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

Junk generators: 2 million expensive solar panels cut Australian total CO2 emissions by 1%

Graph, solar panels contribution to carbon reduction.

Solar panels across Australia reduce our emissions by almost nothing.

The ABC is whipping Gorgon for not getting carbon sequestration to work, claiming that this is a crisis that will wipe out the entire “gain” from installing two million solar panels across Australia. What the ABC don’t say is that the entire infrastructure of solar panels (on 20% of Australian homes) is only reducing our CO2 emissions by one pointless percent. So the Gorgon delay in achieving the impossible is likewise irrelevant. Australian emissions are rising at 1.5% pa now anyhow.

In terms of our national emissions, the real question is if we shut every solar panel in the nation would anyone notice?

Despite the $1.1b budget, the ABC could have got this bigger and more useful perspective for free from any number of skeptics, none of whom it tried to interview.

With minimal training in arithmetic ABC staff could even have figured it out for themselves. Instead, as per usual, the ABC provides free advertorials for green-industry hacks, with no hard questions and little research.

Can someone please explain to ABC investigative journalists the difference between a megaton and a ton? All they had to do was graph the solar contribution on the same graph or even in the same units…

How the Gorgon gas plant could wipe out a year’s worth of Australia’s solar emissions savings

Almost 2 million Australian households have installed solar panels to cut their power bills while also doing their bit for the environment. Households account for most of the country’s total solar panel emission savings.

Look how useful solar panels are — there are lots of zeroes on that axis when we use the odd units like “tons of carbon”. What nation graphs anything in tons?

Graph, Solar Power, Australia, avoided emissions, CO2.

The whole Renewable Energy Target (RET) cuts total emissions by around 5%

The ABC helpfully provides the dismal detail:

“If the RET is met and 33,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable electricity is generated in 2020, this would represent avoided emissions of about 26 million tonnes of CO2-e [a standard unit for measuring carbon footprints] per year,” Dr Hare said.

“These reductions in emissions from the power sector are unfortunately almost completely offset by the estimated increase emissions from the LNG sector.”

How easy is it for ABC readers to compare the value of solar panels in terms of our total emissions as measured in the standard megaton unit? How many readers didn’t see the fine print at the bottom explaining the units?

CO2 emissions, Australia, graph, 2000-2016.

….

Our Paris targets are obscenely ambitious. See the graph below regarding how much we have to cut. And there is no allowance for having one of the highest population growth rates in the West.

Still, the Paris agreement is a nonbinding, ineffectual plan that almost every other nation is going to fail to meet. So “whatever”. We can bail out at no cost apart from being called a few names.

Paris Target, Australia, Graph, emissions, projection.

Almost no one anywhere has got large scale carbon storage by injection to work. The industry is so immature that only a few months ago some pundits were saying the carbon capture era might be “starting” because of a new approved tax credit:

Chevron predicted that process would have seen between 5.5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 injected into the ground during the plant’s first two years of production from the Gorgon field, making it one of the largest carbon abatement activities in the world.

Instead, technical problems with seals and corrosion issues in the infrastructure have delayed CO2 storage and the Federal Government, which contributed $60 million towards the green technology, is not expecting the problem to be rectified until March 2019 — about two years after production began from the Gorgon gas field.

By that point, experts including energy consultancy firm Energetics predict the additional CO2 emitted into the atmosphere will be roughly equivalent to the 6.2 million tonnes in emissions saved in a year by all the solar panels in the country combined — from small household rooftop systems to major commercial installations.

 Let’s calculate the cost per ton “saved”

Can someone with some time to spare add up the cost of all those solar panels? I’d like to know how much we spent to achieve something so insignificant.

No nation should ever feel bound,
To store CO2 in the ground,
While hungry plants need,
A good CO2 feed,
When there isn’t enough to go ’round.

–Ruairi

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (58 votes cast)
Junk generators: 2 million expensive solar panels cut Australian total CO2 emissions by 1%, 9.6 out of 10 based on 58 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yd4prdna

80 comments to Junk generators: 2 million expensive solar panels cut Australian total CO2 emissions by 1%

  • #

    An ABC investigative journalist?
    Now there’s an oxymoron.

    250

    • #
      Mal

      If Australia ceased to exist, then the reduction in co2 and any impact on climate change would not be measurable. (even if co2 was a driver) Effectively close to zero. Why doesn’t the ABC state the facts. There is Nothing we can do that has any impact on the climate. Further there are significant benefits from a warmer climate and increase in plant fertiliser.
      They are just mouthpiece for the loony left.

      40

    • #
      Geoff

      What happens when ALL rooves have solar panels? The financial and operating implications for the grid are huge but the gain for CO2 reduction is still tiny.

      20

      • #
        Alan

        That could be tricky :)
        (Macquarie Dictionary)
        roove
        /roohv/.
        noun
        1. Shipbuilding a small copper washer used when copper nails are being clinched.
        verb (t), past tense and past participle rooved; present participle rooving.
        2. to secure (a nail) with a roove.
        [origin obscure]

        20

        • #
          Geoff

          Hoi polloi live under roofs and civilized men live under rooves. #roof#rooves#plurals#oxford dictionary

          English, not Australian.

          I understand that Sydney speakers may wish to use the Macquarie Dictionary. We speak English, not Australian, that is reserved for the indigenous population. Roofs is a US derivative, a case-less, phonetic aberration.

          If you live in Strailya, roofs is ok but many will have no idea what language you are using, dog or human.

          10

          • #
            Alan

            Ah ha see you have been reading the Urban Dictionary, but you didn’t read entry two, which out of politeness I won’t repeat.

            Also as the grammarist.com states “Roofs is the plural of roof in all varieties of English. Rooves is an old secondary form, and it still appears occasionally by analogy with other irregular plurals such as hooves, but it is not common enough to be considered standard” (you’re suggesting it’s too common :) )
            Also seen this “Rooves as a plural for of roof is dated, but not incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary lists “rooves” as an alternate to roofs, one of several outdated spellings used in the UK, and in New England as late as the 19th century.”

