than any other state. Mr Lynham said Queensland was striving towards 3000 megawatts by 2020. “This target is helping Queensland to grow …

    8 May: GladstoneObserver: Company building solar farm involved in safety woes, lawsuit
    by Tegan Annett
    THE Spanish company preparing to build a $500 million solar farm in Gladstone is embroiled in controversy.
    Acciona, which was confirmed as the successful company to transform part of Gladstone’s State Development Area into a renewable hub, has filed a $1.2 billion lawsuit against the New South Wales Government.
    The company is claiming damages for “misleading conduct” in relation to the light rail project it is building in Sydney.

    Meanwhile Acciona Infrastructure Australia was found to be part of the consortium that was forced to stop work last week on parts of a major road project in Toowoomba because of major safety concerns.
    Acciona Infrastructure and Nexus Infrastructure consortium were pulled off crucial sections of the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project for a week after two safety incidents…

    Speaking to The Observer after marching for workers’ rights for Labour Day, Member for Gladstone Glenn Butcher said it was important the company treated its workers right when it begins construction on the Aldoga solar farm.
    Acciona Energy was chosen out of 16 proponents to transform 1250ha of state land into a renewable hub.
    “If they don’t do what they’re supposed to do by looking out for the workers, we’ll be all over them,” he said…

    An Acciona Australia spokesperson said its energy business operated almost entirely independently from its infrastructure business, with different site personnel and management teams.
    They said the energy business was accredited by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and had its processes and construction performance regularly accredited.

    “This ongoing accreditation demonstrates that Acciona Energy has a robust approach to workplace health and safety, and reinforces the business’s credentials regarding future construction work in Gladstone,” they said.

    Last month Acciona signed a 30-year agreement with the Queensland Government to build and operate the solar farm that is expected to create 240 construction jobs.
    https://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/news/company-building-solar-farm-involved-in-safety-woe/3408815/

    20

  • #
    pat

    8 May: RenewEconomy: Massive 1.5GW solar plant proposed for south-east Queensland
    By Sophie Vorrath
    A 1.5GW solar farm is being proposed for construction in south-east Queensland, as part of a massive new development application that would include two substations and a provision for battery storage.

    The Somerset Regional Council said on Friday (LINK) that it had received the application for the solar PV power plant, proposed for a 2,055 hectare site east of Harlin, on the D’Aguilar Highway.

    Somerset Mayor Graeme Lehmann said the “complex development application” had been submitted by Ethos Urban planning consultants, on behalf of a newly registered company called Sunshine Energy Australia.

    “We understand the attractions of the site include its proximity to the existing high voltage power network and … to Brisbane,” Lehmann said…

    “The site has been largely cleared in the past and is within one hour of the 570MW pumped storage hydroelectric plant at Splityard Creek, which is also in the Somerset Regional Council area.”…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/massive-1-5gw-solar-plant-proposed-south-east-queensland-16103/

    20

  • #
    pat

    7 May: Spatial Source: Australia’s solar boom: seen from the air
    By Daniel Bishton
    Aerial imagery purveyors Nearmap have taken the latest Clean Energy Regulator data and determined the Australian postcodes with the most solar uptake since 2001, pairing it with some of their capture imagery in a spectacular homage.

    Drag the slider across each image to see a ‘before’ and ‘after’…
    https://www.spatialsource.com.au/government-policy/australias-solar-boom-as-seen-from-above

    20

  • #
    observa

    “The only way that we can get certainty… is if the federal emissions level set within the NEG is around 50 per cent for the electricity sector.”

    Well he would say that now wouldn’t he?

    30

  • #
    pat

    the BIGGEST story right now is the resignation of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. go to Climate Depot for some coverage, or google his name for plenty more.

    MSM is not mentioning the Exxon case, so am posting the only piece I’ve found doing so here:

    7 May: PowerLineBlog: John Hinderaker: It Couldn’t Happen to a Nicer Guy [with comment by Paul]
    As Attorney General of the State of New York, Eric Schneiderman has posed as a liberal crusader. Among many other things, he has accused Exxon Mobil of committing securities fraud in connection with “climate change,” filed a civil suit accusing Trump University of fraud, and initiated more than 50 lawsuits seeking to block Trump administration environmental regulations…READ ON
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/it-couldnt-happen-to-a-nicer-guy.php

    20

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re: the BIGGEST story right now is the resignation of NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman…

    40

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reported to be working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on his inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race.
      If the report, first published in Politico, is true, it would be the latest fact undermining the integrity and impartiality of Mueller’s inquiry, which Democrats hope will result in the president being impeached and the results of the 2016 election forever called into question.

