Despite 20 years of non-stop propaganda and belligerent namecalling, strangely, expert green policies have achieved exactly nothing of what they said they aimed for. Coal provided 38% of our power in 1998 and it is still the same 38% in 2017. The non-fossil fuel sector has actually declined slightly as nukes decrease.
We spent billions doing exactly what was asked. Perhaps following the advice of people who think the debate is over and “denier” is a scientific term might not be the best national energy policy?
Fuel shares in global power generation for the last 20 years | BP Energy Review, 2018.
Long-term dominance of fossil fuels unchallenged
Graham Lloyd, The Australian
Global demand for coal and gas to generate electricity was back on the rise last year …
Most striking had been the failure of renewable energy to make an impact on the fossil fuels share of power generation, BP group chief economist Spencer Dale said.
“Despite the extraordinary (global) growth in renewables in recent years, and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years,” he said.
The share of coal in the power sector in 1998 was 38 per cent, exactly the same as 2017.
“The share of non-fossil fuel in 2017 is actually a little lower than it was 20 years ago, as the growth of renewables hasn’t offset the declining share of nuclear,” Mr Dale said.
h/t Pat.
Engineers and other skeptics predicted this would happen. At this point, honest Greens who care about CO2 emissions would be asking for help. Since they aren’t, we can assume the expert green policies are achieving what the Greens want, they just aren’t being honest.
If renewables were cheap and reliable the developing world would be rushing to follow the west. The Chinese are not stupid, they sign pacts to do nothing while they use coal and nukes. They tried solar, but realized it’s toxic, costs more and are cutting subsidies.
Make no mistake, renewables policies are achieving “Green” aims
Policies pretending to reduce CO2 have shrunk the role of the free market, turned a fifth of all homes in Australia into subsidized generators, and increased government control of our energy as a larger sector becomes dependent on handouts. They’ve demonized independent energy producers, created a crisis and are using that crisis to blame “privatization” and the free market. They’ve polluted the concept of a free market to the point where people came to think that a fake market where the government entirely and artificially fixed supply and demand was “free”. They’ve polluted the word pollution…
If the Greens/Labor really cared about CO2 they’d be doing something different.
BP toes the line of the Ruling Class perfectly
Why wouldn’t BP? It profits from it – gas sales increase with more unreliable wind and solar generation, plus pandering holds the bullies at bay.
Spencer Dale, Group Chief Economist at BP gnashes teeth, “Oh Woe”
The power sector really matters. It’s by far the single biggest market for energy: absorbing over 40% of primary energy last year. And it’s at the leading edge of the energy transition, as renewables grow and the world electrifies. This year’s Statistical Review for the first time includes comprehensive data on the fuel mix within the power sector, aiding our understanding of this key sector.
Global power generation increased by 2.8% in 2017 close to its 10-year average. Almost all that growth came from the developing world. OECD demand edged up slightly, but essentially the decoupling of economic growth and power demand in the OECD seen over the past 10 years continued, with OECD power broadly flat over the past decade.
Spot a problem: half the growth in total power generation and yet only making 8% of total power?
The increase in global power generation was driven by strong expansion in renewable energy, led by wind (17%, 163 TWh) and solar (35%, 114 TWh), which accounted for almost half of the total growth in power generation, despite accounting for only 8% of total generation. Although wind continued in its role of the bigger, more established, elder cousin, it was solar energy that made all the waves.
This is striking and worrying, and we recommend …doing more of the same.
Standing back from the detail of what happened last year, the most striking – and worrying – chart in the whole of this Statistical Review is the trends in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years.
Striking: because despite the extraordinary growth in renewables in recent years, and the huge policy efforts to encourage a shift away from coal into cleaner, lower carbon fuels, there has been almost no improvement in the power sector fuel mix over the past 20 years. The share of coal in the power sector in 1998 was 38% – exactly the same as in 2017 – with the slight edging down in recent years simply reversing the drift up in the early 2000s associated with China’s rapid expansion. The share of non-fossil in 2017 is actually a little lower than it was 20 years ago, as the growth of renewables hasn’t offset the declining share of nuclear. I had no idea that so little progress had been made until I looked at these data.
Worrying: because the power sector is the single most important source of carbon emissions from energy consumption, accounting for over a third of those emissions in 2017. To have any chance of getting on a path consistent with meeting the Paris climate goals there will need to be significant improvements in the power sector. But this is one area where at the global level we haven’t even taken one step forward, we have stood still: perfectly still for the past 20 years. This chart should serve as a wake-up call for all of us.