            Did you know the plural of turf is turves, argh English

            00

  • #

    For carbon storage by injection we need a stronger description than “white elephant”. Something this futile and expensive should be a “white mammoth”. And to qualify as a thoroughbred white mammoth there needed to be general knowledge from the very start that the scheme had no hope despite staggering costs and wasted resources, making it 100% gesture from inception. I’d say the Gorgon scheme has met all criteria for a pure-bred albino mastodon.

    Congrats, warmies. Gimme some more of that red thumb love, GetUp.

    321

    • #
      Tom O

      I think if “white elephant” doesn’t fit your needs, “white mammoth” won’t either as there really isn’t a large enough different. Besides, this mentality of eliminating CO2 is menacing. So I would suggest using the term “Moby Dick” since the fabled white whale is much larger than an elephant and certainly in the story is quite a menacing monster.

      181

      • #
        RicDre

        ‘So I would suggest using the term “Moby Dick”’

        And as an added bonus, “Moby Dick” is a fictional character which makes it perfect for use as a metaphor for anything related to the Global Warming.

        231

        • #
          Yonniestone

          As an added bonus anything related to Global Warming also blows…..

          In fact the entire plot of Moby Dick mirrors the story of Global Warming,

          - A dangerous threat to everyone that might sail on a Whaler into a certain area of the worlds oceans. (impossible odds)
          - The financial cost of the search for outweighed any benefits of finding the whale. (financial negligence)
          - Captain Ahab would not listen to any reasoning and any casualties were necessary to the cause. (Al Gore)
          - Ishmael signs onto the trip without knowing the true consequences of his actions. (public gullibility)

          There’s more but time is a constraint.

          170

    • #

      My concern about injecting CO2 into the earth is that the earth may explode. Has anyone given thought to this possibility?

      110

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Like those reckless fools that aim laser pointers at the moon could blow it up or swimmers urinating in the oceans could cause SLR or………

        100

      • #
        Annie

        Next alarm…earth explodes due to CO2 sequestration!

        51

  • #

    Australian domestic PV systems – back of the envelope calculations.

    Data from: http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/historical#4/-26.67/134.12

    In April 2018 there were 1,794,081 <10Kw installations ie domestic, which have the capacity to generate 5,658.6 MW.

    This mean that each installation averages 3.15 KW. Round this down to 3KW.

    Using current costs (which are the current minimum) from: https://www.australiansolarquotes.com.au/buyers-guide/solar-panel-prices/

    A 3 KW system would cost $6,900 to install, with an estimated $2,480 subsidy.

    Using this as a guide the total minimum cost of the installed domestic capacity is $12,379,158,900.00 including $4,449,320,880.00 subsidy.

    Assuming 6,250,000 tonnes is saved each year each installation would save 3.48 tonnes, 1.1 tonne per KW installed.

    This would mean that at a headline figure in one year the cost per tonne of carbon saved is $1,980.67, although this would be spread over the life of the panel (20 -25 years http://www.appropedia.org/Lifespan_and_Reliability_of_Solar_Photovoltaics_-_Literature_Review). Over 22.5 years this would be a cost of $88.03 per year.

    210

    • #

      Eric, sorry you were caught in moderation. Thank you, to you and to TonyfromOz at #6 who independently reach similar figures. That’s very helpful and exactly what I was after.

      These costs are so ridiculous yet don’t include the cost of back up power or storage — or the cost of forcing out the cheaper baseload stations, or the cost of higher ramping rates.

      Or the cost of driving out industries due to high power prices…

      251

  • #
    Sean

    The third and fourth graphs are most intriguing. Why did emissions fall so much between 2008 and 2014? Was it due to a change in electrical supply or a change in electricity demand? Are you building a new economy or just de-industrializing? Much of the success in reducing CO2 emissions in English speaking countries seems to be the latter. If that’s the case, then the 20% of solar penetration for residential homes is quite significant as the excess costs passed on the big power users will accelerate the trend toward de-industrialization in the local economy.

    70

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Money was spent, glowing press releases were published, virtue was massively signaled in extravagant ribbon cutting ceremonies, and absolutely nothing was accomplished toward meeting the published goal. Clearly, a lot more of the same things that accomplished nothing will have to be done to accomplish still more nothing. Once again we see that when something looks absurd you must examine its consequences. There you will discover its purpose. The government’s actual goals were met. The stated goals were nothing but a smokescreen to hide the underlying truth even from the political actors themselves.

    It is just the way government works. The government cannot solve even the problem of getting out of its own way so something real can be done to solve the real problem. It cannot identify what the real problem is. It always acts in such a way so as to make the problem of (fill in the blank with your favorite misidentified problem) ever worse so it can justify doing more of the same to make the situation still worse. Rinse and repeat until the economy collapses, civilization descends into chaos, a dictator is voted into office, and a reign of terror fills the land. Such is the cycle of government since the first government.

    Wouldn’t it be better to have learned the lessons of history, understood them, and worked to avoid the infinite downside of ignoring the lessons of history? Unfortunately about the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history. The evidence points to the fact that we must experience the consequences of our errors of thought and action up close and very personal every time. We work hard to socialize the cost and personalize the gains until there are only costs and nothing left to gain. Then we are surprised by the outcome even though the outcome was easily predictable long before the start of the process.

    Doing the same things isn’t working. Thus we must do something different. Our challenge is to identify what to do so that it will work the next time. It won’t be easy and might not even be obvious. What we do know is that what we are doing isn’t working.

    100

    • #
      Tom O

      Lionell, I have always been amused at the phrase “learn from history.” Try picking up a history book published within the last 10 years and compare it to a history book published, say, 110 years ago. It is amazing how much “history” has changed in the last hundred years. How can you “learn from history” when every new generation of historians “rewrites history” in order to justify their existence? In the end, since you don’t know what history was to start with, what lesson is there in it?