      Mueller has already hired Democrat donors and an attorney who worked for the Clinton Foundation. Schneiderman is one of the most partisan state attorneys general, and has been one of President Trump’s most vociferous public opponents. He helped lead the fight against Trump’s executive order suspending travel from terror-prone countries, calling it “just a Muslim ban by another name.” He also sued Trump for fraud in the Trump University case, and announced in 2016 — during the height of the presidential campaign — that he was investigating Trump’s charities.

      USA Today noted at the time that Schneiderman and Trump “have been involved in a years-long public feud.” In April, Schneiderman reportedly hired a liberal, Bernie Sanders-linked consulting group to help generate lawsuits against the Trump administration. Schneiderman also has a history of politically-charged litigation, including an effort to cover up emails that former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sent from a private account while in office.

      There could not be a more inappropriate person to be seen working with Mueller in an investigation that is already viewed as a politically-motivated effort to undo the results of a democratic election.

      Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News.

      10

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      I still can’t figure out what happened to Marylin Monroe.

      20

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    It is wrong to label those behind the financing of renewables schemes as “investors”.

    The financial viability as stand alone generation of electricity of renewables is well understood by all involved.

    It is only turned into a money making proposition by political manipulation of the electricity market.

    This is ethically wrong.

    These snowflakes are not investors.

    KK

    60

    • #
      PeterS

      An investor is a person or corporation that allocates capital with the expectation of a future financial return, which is what the so called renewable investors are doing. What you are proposing is that no one should invest in renewables because it’s all based on a hoax, namely CAGW, which I agree. However, reality bites and investors always look for the best return of their capital as long as it’s within the law of the land not the law of ethics/morals, thus making renewables very attractive and irresistible. It can only be stopped by removing the incentives that drive the investors into renewables in the first place. If necessary we should provide incentives to make coal fired power stations more attractive for them. It’s very simple really.

      20

      • #
        robert rosicka

        This is part of the problem “subsidies ” remove all of them in all forms and let the market and people with pitchforks sort it out .

        40

        • #
          PeterS

          Agree. Unfortunately we have special interest groups, such as the Greenies who want to distort the market for their own agenda.

          30

  • #
    pat

    27 Apr: Mashable: Leonardo DiCaprio’s latest venture seeks to bring rural dwellers out of the dark
    By Mark Kaufman
    DiCaprio, who has invested millions in conservation and renewable energy causes, not only became an investor in Kingo — he also joined its board of advisors, the company announced Thursday…
    In three years, Kingo says it has grown from 500 to 60,000 customers… Off-the-grid customers walk to a local store and pay to have their solar electricity activated when they need it, similar to how a prepaid cell phone works…
    Getting backing from a wealthy environmental advocate who is blunt about the need to address climate change and poverty, could prove vital…

    Kingo wouldn’t provide details about the amount of DiCaprio’s investment…
    Kingo’s off-the-grid solar venture isn’t just a short-term solution until power lines and infrastructure are expanded into remote and mountainous places. It might be a permanent solution. Expanding and maintaining power lines in remote places can often be a money-losing proposition for electric utilities — so they often don’t do it. This leaves solar, with no connection to the grid, as the only viable alternative…
    https://mashable.com/2018/04/26/leonardo-dicaprio-kingo-solar-energy/#RIZXE0tdXmq8

    Aug 2016: ZD Net: An unsecured database leaves off-the-grid energy customers exposed
    An unprotected database containing personal customer data of thousands of off-grid electricity customers was accessible for months.
    By Zack Whittaker for Zero Day; CNET en Español editor Laura Martínez contributed to this report
    Thousands of remote villagers in Guatemala and South Africa are living off the grid, but their personal information isn’t.
    Chris Vickery, lead security researcher of the MacKeeper security research team, discovered an unprotected database with no password over two months ago. Anyone who knew the database was there could access more than 40 gigabytes of customer data

    He published his findings in a blog post (LINK).
    The database, run by Guatemala-based energy startup Kingo, has exposed the personal information of more than 18,800 customers, both in its home country and in South Africa…