Keep calm and keep doing what we’re doing
Conclusion: Global energy markets in 2017 took a backward step in terms of the transition to a lower carbon energy system: growth in energy demand, coal consumption and carbon emissions all increased. But that should be seen in the context of the exceptional outcomes recorded in the previous three years. Some backsliding was almost inevitable. The road to meeting the Paris climate goals is likely to long and challenging, with many twists and turns, forward lurches and backward stumbles. To navigate our progress will require timely, comprehensive and relevant data. That’s the role of BP’s Statistical Review.
Remember coal and nukes are the enemy of gas.
REFERENCE
BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2018.
In the words of Richard Feynman:
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
https://www.fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
So why is CSIRO, the government and many others still believe we must use renewables at the expense of our only source of base load power? It’s certainly not based on real science.
451
CO2 has been demonised in an unscientific manner and eventually this academic nonsense will stop, but in the meantime we get a chance to witness the carnage its creating. This from China Daily.
‘Coal continues to supply the bulk of China’s energy needs with signs that consumption growth is picking up speed again this year. Consumption rose 0.4 percent in 2017, the NBS has said, breaking a three-year string of declines.
‘Despite the environmental consequences, coal demand has been driven up by the combined forces of economic growth, higher power consumption, gas shortfalls, and reduced hydropower.
‘Frequent changes in regulation have aimed at managing the market but they have also added to uncertainty.’
341
This classification of CO2 as a pollutant – if I’m correct was a marginal assessment needs to be corrected. We KNOW this is central to the argument . CO2 is a gas that varies in the system by small degrees over contemporaneous time scales.What qualifies when assessing the effect of a 250 ppm to 400 change on the biosphere. Planet warms; CO2 increases.
–
121
We know CO2 is not a pollutant because if it were then soft drink companies would not be allowed to put so much of it into their soft drinks. Sure too much CO2 kills but so does too much water (drowning) or too much air (extremely high pressure). As usual the left use a different system of values and logic that are false to come up with the crazy ideas.
150
Well, we couldn’t have got tot his point unless gummint, big business and the greens hadn’t colluded….
60
15% greening of Earth in the last 30 years … one of those inconvenient truths.
80
I was expecting someone to give me the right answer. Here it is. The two major parties continue down the path to a much higher focus on renewables with the explicit support of the public or at worst with a complete lack of interest. The politicians are not budging one mm from their current stance on renewables. If they did they would lose lots of votes and hence would be unelectable. That’s the sad reality we are facing today here.
131
PeterS,
We need to write to our politicians voicing our dis-pleasure
at their actions.
And tell them that “our will” is to bring on more cheap
power supplies from the cheapest, coal, and to remove ALL
subsidies from the “ruinables”…
150
Then we need to tell people to vote for the ACP as their energy policies are exactly what we need. They will not form a governemtn in their own right (unfortunately) but at least they can hold the balance of power to force the issue on behalf of the public. Otherwise, if the public don’t want to make renewables an important issue in politics then they can go back to sleep under a rock somewhere until the crash and burn scenario plays out.
61
And do it now!
Two reports in this Monday Oz: “industry forced on power backup””, by Andrew white:
“A group of 100 of Australia’s biggest energy users will be required to shoulder responsibility for ensuring the security of the national energy market by contracting their own back-up power or agreeing to dial down usage.
The National Energy Guarantee design document that was put to state ministers yesterday calls for a system of contracts that would help to shift some of the burden of reliability in electricity supply on to big customers, reducing the cost to power retailers.”
And from Simon Benson and Joe Kelly: “PM’s scheme an EIS by stealth”,
“Power companies and large industrial energy users were privately told during the deliberations of a secret government-appointed working group that the national energy guarantee was an emissions intensity trading scheme “by stealth” that would favour renewable energy sources”.
Barnaby Joyce broke down and went on leave. Immediately the AGW worms came out of the woodwork. Reports were confused and contradictory, but one was that BJ will be back from leave today. It’s our only hope!
110
Don’t expect Barnaby Joyce to come to your aide.When push comes to shove,he always goes missing in action.Total sell-out.
30
Come on Clive, you know the feminista have been heavy on him lately because of a personal matter.
Barnaby is part of the Coalition ginger group and he wants to see Abbott as PM before the next election.
61
Support the ginger group.
‘Tony Abbott tears Malcolm Turnbull’s signature energy policy to shreds, calling it a ‘carbon tax in disguise’.
Oz
81
Tell that to Donald Trump. He opposed the establishment and the people followed. The media are the biggest pushers of this propaganda. Once DT coined the phrase “fake news” he was then able to move in any direction he wanted. The same door is open to the Aust pollies but they have no backbone. They will believe what the papers and the ABC tell hem to.