      70

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Tom,

        A name does not make the thing. A book called history might not be about history but only a story its author wants to believe. Even that can be instructive if you interpret it correctly.

        I didn’t say learning from history was easy, I said we don’t do it. No matter the reason, if we don’t learn from history, we will pay the price for committing the same errors over and over again. History is what actually happened and why. The learning requires much more than simply reading the latest books reported to be reporting something it calls history.

        Keep in mind there are still history books from the past to study. If you study history as reported over the centuries, you can observe the changes. You can also investigate contemporaneous newspapers and magazine reports over more than a century. Include also books, biographies, and documents produced by the historical actors themselves. In other words, you must become a historian to be able to learn from history. In the final analysis, you are going to have to decide which story to believe and use has a lesson. Ignore the lessons at your own risk.

        For most people this is simply too difficult, too boring, or not relevant to their lives. Especially when they are teenagers interested in having something called fun. So most keep on repeating the errors of the past and suffering the consequences. Consequences that could have been avoided had they actually learned the lessons of the past.

        You might say that “this isn’t fair” and I would agree. Life is what it is and fairness has nothing to do with it. Deal with it as it is and you have a fighting chance. Deal with it as it isn’t and you don’t have a chance. You make your choices, act accordingly, and live or die by the consequences. Ultimately all I can tell you is choose wisely. You are going to have to choose what is wise, what isn’t, and what to do as a consequence.

        70

        • #
          sophocles

          History is what actually happened and why.

          Lionel:
          Only if you are lucky. History is mutable and is what those in control—or `the victors’ if there was any controversy—say it is.

          I have a number of books written before and at the start of the current climate hoax. They differ
          markedly in places and in some ways from what is currently being pushed at us.

          An example is the way the cooling of the early 1950s through to the end of the 1970s has been `deleted’ (or has been so attempted) from the record, because it didn’t suit The Narrative. It intimated climate is Cyclic and of natural causes rather than dependent on a mere few
          billion animals.

          At first, it was alleged to be atmospheric testing of fission and fusion bombs, so after the Test Ban Treaty was signed, testing went underground. But the cooling was worse over the 1970s so another excuse was trotted out: burning of Fossil Fuels.

          All might have come to naught if the UN hadn’t been formed. Or the Club of Rome. Some bureaucrats couldn’t keep their minds on what they had to do but began to dream of extending their power. They fastened onto the fossil fuel blame as an assumption, and have worked to try to usurp national government with an imposed bureaucratic tyranny, for it will be a tyranny if they succeed, to `save the world.’ Hence the FCCC.

          However, you are so right about `learning from history.’ Human societal and cultural memory still, for all our record keeping, does not exceed a human lifetime by a significant amount. Becoming an historian to learn from history, as you recommend, is something only a very few will do. It’s mostly in the `too hard’ or `not enough time’ basket. Ergo, we forget all too easily.

          30

          • #
            Lionell Griffith

            A good story well told might be emotionally satisfying and offer an opportunity to learn more about important concepts and values. It might even give an experience of what could be or even should be. All quite valuable. However, if it is represented as what actually happened (aka history) it would be misleading at best and propaganda at worst. If it is presumed to be history that can inform policy and guide action, error and failure is the most likely outcome.

            I agree that few will take the time and make the effort to become historians so they can learn the true lessons of history. Most will rely on tradition, we have always done it this way, and get a bigger hammer. All with the usual mixed results. When it comes to trying something really hard to do, they will rely on one or more experts. If they are not experts at picking the right expert, they will pick the right expert only by accident. Since there are far more ways to be wrong than right, failure is the likely outcome.

            There is no substitute for knowing something for real. Faking reality does not work all that well.

            20

        • #

          A serf’s thoughts on history’s chequered history.
          https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/268/

          10

          • #
            Lionell Griffith

            Is it really true that truth cannot be known and knowledge is nothing but a social construct? Is it all a buzzing foggy miasma of constantly shifting mental images pretending to be what it is not? Is the best we can do is a collective agreement that has no hope of being connected to what is real? If so, how can we even know upon what it is we agree?

            Yet cities are built, complex products are built and traded, airplanes fly, crops are grown and eaten. New things are invented and added to our store of things that give life its quality and quantity. From whence did all the things we call modern technological civilization come that currently sustain the lives of billions of humans? If we cannot know truth, how can anything be made that works? How can we even know that it works?

            Yet the postmodernist myth continues. Because we have eyes we are blind. Because we have ears we are deaf. Because we have a voice our words are meaningless. Because we have a mind we are nothing zombis sleepwalking without knowing, understanding, communication, or even awareness. If so, how is it that some were able to create the myth and others echo it with such pathological self destructive ferocity?

            The fundamental truth is that existence exists and things exist as a particular something. Man is capable of knowing what is if he chooses to do so by using his mind to process experience and experiment using the logic of non-contradiction to discover error. Otherwise man would not exist and be able to create the postmodern myth and thereby destroy himself.

            30

  • #

    Joanne,

    ballpark figures for cost here.

    there is currently around 7,800MW of rooftop solar.

    There are about 2 million installations.

    So, the average sized rooftop system is 3.9KW.

    The ‘current’ average cost for a 4KW system is $5400.

    So for 2 million of them, that’s $10.8 Billion in today’s dollars.

    Now, keep in mind here that the installers only charge you the out of pocket, and they then claim the rebate back from the Government.

    Also keep in mind that the cost has fallen quite dramatically since all this stated.

    So, an accurate cost would be hard to calculate, but even so, $11 Billion for what amounts to a very small total generated power is exorbitant to say the least.

    Rooftop solar is currently generating around 22GWH of power a day, and that’s around 3.75% of total power consumption. (in Winter)

    Tony.