    The company provides, owns, and maintains the solar power technology used in each home, and customers top-up the device with prepaid codes, which are bought from authorized distributors — often local members of the community — and are punched into the device by the homeowner to run lightbulbs and charge cell phones for extended periods of time.
    But to get that far, customers must sign up by providing their state identification — usually a national ID card or a passport, and sign contracts which govern the terms of service, such as maintenance and malfunctions…

    A spokesperson for Kingo said on Monday that it had “taken immediate actions in order to secure the data.”…
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/off-the-grid-thousands-exposed-after-database-leak/

    29 Apr: Polizeros: Bob Morris: Kingo Energy. Cheap solar power for homes with no electricity
    The solar power is enough for a few light bulbs, chargers, and perhaps a small television, but not to power a modern house. Still, this obviously makes a huge difference to families that now can have electric light at night.
    At first I thought, maybe this is some weird scam on the poor. It’s not. Investors and partners include the InterAmerican Development Bank, US Aid, Leonardo DiCaprio, and more…

    July 2017: PV-Tech: Amanda Lennon: Engie (formerly GDF Suez, partly State-ownd) invests in off-grid solar specialists in Guatemala and India
    French utility and renewable energy developer, Engie, is investing in Kingo Energy, a provider of clean energy in Latin America and Africa.

    10

  • #
    toorightmate

    Low risk, high reward??
    I have been reading the wrong texts.

    30

  • #
    Mark M

    Snowflakes?

    Born Lucky: Stars Align Perfectly for PM’s Son with Mammoth Bet on Wind Power Outfit Infigen

    https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/13/born-lucky-stars-align-perfectly-for-pms-son-with-mammoth-bet-on-wind-power-outfit-infigen/

    PM Malcom Turnbull’s son, Alex has been luckier than most:

    “IN an effort to spin away its losses in 2013/14, Infigen pointed to …. wait for it … *the wind* – as the reason for a massive drop in revenues ($304 million loss in 2014/15.)

    Lack of wind a big blow for Infigen and power prices

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-24/lack-of-wind-a-big-blow-for-infigin-and-consumers/8646894

    30

    • #
      robert rosicka

      With the big swings these days politicians must figure if they last 8 years connected to the public teat they’re lucky so side deals for family and friends is a way of maintaining the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to at our expense .

      30

    • #
      PeterS

      The fix is still under way to make renewables more profitable by closing down the competition, that is close down more coal fired power stations. That’s the plan the two major parties are still implementing. I presume once they do close down more of them things will get very interesting. I can’t wait to see all the red faces of the politicians in both major parties once the voters wake up to the disruptions let alone to even higher prices. As usual voters will change their voting patterns but only after they have experienced sufficient pain. We are not there yet.

      50

      • #
        robert rosicka

        When that happens Peter which is when not if ,they will just blame each other in true political bluster .
        Much like the deficit debate in parliament today .

        30

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          The thing about this is to get set on the trading opportunity that presents itself as a result.

          I could do with a nice condo in Milano.

          10

        • #
          PeterS

          Perhaps Robert. I think when it happens they will be more concerned about the reaction by the public. They might even have to leave the country for their own safety if the public become really agitated once they find out they lost all their savings and supers.

          10

    • #
      PeterS

      On a similar theme, for many years now the government has been warned of the risks associated with our dependencies on fuel imports amid South China Sea tensions. Yet nothing has been done about it. I can only come to the conclusion that our governments on both sides are ignoring the risks for whatever reason they have. We can only guess as to what the reason is but it really doesn’t matter. The mere fact they keep ignoring it is leaving us at great risk. We can oily imagine what would happen if our supply of fuel is disrupted even for a couple of weeks. It would unleash a complete collapse of our economy and send our stock market crashing down. Yet it appears Turnbull in particular couldn’t care less. Yet roughly half of the voters would vote for another term under his leadership, while the other choice is just as bad. What a sad state of affairs.

      50

  • #
    pat

    great news:

    7 May: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: SCOOP: Trump’s EPA Will Axe Obama’s ‘De Facto Ban On New Coal Plants’
    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans on repealing an Obama-era requirement effectively mandating all new coal-fired power plants be outfitted with unproven emissions technology, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

    EPA will modify the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for power plants as part of its effort to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) — the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate agenda. EPA will drop the de facto requirement that new coal plants install carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology Obama administration critics said would make it nearly impossible to build new coal plants.
    “It’s fantastic that the Trump EPA is repealing the Obama EPA’s ban on new coal-fired power plants,” Junkscience.com publisher Steve Milloy told TheDCNF.