10
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1007831286176571394
The latest EV lithium battery car fire. This one is a Tesla. Made the mistake of parking it with a battery fault flagged. Now imagine if that had been the 50% of Australian cars as proposed by Josh Frydenberg. Only need one lithium battery fire in a big underground car park full of petrol tanks to prove by experiment that a product may not be safe.
This is not to say Tesla do not make good cars, or that EVs may be a good thing for a few. Every technology has its short falls. However, it takes many years to prove by use and modification that a mass transit product is safe and reliable.
EVs can be made that are safe, but can lithium batteries?
162
Talk about Pies in the sky! How many people have said to me ” battery technology ” will advance and that will solve all the problems.I say this technology is at a terminus and for gullible people adopting the wishful thinking that somehow energy can be stored for industry and residential needs need to revise their sense of reality.
181
If the idea is to push us into using electric vehicles then how are we going to charge them during peak hours if we keep culling our only source of base load power especially when the wind dones’t blow and the skies are cloudy? Are we going to see large battery farms to charge smaller batteries in vehicles? So much waste in terms of money and power. This is total madness. Of course they would have to solve the charging time if they ever want their dreams (read nightmares) to come true. People are not going to buy a car that requires hours of charging time compared to a few minutes to fill a car with fuel. People might be stupid but they are not that stupid because reality bites.
91
WE gave”Electric Cars”away along with the”Stanley Steamer”and”Windmills”a long time ago.They were NOT fit for purpose then and NOTHING has changed. Only a”Greeny”could come up with using a”FAILED”technology and think that they can make it work THIS TIME!!!!To become a qualified”Greeny”you HAVE to be a FAILURE in life.
110
That’s great Clive.
” to become a qualified greenie ,,,,,,,,”
They are responsible.
Responsible for several decades of neglect of our green environment, the bush, farmlands and inner city environments.
Large areas of National Parks, inner city nature zones and urban streets have been mismanaged to the point that the build-up of undergrowth has led to explosive firestorms that have killed people and animals entrapped by misguided Green strategies.
Farming has had a wealth of several generations of Bush management swept aside in this shameful Green political domination of common sense.
These are not caring people.
KK
80
.
clivehoskin@#1.3.3
We had an extreme example of one of those on the Weatherzone forum before us skeptics were thrown off of it and Fairfax, the then new owners of WZ closed the climate forum down.
He had his own wind turbine and a couple of car batteries and supposedly grew his own vegies all of which made him completely independent of society. [ sarc]
He told all of us this via the internet but never explained how he was independent of the world when he had the internet.
He drove to town on a made road, used medicare when he got ill, was most likely on some over generous tax payer funded benefits of some sort , trolled constantly on the “deadly” coal and used the usual greens shot of steam coming out of a chimney to rabidly claim that it was smoke.
He more or less admitted with some pride that he was one of the group of greens who notoriously cut their way into a queensland crop research mesh cages [ for bird protection ] a few years ago and videoed their tearing up and destroying of plants that were the part lifetime’s work of plant breeders and gentiscists in trying to grow better crops for human food consumption.
All deliberately done by greenpeace on the spurious grounds that those plants were genetically modified plants which only a few of were.
It destroyed years of work by a couple of plant breeders and scientists and set back some plant breeding work by half a decade or more and this assh—le boasted about his role in that affair.
In short this guy is a human tapeworm living in the body corporate and is just as nauseating as any tape worm and providing nothing of benefit except sucking the life out of the body corporate as tape worms do.
50
Why don’t you say a few words ROM?
🙂
KK
10
I’m pleased to read them.
20
Hmmm.
Now to what they NEVER talk about.
Tesla manufacture very expensive subsidised quite nice looking cars that lose them a mind bending, unsustainable >$19,000 per car.
This pales in comparison to a deadly fact that they will not easily reveal. Their EV like most EV’s LUGS NOT LESS THAN A FIXED 28 – 30% of their mass about as dead weight battery for the vehicular life! This redefines the word squander. Where will this massive waste of expensive energy come from and in the increasingly unsettled politics of faux-problem world, how much CO2 will that waste generate? /rhet /sarc
It is very hard to determine the exact weight of the battery being fitted to the Tesla 3 long range. If anyone can find it please advise with cited source. It does not seem to be readily available anywhere I have looked on the web.
But little wonder it is concealed.
Model 3 long range curb weight 3897 lbs
Battery est. weight (28%): 1071 lbs
Compare with 70L tank gasoline (0.74 kilogram per litre): = 51.8kg = 114lbs
Back of hand calc. shows the EV is destined to lug TEN times the mass of “fuel” in perpetuity over its life, compared with a 70L gasoline vehicle at the point when its tank is FULL.