    190

    • #
      KenE

      Tony

      I have never understood how windfarms and solar all tout the nameplate capacity, and then say ithe installation will power X number of homes. I have never seen any running at 100% or anywhere near it (wind at the moment is around 15%). I would have thought legally they would be required to at least publish the average output, and then divide that figure to give the number of homes. It is outright lying to use nameplate capacity. Or have I got it all wrong and everything is already taken into account?

      Ken

      70

      • #

        Ken,

        it’s one of the ‘tricks’ that they use to hide the actual power generation total that the plant can ‘(hopefully)’ generate as a year round average.

        They will quote the Nameplate as the ‘total’ power at 100%.

        What they then do is to use a (modelled) theoretical total power generation, usually 38%, sometimes even higher than that. This then gives them a total power generation in MegaWattHours.

        Then they find out what the average home consumes in that area, and divide that into their theoretical total to give them ‘X’ number of homes supplied.

        The point is that those theoretical X number of homes are all connected to the grid, and not to the wind plant, and even so, because that total is so variable, it wouldn’t supply the full 24 hour total of those homes anyway.

        With solar plants, they usually use a theoretical total of 20% and I’ve even seen higher than that, up to 28%, when 17% is closer to the average.

        Because people have no understanding of what is being implied (inferred) by that X number of homes, they cannot work it out for themselves, and when someone does ‘twig’ to what it actually means and mentions that perhaps they may have been a trifle misleading, the wind plant people can say ….. hey, we told the truth right up front by quoting that X number of homes. It’s just that no one knows what it ‘really’ means.

        You can usually counter that by perhaps mentioning that Bayswater can supply ….. umm, 2 Million + homes.

        Tony.

        110

    • #
      ColA

      Tony,

      How do those numbers crunch up using actual installation costs? My Tier 1, 6.2 kW of panels and 5 kW inverter cost me $5,477 but $9,673 in TOTAL, so YOU helped contribute $4,196. Thanks!
      My system, in South East Queensland will average about 23 kW/h day over the 12 months which, will be 27 kWh/day x 364 days = 8,370 kWh/year (this uses the 4.2 factor for my area Post Code which takes into account sun avg. hours, temperature, etc.)

      00

  • #
    Rod

    6.6kWp for $3,700 will equal about 40kWh in Spring Summer Autumn
    Do your sums again and this time don’t fudge like this muppet is doing.
    The rise in emissions is down to LNG trains and land clearing

    26

    • #
      Peter C

      How about you do the sums Rod and show your working here on the blog?

      110

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Speaking of Muppets how many people would have their hands up for “clean energy” schemes if the true figures weren’t fudged?

      90

    • #
      ColA

      Rod aka Beaker,
      You are talking about a very cheap system @ $3,700, 6.6 kW of panels? what size is the inverter?
      The inverter is what actually defines the system capacity, Beaker! Bet it does not have a guarantee of more than 5 years!!
      Cough up for a new inverter in 5 years, 1 month. IF YOUR LUCKY!!
      Oh, and cheap panels will loose PV response and eventually last maybe 10 – 15 years!!

      My Tier 1, 6.2 kW of panels and 5 kW inverter cost me $5,477 but $9,673 in TOTAL, so YOU helped contribute $4,196. Thanks!
      My system, in South East Queensland will average about 23 kW/h day over the 12 months which, will be 27 kWh/day x 364 days = 8,370 kWh/year (this uses the 4.2 factor for my area Post Code which takes into account sun avg. hours, temperature, etc.)

      Beaker, prove your numbers you numb nut!

      00

  • #
    pat

    just updated:

    22 Jun: CNBC: Reuters: Tesla to close a dozen solar facilities in 9 states: Documents
    •Tesla’s move last week to cut 9 percent of its workforce will sharply downsize the residential solar business.
    •The electric car maker acquired SolarCity two years ago in a controversial $2.6 billion deal.
    •The latest cuts to the division that was once SolarCity include closing about a dozen installation facilities.
    About 60 installation facilities remain open, according to an internal company list reviewed by Reuters. An internal company email named 14 facilities slated for closure, but the other list included only 13 of those locations.

    Tesla declined to comment on which sites it planned to shut down, how many employees would lose their jobs or what percentage of the solar workforce they represent.
    The company said that cuts to its overall energy team — including batteries to store power — were in line with the broader 9 percent staff cut.

    The operational closures, which have not been previously reported, raise new questions about the viability of cash-strapped Tesla’s solar business and Musk’s rationale for a merger he once called a “no-brainer” — but some investors have panned as a bailout of an affiliated firm at the expense of Tesla shareholders. Before the merger, Musk had served as chairman of SolarCity’s board of directors.
    The installation offices that the internal email said were targeted for closure were located in California, Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Arizona, and Delaware.

    The company also fired dozens of solar customer service staffers at call centers in Nevada and Utah, according to the former Tesla employees, some of whom were terminated in last week’s cuts. Those employees spoke on condition of anonymity because making public comments could violate the terms of their severance packages…

    Tesla has been burning through cash as it tries to hit a target of producing 5,000 Model 3 electric sedans per week after production delays. The company faces investor pressure to turn a profit without having to tap Wall Street for additional capital…
    Some personnel at facilities closing down were being transferred to other sites, the current and former employees said. SolarCity employed about 15,000 people at the end of 2015 but has since cut thousands of workers…

    Analysts questioned Tesla’s plans for the solar business in light of the latest cuts to staff and retail operations.
    “In effect, they seem to be saying, We have no strategy for selling solar,” said Frank Gillett, an analyst at Forrester Research, adding that the SolarCity purchase “looks pretty awful right now.”