    It’s not clear exactly how EPA will modify NSPS, but dropping the CCS mandate could mean raising carbon dioxide emissions limits for new power plants to a threshold that allows more highly efficient plants to be built.
    In the past, coal plant operators have called for higher emissions limits to allow the building of supercritical and ultra supercritical units. Only one ultra supercritical coal plant, the Turk power plant, is operating in the U.S.
    “While no new standard is really necessary since U.S. coal plants already burn coal cleanly and safely, kudos to the Trump EPA for requiring only the best existing and affordable technology,” said Milloy, who served on President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team…

    “Though the Obama EPA rule would technically have allowed coal plants that captured and stored about 50 percent of their CO2 emissions,” Milloy said, “that standard was known to be financially, physically and politically impossible to meet for any existing or imagined coal plant.”
    “The Obama standard was de facto ban on new coal plants,” Milloy said.
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/07/scoop-trumps-epa-axe-obamas-de-facto-ban-on-new-coal-plants/

    30

  • #
    pat

    ***has thrown away a strong British industry of the future and potentially increased energy prices ??

    not well put, as it surely suggests less offshore wind means lower energy prices!

    6 May: UK Independent: Environmental impact of policies that led to collapse of onshore wind was not considered by government
    Exclusive: ‘This ill-considered action ***has thrown away a strong British industry of the future and potentially increased energy prices by effectively outlawing the cheapest form of clean energy in the country today,’ says Alan Whitehead, Labour’s shadow minister for energy and climate change
    by Josh Gabbatiss
    The government failed to consider the climate or the economic costs of a policy change that contributed to the collapse of onshore wind in the UK.
    Planning applications for new onshore wind developments have plummeted by 94 per cent since the introduction of new policies governing their construction in 2015.

    Documents obtained under Freedom of Information rules for The Independent by Christine Ottery at DeSmog UK and environmental group 10:10 Climate Action have revealed the government did not conduct relevant impact assessments before implementing these changes.
    They found no assessments had been made of how the new policies would affect carbon emissions, despite the key role onshore wind is thought to have in transitioning to a greener energy system and meeting climate targets…
    “This is a shocking revelation,” said Caroline Lucas, MP and co-leader of the Green Party…

    Historically, new wind projects were reliant on government subsidies. Following the 2015 general election the Conservatives made a manifesto promise of “no subsidies” for new operations, effectively stifling the industry.
    However, wind farm technology has now progressed to the extent that many onshore wind farms being built across Europe are set to be subsidy-free…

    Analysis by ECIU has revealed that policies blocking the development of onshore wind could add £1bn to the UK’s energy bills over five years…
    “Families facing high energy bills are being let down by the government’s ongoing ban on the cheapest new energy source – onshore wind,” said Ellie Roberts, a campaigner at 10:10 Climate Action…

    A UN report released in April found that, despite global investment in renewable energy shooting up in 2017, the UK had seen a decline of around two-thirds…
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wind-power-onshore-policies-environmental-impact-government-collapse-a8334786.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re: 6 May: UK Independent: Environmental impact of policies that led to collapse of onshore wind was not considered by government

    behind paywall:

    7 May: UK Times: Barclays hit by solar scandal
    Some buyers were misled into thinking rooftop panels would ‘pay for themselves’
    Barclays Bank has become embroiled in a fresh mis-selling scandal after the ombudsman found evidence that some households were misled into taking out loans to put solar panels on their roof.
    The Financial Ombudsman Service said it had seen a significant increase in complaints from households who were typically told the panels would “pay for themselves” and could cut their bills.

    In fact, households often found that the loan repayments exceeded the income and savings they made from the panels and some were left thousands of pounds worse off as a result.

    The ombudsman said that it had received about 2,000 complaints in the past year and that its investigations had found “evidence of pressure sales techniques, and misleading sales literature or representations by the salesperson”…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/barclays-hit-by-solar-scandal-70fmt0d2w

    20

  • #
    pat

    8 May: BusinessGreen: When will the biomass bubble burst?
    by Caroline Haywood, ClientEarth
    The sustainability myth of burning wood for energy is perched on a thin branch, argues ClientEarth’s Caroline Haywood
    Today, over 20 per cent of the UK’s ‘renewable’ energy is provided by huge power plants burning wood pellets that have been shipped from Eastern Europe, Canada and the US. Biomass is also a handy option for utilities: it’s government-stamped as ‘carbon neutral’ – an easy sell to green-minded customers.