    In the first quarter of this year, Tesla installed 76 megawatts of solar systems – down from SolarCity’s more than 200 MW a quarter in early 2016, when it was the leading player in the industry…
    Tesla’s falling solar sales also could jeopardize the future of a joint venture with Panasonic, announced as Tesla moved to acquire SolarCity in 2016, to produce solar modules at a new factory in Buffalo, New York.
    Tesla has an agreement with New York state requiring the company to spend $5 billion within 10 years. If Tesla fails to meet that obligation and others, the company may be required to pay tens of millions of dollars in penalties at various milestones, could lose its lease, or be forced to write down the assets, the company told investors in a May filing…

    In March, a Delaware judge ruled against a Tesla motion to dismiss a lawsuit by the company’s shareholders over the SolarCity deal. The lawsuit alleged Tesla’s board of directors breached its duties to shareholders by approving the merger.
    SolarCity founder Lyndon Rive, who is Musk’s first cousin and left Tesla last year, did not respond to a request for comment.
    The move to end the longstanding Home Depot partnership blindsided many staffers because Tesla had announced an expansion of the arrangement as recently as February…
    The cost of winning a customer through a store like Home Depot can be up to $7,000 per system, according to GTM Research, compared with a national average of $4,000 per installation…

    At the same time, Tesla stopped door-to-door sales, once among SolarCity’s most successful means of reaching new customers, and salespeople were no longer allowed to hold local events or buy online leads, the former employees said…
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/22/tesla-to-close-a-dozen-solar-facilities-in-9-states-documents.html

    51

  • #
    pat

    this story gets resurrected now and again by the MSM. this artice doesn’t mention the program is funded by Armstrong Energy Global Foundation, created by the founders of one of the UK’s leading renewable energy investment firms, Armstrong Energy Global Limited.

    22 Jun: BBC: The Indian women lighting the way for change
    By Divya Arya, BBC Hindi, Rajasthan
    (Part of our series Taking the Temperature, which focuses on the battle against climate change and the people and ideas making a difference. This BBC series was produced with funding from the Skoll Foundation)

    In India’s desert state of Rajasthan, rural women are becoming the surprise agents of change, convincing coal-reliant communities to switch to solar.
    They are called “Solar Sahelis” or “solar friends”, and their job is to convince their neighbours to invest in solar-powered solutions.
    But it’s not easy. For decades, rural India has been flooded with poor quality solar products, most of which have ended up in landfill…
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43837484

    as for Skoll:

    Wikipedia: Skoll Foundation
    It connects social entrepreneurs through support of events including the annual Skoll World Forum on Social Entrepreneurship at Oxford University, convenings, and online content platforms. It celebrates social entrepreneurs through media projects such as short films and partnerships with other media outlets, including The Sundance Institute, NPR, PBS, Public Radio International, and HarperCollins. Its founder is Jeff Skoll who was the first employee and first president of eBay…
    As of 2016 the Skoll Foundation had assets of $580,230,769…

    50

  • #
    pat

    when will our farmers understand where this CAGW obsession is leading?

    22 Jun: Holyrood’s emissions proposals ‘devastating’ for farming
    by Brian Henderson
    A stark warning that overly ambitious targets set out in the Scottish Parliament’s ­Climate Change Bill could prove ­disastrous for Scotland’s beef and sheep farmers was made at yesterday’s Royal Highland Show.
    Claiming that the thrust of the bill, plus the wider “anti-red meat” agenda, represented a far greater threat to the sector than the uncertainties of Brexit, Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) chairman Jim McLaren said his fears were backed up in documents from the Scottish Government.

    He said the publication – produced to give guidance on the likely economic costs of the proposed cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – flagged up the potential for “devastating consequences for many sectors of the Scottish economy, including agriculture” if the “net zero” target was adopted.
    McLaren said the paper spelled out the fact that setting such a target would mean the end of viable livestock farming in Scotland…

    Rural economy secretary Fergus Ewing said that it was important for farming to play its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but added: “If any country’s climate is suited to livestock production then it is Scotland’s. And I have made clear my preferences for a voluntary approach – working with farmers to change mindsets, attitudes and practices willingly.”
    https://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/farming/holyrood-s-emissions-proposals-devastating-for-farming-1-4758221

    60

  • #

    Was watching a doco on Xinjiang about how the Chinese are stifling and out-populating the local Uyghurs. There is a highway exempt from tolls and speed limits for tourist buses on their way to heavily controlled “friendly” areas.

    Along that highway are masses of wind turbines, far more than I’ve seen even in Spain within a single vista.

    Yet in the rest of the country shown in the doco there are no wind turbines visible, not even on the very prominent ridges round the agricultural valleys. The constantly filmed and photographed tourist highway gets the whirlygigs. So a Guardian journalist only has to turn his head from his window seat to film a green miracle to shame the laggard West.

    The Chinese can afford this sort of charade, particularly when they are making and selling so much Blob hardware. We can’t afford any of it. For gawd’s sake, Malcolm, just string out some solar panels and whirlygigs along the Pacific Highway before Byron Bay. If the wind drops at peak tourist times just turn the blades with a genny. Play it like the game it really is.

    180

    • #
      Dennis

      Then invite Australian politicians, especially law graduates, to a slow drive past with commentary indoctrination in vehicle.

      70

    • #
      markx

      Mosomoso. Exactly right!
      Most of the rest of the world plays it as a charade, but us dumb Aussie’s play it dead straight, trying to impress the citizens of foreign shores, who mostly just smile knowingly and get on with business.

      30

  • #

    What percentage of scientists say that we can stop the climate from changing?
    The answer is zero. ZERO percent of scientists say that we can stop the climate from changing!!

    The people hyping solar panels claim that they are necessary to “stop the climate from changing.” So I ask, what percentage of scientists say that solar panels will stop the climate from changing?

    The answer is zero. ZERO percent of scientists say that solar panels will stop the climate from changing!

    So why are the public being conned into spending so much money?

    Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis to make explicit how much climate change will they stop??

    150

    • #
      PeterS

      Why are people conned? Simple. They don’t bother to do the necessary research of the facts and instead trust their political leaders to guide them to the so called “truth” by letting the politicians think for them. The problem with that of course is politicians do not think either and in turn don’t bother to do the necessary research of the facts and instead trust the scientists to guide them to the so called “truth” by letting the scientists think for them. The problem with that is those scientists the politicians listen to are themselves telling fibs and most if not all of them know it. So the public can’t even go direct to the same scientists to get to the truth. The public are snookered. The buck stops with the scientists. They are the source of the problem since they are supposed to represent the scientific truth. Then there are other scientists who remain silent in all this. They are just as much to blame. Finally there are a tiny number of scientists who are vocal in their disagreement of the “science of man-made climate change”. Unfortunately, they are ridiculed by the rest and they end up being ignored and rejected by much of the public. Double snookered.

      90

    • #
      RickWill

      So why are the public being conned into spending so much money?

      The public is not being “conned” into spending so much money.

      There are those people with money to invest who are encouraged to put solar panels on their roof. In most cases it provides a good return due to the transfer payment from electricity consumers; definitely better than term deposits.

      Then there are people who simply use electricity and have the capacity to pay for it. If they want that “luxury” then they will be providing the transfer payment to the ambient energy generators, whether they are large scale or rooftop on a neighbouring roof.

      The public are not being conned. Divided would be a more apt term. Meaning those with a roof and money to benefit from the RET and those unable or unwilling to take advantage of the RET.

      If you are an electricity consumer then be aware it is your money that is paying for the ambient energy generators. The only way to avoid that is not to buy electricity from the grid.

      20

      • #
        Mary E

        If you are an electricity consumer then be aware it is your money that is paying for the ambient energy generators. The only way to avoid that is not to buy electricity from the grid.

        True. If only 30% of the industrialized/modern nations populations dropped off the grid and took power only from home-generated means (wind, solar, wood) the green revolution would probably collapse – those remaining on the grid would not be able to pay the steep increases, would either cut use to near nothing or go without/be shut off for non-payment. Tax and fees collected for government subsidies would drop – made up for by creating new taxes and fees which would still drop in collection as people ran out of money, and or the subsidies would be dropped as the money is no longer available. Without continuous subsidizing, the wind and solar and other alternative green power suppliers would go belly-up.

        It might take awhile, it might crash civilization as we know it, but it would prove that people can opt out of the never-ending demand for more money.

        Of course, China would probably step in and take everything over, promising cheap, coal- and nuclear-fueled electricity for all. Who cares who gets your taxes and makes the rules when your government has collapsed, food is scarce, water supply and waste removal is broken, you are freezing to death?

        00

  • #
    Ian

    “Our Paris targets are obscenely ambitious. See the graph below regarding how much we have to cut. And there is no allowance for having one of the highest population growth rates in the West.”

    These targets were, of course, put in place by Tony Abbott in 2013 when he was PM. He now says he was mislead by bureaucrats during the commitment process but at the time said something completely different .

    In announcing Australia would adopt an emissions reduction target for 2030 of 26% to 28% on 2005 levels, Abbott said: “There’s a definite commitment to 26% but we believe under the policies that we’ve got, with the circumstances that we think will apply, that we can go up to 28%.”

    Materials circulated to the Coalition party room at the time also made it clear that Australia would need to reduce its projected emissions by around 900m tonnes in order to hit the 26% to 28% target.

    These targets are stilllin place.

    And as for expensive power why is fracking banned in the Eastern states? Why is exploration for conventional gas sources banned? Nothing to do with the Federal government but every thing to do with the state governments. How much f ht arise in power prices is due to the suppliers such as ABL and Origin?

    Perhaps someone somewhere will take the time to recall forensically assess the effects of these various factors instead of just blaming Turnbull for everything that is amiss.

    40

    • #

      Hey, nobody said Malcolm and Josh were the only globalist wreckers. But, my God, they’re a pair of real shockers. The Turnbull spring was well over two and half years ago and Green Blob weighs heavy on Australia. Let me repeat: nobody but Malcolm Turnbull has been Prime Minister of Australia since September 2015. It is now June 2018.

      Please continue to point out the failings of Abbott, state authorities and corporations. Boot them as hard and often as you like. Just don’t forget to give an especially good kick to the guy at the top of it all. Australia has not been led by Tony Abbott or chopped liver since spring 2015. It has been led by Malcolm Turnbull. Please forensically assess that fact.

      171

    • #
      Dennis

      Tony Abbott was Prime Minister from September 2013 until September 2015.

      The Paris Conference took place in December 2015 and the signing and ratification ceremony took place around April 2016 in New York.

      PM Abbott tried hard to abolish the 23 per cent RET and related subsidies but the hostile Senate Opposition blocked it. But his government did abolish Labor’s Carbon Tax earlier.

      His government was not in step with the UN IPCC climate change agenda (“socialism masquerading and environmentalism”) but he was under pressure from Cabinet Ministers who support climate change politics. Cabinet decisions are like company board decisions, the majority decision usually prevails. Accordingly PM Abbott battled to keep the emissions target for presentation at the Paris Conference to the lowest possible level.

      Maybe you missed the warning from Christopher Monckton that we needed to watch PM Abbott’s back because he was under attack from political forces determined not to allow him to stand in their way?

      The relentless negativity dieted towards Tony Abbott is sad when good people accept it as fact.

      100

      • #
        Ian

        You clearly do not know the procedures in place for the Paris Accord. Countries were asked to submit their commitments by September 201t. Abbott was PM and did submit Australia’s commitment. That commitment is in place till 2020. Don’t blame Turnbull for proceeding with Australia’s commitment. Same the man who made them. One Anthony John Abbott failed `and deposed PM

        00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    2 million expensive solar panels cut Australian total CO2 emissions by 1%

    But it wasn’t about reduction of CO2 in the first place, was it?

    How do you spell dollar signs? Answer, solar panels and windmills.

    70

  • #
    James Murphy

    Best estimates by Chevron indicate 4 million tonnes of CO2 stored per year, but, as I’ve said on here before, they expect to produce about 16 million tonnes of LNG a year…

    Only the Greens, and the activists pretending to be journalists at the ABC fail to understand just how insignificant 4 million tonnes of CO2 is in the scope of this project. What do they think will happen to all that gas…?