    But there is, inevitably, more to it. Propping up the ‘sustainable’ status of large-scale biomass are three myths – and true to form, these don’t stand up to scrutiny…
    Myth 1: Biomass is a renewable energy
    In reality? There is actually no obligation in UK or EU law to replant trees that have been felled and burned. It’s only renewable if humans close the loop…

    Myth 2: Biomass is carbon neutral
    In reality? Scientists have shown that overall, burning wood for energy will actually contribute to global warming for decades to centuries. This is because trees take time to reabsorb the carbon released by burning them. And secondly, let’s not forget, processing and transporting biomass fuel at large scale requires energy – usually from fossil fuels…
    In the UK, from 1990 to 2014, gross CO2 emissions from biomass in the energy sector increased 998 per cent (LINK)…

    Myth 3: As a solid ‘green’ investment, biomass should receive public subsidies
    Currently, cutting down trees and burning them for energy on a massive scale counts towards the UK’s renewable energy target (15 per cent renewable sources by 2020), and therefore qualifies for public subsidies.
    Power stations that burn wood (instead of coal, for example) are often entitled to impressive sums: the government is set to funnel £1.3m per day into the wood-burning industry until 2026…

    The tide is turning in policy circles
    Speaking on a recent Channel 4 exposé, Chatham House’s Duncan Brack pointed out that favouring biomass over onshore wind or solar PV “doesn’t make sense – it’s bad for the climate and it’s a bad use of public money”.

    A recent economic report shows that solar and wind can reliably meet the UK’s new electricity needs as it phases out coal by 2025 – and they can do so more cheaply than new biomass conversions, grid integration costs included…
    According to BEIS in September 2017, “carbon savings from biomass conversion or co-firing are low or non-existent, and the cost of any savings is high”. The UK government has since reduced the subsidies available to large-scale biomass, starting its transition away from this expensive and problematic energy source…

    Misleading consumers?
    UK electricity consumers won’t stand for false renewable energy solutions either. When a consumer complained recently that an energy retailer was claiming its renewable electricity (which includes biomass) “contains 0g of CO2″, the UK’s advertising regulator investigated. It ruled that energy retailers can’t claim that biomass electricity is carbon neutral unless they can prove that no CO2 was emitted throughout the entire life cycle, even if those emissions were offset. This ruling is a warning to energy retailers using biomass that ‘greenwashing’ their adverts doesn’t pay…
    Investors, too, need to get smart about the systemic risk inherent in the biomass industry…
    For investors, the question is not if the bubble will burst, but when.
    Watch Channel 4′s Dispatches report on the secrets of the biomass industry – “The True Cost of Green Energy”.
    https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/3031766/when-will-the-biomass-bubble-burst

    VIDEO: 26mins15secs: Channel 4 Dispatches: The True Cost of Green Energy
    Biomass will provide up to 30% of our renewable energy by 2020. But is burning wood instead of coal environmentally friendly?
    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/on-demand/66548-004

    10

  • #
    robert rosicka

    OT but great news in the budget , unless you work for the ABC that is .

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-08/budget-2018-abc-funding-frozen-in-$84-million-hit-bottom-line/9740690

    Now here’s how they can save that amount and then some , axe the Trump dummy spit show that’s been going since he was elected ,axe Q and A let the kale munching lefties fund their own program on you tube .
    Sack all staff associated with the above programs ,reduce the channels to three , and last but not least stop the junk sensationalistic crud they try to pass as journalism .

    20

    • #
      pat

      robert rosicka – my fave excerpt:

      -(Guthrie) said the decision would make it very difficult for the ABC to meet its charter requirements and audience expectations -

      how deluded are they at theirABC?

      despite being a news junkie, i’d never heard of a tv series called “The Circus” until I heard ABC’s smug Jason di Rosso talking about it to a Fairfax guy Stephen Russell on theirABC’s “The Hub on Screen”.

      u won’t want to hear it but, for the record:

      12mins24secs in to 24mins50secs: “remarkable series”, says Di Rosso.