    Words fail me.

    80

    • #
      Alan

      James
      This is just the CO2 removed from the natural gas at processing. Many natural gas deposits naturally contain 15-20% CO2 (Gorgon and Wheatstone) along with the hydrocarbons (mainly methane).
      Currently at processing and clean-up this is removed and vented directly into the atmosphere. This CO2 is not accounted for when you see comparisons of CO2 emissions when gas electricity production is compared to coal as they only compare the “at burn” CO2.

      00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Applicable to this thread IMO

    “30 YEARS OF EXAGGERATING GLOBAL WARMING”

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/30-years-of-exaggerating-global-warming/news-story/d27b0c9743a96ff8189c07f1540c7d65

    Link seems to be paywalled but you get the idea

    Willis E has a look at the same subject

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/20/the-thirty-year-war/

    51

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Dan Donnachie
    June 23, 2018 at 1:29 am · Reply
    What percentage of scientists say that we can stop the climate from changing?
    The answer is zero. ZERO percent of scientists say that we can stop the climate from changing!!

    Probably the same amount of scientists that produce papers showing a simple equation.
    What is the difference between the Holocene warming trend and anthropogenic warming trend.
    Or is the get out of gaol card “The Holocene warming stopped at the start of the industrial revolution:)

    60

    • #
      sophocles

      Drapetomania said:

      Or is the get out of gaol card “The Holocene warming stopped at the start of the industrial revolution”

      If it could be gotten away with, it could be said to have started earlier in the Holocene, when Mankind first discovered the thermal abundance in coal and began to use it at the start of the Iron Age. The Middle East had already lost its forests to the Bronze Age foundries, so the “effects” of the initial small scale use of coal may not have been considered significant by the pseudo-scientists until it reached truly Industrial proportions …

      30

  • #
    TedM

    “Can someone with some time to spare add up the cost of all those solar panels? I’d like to know how much we spent to achieve something so insignificant.”

    Don’t forget to add the cost of the whole installation, inverters labour etc. Not to forget the cost of stabilising the grid. Also the fact that the power from the grid connect inverters is not all that clean, loads of harmonics.

    50

  • #
    Ruairi

    No nation should ever feel bound,
    To store CO2 in the ground,
    While hungry plants need,
    A good CO2 feed,
    When there isn’t enough to go ’round.

    80

  • #
    sophocles

    Thursday was the 21st of June, the Winter Solstice. (You Northerners got the Summer Solstice so you can send the Sun back now, that’s your lot, it’s our turn now.)

    But something’s GONE WRONG!
    Yesterday, the Sun was shining!
    And Today, the Sun is shining again!
    TWO days in a row!
    In winter!

    It’s Sombody’s Fault! C’mon, who was it? Who’s ruined a perfectly bad Winter?
    Who forgot to use their SUV this week?

    Oh, yes, if you’re going to let the darned sun out, why did you forget to turn up the thermostat?Brrrr, it’s cold … there was crunchy white stuff all over the lawn yesterday morning.

    What’s this Gorebull fella coming to, getting all the Klimate Change wrong?
    It’s supposed to be WARM!
    Innit?

    60

  • #
    Robber

    Chris Kenny in The Australian: “This energy hex we place on ourselves, it’s madness
    “If our worst enemies abroad were given one evil wish to destroy our economy they probably would look to curse perhaps our greatest natural advantage: access to almost unlimited cheap energy.” “The lion’s share of investment across a decade — upwards of $30 billion — has gone into the sure bet of subsidised renewable energy that has a guaranteed market but that cannot be relied on to meet peak energy output at any given time. Billions more have been spent on government payments and grants. All this money is recouped in the end from consumers, who are paying enormous sums to go backwards.”
    “The lion’s share of investment across a decade — upwards of $30 billion — has gone into the sure bet of subsidised renewable energy that has a guaranteed market but that cannot be relied on to meet peak energy output at any given time.”
    “We are the world’s largest coal exporter. We will soon be the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. We are the third largest exporter of uranium.
    Australia powers the economic and manufacturing powerhouses of northeast Asia, and other parts of the world, with cost-effective and reliable energy supplies. But we decline to do the same for ­ourselves”.

    Per Tony (and AEMO), over the last month on average, coal has delivered 71% of electricity, gas 8%, hydro 10%, wind 7%, solar 4%.
    To date, for all the pain suffered by business and consumers in electricity prices that have more than doubled, all those imported wind generators and solar panels and upgraded networks have reduced fossil fuel demand by just 11%. Each windmill delivers just 3 MW at maximum wind speed, just 1 MW on average, and sometimes zero. Each rooftop delivers 0.006 MW at midday, and zero after dark. Yet somehow we still demand 30,000 MW at 6pm.

    The emperors (governments) have no clothes, but the decision makers all look the other way, feeling good that their virtue signalling will somehow stop catastrophic global warming.

    140

    • #
      Dennis

      And next will be the adverse impact on economic prosperity of Electric Vehicles, support infrastructure, abandoning liquid fuel infrastructure and internal combustion engine technology, increasing demand for electricity from an already imploding interconnected electricity grid, etc.

      40

    • #
      Lawrie

      What is often overlooked is that many consumers no longer use electricity where once they did. Irrigators are one such group. The Kurri aluminium smelter has closed. We have enough power simply because people cannot afford to use it. We need not one HELE but two or three to force prices down.

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    We now know that windmills don’t last anything like the life expectancy claimed (no surprise). They last maybe 12-15 years, not 20-25 years the industry claims This means that Australia’s 2030 target for unreliables production won’t be met because most existing unreliables will be out of service life by then.

    Does a similar issue of unrealistically long service life apply to solar panels?

    If so, things are even worse than they appear as all calculations have been based on unrealistically long service lives.