      AUDIO: 2 May: ABC The Hub on Screen: Ray Argall on his documentary film about Midnight Oil, The Circus, Simon Baker adapts Tim Winton … on The Hub on Screen
      with Jason Di Rosso on RN
      (INCLUDES)
      A discussion on the real-time American documentary-series The Circus…
      http://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pe4L7zJ4pQ

      couldn’t believe it’s actually just Bloomberg propaganda!
      with all the anti-Trump propaganda/fake news on theirABC, they still have time to watch this drivel and recall the scenes in detail!

      Wikipedia: The Circus
      The Circus is a 2016 television documentary series following the 2016 presidential race and the Trump administration. It is produced by Showtime and Bloomberg Politics.
      The docu-series premiered on January 17, 2016. It has been renewed for a second season, which premiered on March 19, 2017.
      It is set to return in April 15, 2018 for a third season, with CBS News anchor Alex Wagner stepping in as co-host to replace Mark Halperin, who was axed from the show amid sexual harassment allegations…

      Series 1
      September 11, 2016: With ten weeks to go until the election the Trump campaign finds itself running from behind. As members of his party start to publicly jump ship, can Trump find a way to close the gap with Clinton or will he just fall further behind?…

      October 16, 2016: Tracking the fallout from the second debate and the scandal surrounding a now-infamous audio tape, could this be the final nail in Trump’s campaign coffin – or can he pull off a surprise October Surprise to rally yet another comeback?…

      October 23, 2016: Amid claims of foreign intervention, international espionage and widespread hacking, Clinton faces what might turn out to be her toughest opponent to date: WikiLeaks, and the trove of highly sensitive, private emails it’s made public.

      October 30, 2016: The final two-week push going into the election sees the full weight of the White House come out in force for Clinton’s campaign, including one man who has the potential to swing those states still up for grabs: Joe Biden…
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circus:_Inside_the_Greatest_Political_Show_on_Earth

      given the US is a major ally, when will management crack down on the incessant anti-Trump garbage that permeates almost ALL ABC programming, from news to current affairs to religion to comedy.

      it wouldn’t bother me in the least if ABC was shut down.

      40

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      “I am very disappointed and concerned that after the measures we have introduced in recent years to deliver better and more efficient services, the Government has now seen fit to deliver what amounts to a further substantial budget cut,” Ms Guthrie said in a statement distributed to the organisation’s staff.

      ‘Better’? Yep. Just have a gander at the so-called “expert” panel that comrade Guthrie assembled to comment on the Budget. Socialists, incompetents or anarchists – comprising Andrew Probyn, Annabel Crabb, Barrie Cassidy, Laura Tingle, Ian Verrender, Emma Alberici & Greg Jennett.

      “The ABC’s ‘finest economic and business minds’”. All lefties. All incompetent.

      Greg Jenner kicks it off by getting the Century wrong.

      Hey Greg. It’s 2018 not 1918. Your Budget surplus in 1920, in your incompetent introduction, sets the standard (see 1.04 in video below). Never mind. The ABC is on the ball as usual. Dopes all. At least we’re paying less now for this level of incompetence and bias.

      https://iview.abc.net.au/programs/budget-2018-an-abc-news-special/NS1811C002S00#playing

      The lefties are in full flight at 15.01.

      Guthrie is a real goat. The CEO of the original socialists’ propaganda sheltered workshop.

      Why Morrison only cut $83.7 million has me beat. There goes “Pepper Pig” and the 4th set of repeats of “Antiques Roadshow”. Next they’ll be resurrecting “The Greatest Speeches of Gough Whitlam and other Marxist Luminaries”.

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    What is an honest way to measure and price unreliables power generation?

    The unreliable promoters always quote nameplate but it should be no more than capacity factor.

    Even worse, the power is of little to no value because it is not available on demand and requires a lot of grid management.

    And worse again it creates a lot of extra wear and tear on reliable power generators constantly ramping up and down to allow for the unreliable power to be used first.

    In a free market I don’t think unreliable power could be sold at any cost.

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    I was pleasantly surprised to find this in the lamestream media.

    ///ICE AGE WARNING: Sunspots begin to disappear from Sun as Earth braces for cold snap
    FEWER and fewer sunspots are appearing on the Sun as ball of fire prepares to go into a solar minimum which could lead to a mini Ice Age.///

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/954841/ice-age-sun-nasa-noaa-space-weather-forecast-sunspot-solar-minimum-maximum/amp

    10