    102

  • #
    Dennis

    Slightly off topic …

    Liquified Natural Gas.

    After the Kyoto Conference one of the initiatives to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions” was to convert internal combustion engines to run on LPG or LNG which in turn lowered emissions when compared to burning petrol or diesel. There was even injected LPG technology for diesel which greatly reduced the carbon soot and other emissions from a diesel engine. Various motor vehicle manufacturers offered LPG fuel only vehicles for sale.

    So why EV when Australia has one of the highest reserve levels of natural gas and exports so much of it? It surely makes more sense to use the technology we already have without abandoning it?

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    I that the CO2 payback period for solar panels is 8 years, so the graph should show -7% from solar panels.

    In fact, over the life of the solar panel, say 20 years, it is likely the world is worse off in total CO2.

    Never mind, there is a lot of reward in getting the poorest people in the country to hand over cash for
    your middle class indulgence. Then they have to pay you for your useless lunchtime solar so electricty costs
    you nothing, courtesy of the less fortunate.

    Who cares about CO2? Besides, it all stays in China.

    As for the waste, we will just send all the cadmium and chromium old solar panels back to China. Won’t we?

    62

    • #
      TdeF

      Correction, lunchtime solar costs you nothing, but it was always free for heating swimming pools and the like. The only downside is that night time electricity will cost you triple. You could double down with a huge battery, but you need poor people to pay for it. So more laws are needed to take from the poor and give to the rich.

      61

  • #
    Serge Wright

    “Chevron predicted that process would have seen between 5.5 and 8 million tonnes of CO2 injected into the ground during the plant’s first two years of production from the Gorgon field, making it one of the largest carbon abatement activities in the world.”

    If these figures are correct then this would be a huge endorsement for CCS if you can make it work. Let’s face it, the federal government can save far more CO2 emissions by spending a tiny $60M in these subsidies compared with the $Billions in solar subsidies. This inconvenient fact probably needs to get flagged a bit more.

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      I can safely predict that if you took all the current CO2 out of the air it would reestablish quickly from the near infinite reserve in the vast oceans which are stuffed with dissolved CO2, 50x as much as is in the air. Fish need O2 and breathe out CO2 just like every other living thing. All living things are carbon lifeforms made almost entirely from CO2 and water, H2O. The metallic bit that’s left, the ash fits in a small urn or fireplace. Usually calcium metal from bones.

      If the vastly expensive 350,000 windmills and hundreds of millions of solar panels have not changed CO2 at all and we keep blowing up our power stations to please the new science ignorant Green voters, why would stuffing CO2 in the ground make any difference?
      Are we humans now Masters of the Universe and can override the rules of chemistry? Or is this Political Science which has supplanted Rational Science?

      So why does everyone forget basic physical chemistry, Henry’s law, the rule behind soda and beer and champagne and bread. Warming releases CO2. CO2 does not produce warming. Ask anyone really. This is common knowledge. The flat beer principle. On a planetary scale the CO2 level is set by ocean surface temperature. Nothing else.

      Carbon sequestration is the most absurd zero science idea in this whole fantasy of man made CO2.

      82

  • #
    manalive

    The Australian economy circa 2030 (a metaphor).
    Nice beaches though.

    20

    • #
      Robber

      How long before governments decide to quadruple the tax on petrol and diesel? Two birds with one stone – more money to give out, and soon an all electric fleet.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    If CO2 is such a powerful ‘Greenhouse gas’ and it has increased 50% since 1900, why isn’t the earth 50% hotter? CO2 though is supposed to have caused a 0.5C difference? That’s less than the reading accuracy on thermometers last century.

    Every day the temperature changes in temperate zones by 20C from midnight to midday. Across the seasons the change from summer to winter is 20C and in places like Russia and the Midwest, up to 80C.

    So we are trying to stop this powerful man made ‘Greenhouse gas’. Why isn’t it producing warmer climates today? Why do we always have to wait another ten years, then another, then another? Why would CO2 produce more storms, more floods, more droughts when it cannot even change the temperature? How is CO2 producing warmer water around the Great Barrier Reef?

    There is a total disconnect between simple observation and what we are being told, typically by people who stand to gain. Isn’t that the way all irrational cults work? The high priests always seem to get richer.

    62

  • #
    manalive

    Energy Return On Invested Weißbach (2013):

    Solar PV in Germany even with the more effective roof installation and even when not taking the needed buffering (storage Andover-capacities) into account has an EROI far below the economic limit.

    30

  • #
    manalive

    The Energy return on energy invested (EROI) is an important concept that doesn’t get enough attention IMO.
    The author explains it here using agricultural effort and return as an analogy.

    20

  • #
    Amadeus

    Solar panels and wind farms – up there with pink batts, the education revolution, rubbish laptops for every student, school halls, open borders and Centrelink hoarders, etc, etc. The insanity of it all for what gain? More landfill perhaps…

    00

  • #
    Edwina

    The Greens, Labor and others seem to enjoy the socialistic aspect of subsidising renewables. Yet they do not appear to realise that they are aiding and abetting the companies such as AGL. That is a CAPITALIST aim and function.

    Do they see the irony?

    30

  • #
    Amadeus

    Edwina, stop using logic. You can’t be a socialist and logical at the same time. AGL is tolerated by the deaf, dumb and stupid left not because AGL is capitalist but because they are taking action which fits with the anti-coal lobby mantra. The fact that AGL is more profitable by milking government subsidies and over-charging consumers is ignored by the left because it doesn’t suit their argument.
    That’s what’s so special about Labor/Greens and pragmatic LNP members: they only push the barrow which serves their purposes rather than putting public interest and national interest first. And the left leaning electorate is too stupid to realise they are being screwed. When more industry and jobs disappear, the reality of green politics might suddenly sink in.

    21

  • #
    Eyal

    Well, another 198 Millions to go.

    00

  • #
    Eyal

    Well, only 198 Millions to go.

    00