A conventional vehicle carries a decreasing mass of fuel from one fill to the next, enjoying an increasing power to weight ratio (>”efficiency”) as the tank empties. Comparatively, at a point close to or at ’empty’ for both gasoline and EV vehicles, the EV is now lugging comparatively speaking ONE THOUSAND TIMES the weight of fuel than the gasoline vehicle (independent of range.
Little wonder few EV devotees or Ministers of Green talk about this unspeakable wastage.
141
I omitted the citation (2013) “Tesla Model S Weight Distribution” – battery weight quoted at 28.5% (1311lbs) mass of vehicle (4,600lbs). More recently, Curb Weight and Weight Distribution, “2018 Tesla Model 3 Review” show this EV to be the heaviest, write about weight distribution but unsurprisingly omit the actual mass data of the battery.
There have been claims of improvement in energy density associated with the new Tesla 2170 battery cell manufactured at the Gigafactory, which will be used in Model 3 in Q2. These appear not to have not been substantiated.
Therefore, the above estimate (#1.3.4) for the proportion of the weight of the EV that is battery appears likely to be conservative.
50
China’s pollution related to E-cars may be more harmful than gasoline cars, researchers find.
February 13, 2012, University of Tennessee at Knoxville;
Electric cars have been heralded as environmentally friendly, but findings from University of Tennessee, Knoxville, researchers show that electric cars in China have an overall impact on pollution that could be more harmful to health than gasoline vehicles.
Chris Cherry, assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering, and graduate student Shuguang Ji, analyzed the emissions and environmental health impacts of five vehicle technologies in 34 major Chinese cities, focusing on dangerous fine particles. What Cherry and his team found defies conventional logic: electric cars cause much more overall harmful particulate matter pollution than gasoline cars.
“An implicit assumption has been that air quality and health impacts are lower for electric vehicles than for conventional vehicles,” Cherry said. “Our findings challenge that by comparing what is emitted by vehicle use to what people are actually exposed to. Prior studies have only examined environmental impacts by comparing emission factors or greenhouse gas emissions.”
Particulate matter includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. It is also generated through the combustion of fossil fuels.
For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used.
In China, 85 percent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 percent of that is from coal.
The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emit fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles.
However, because the emissions related to the electric vehicles often come from power plants located away from population centers, people breathe in the emissions a lower rate than they do emissions from conventional vehicles.
Still, the rate isn’t low enough to level the playing field between the vehicles.
In terms of air pollution impacts, electric cars are more harmful to public health per kilometer traveled in China than conventional vehicles.
“The study emphasizes that electric vehicles are attractive if they are powered by a clean energy source,” Cherry said.”In China and elsewhere, it is important to focus on deploying electric vehicles in cities with cleaner electricity generation and focusing on improving emissions controls in higher polluting power sectors.”
The researchers estimated health impacts in China using overall emission data and emission rates from literature for five vehicle types—gasoline and diesel cars, diesel buses, e-bikes and e-cars—and then calculated the proportion of emissions inhaled by the population.
E-cars’ impact was lower than diesel cars but equal to diesel buses. E-bikes yielded the lowest environmental health impacts per passenger per kilometer.
“Our calculations show that an increase in electric bike usage improves air quality and environmental health by displacing the use of other more polluting modes of transportation,” Cherry said. “E-bikes, which are battery-powered, continue to be an environmentally friendly and efficient mode of transportation.”
The findings also highlight the importance of considering exposures and the proximity of emissions to people when evaluating environmental health impacts for electric vehicles.
They also illuminate the distributional impact of moving pollution out of cities. For electric vehicles, about half of the urban emissions are inhaled by rural populations, who generally have lower incomes.
40
When green turns toxic: Norwegians study Electric Vehicle life cycle
.
Phys.org)—Questioning thoughts arise from a bracing study from Norway.
The electric car might be a trade-in of an old set of pollution problems for a new set.
Thanks but no thanks to a misguided cadre selling on the green revolution. Electric cars will eventually be one more pollutant source to campaign over.
The study, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles,” appears in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.
Researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology declared in the study that “EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain.”
The “supply chain” part of the statement is key to the focus of their research.
The electric car has been promoted heavily as a car for the future but quick takes on EVs as environmental vehicles of choice should be replaced with longer and careful looks, even oversight, at what occurs during the entire cradle-to-gate life cycle of a car’s production, use, and dismantling.
Light-duty vehicles account for approximately 10 percent of global energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and policy makers have braced themselves for what that means in climate change and air quality.
In the Norwegian study, the authors looked at conventional and electric vehicles to see how all phases, from production to use to dismantling, affect the environment.
They concluded that, “Although EVs are an important technological breakthrough with substantial potential environmental benefits, these cannot be harnessed everywhere and in every condition.
Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion.”
The authors warned that the “elimination of tailpipe emissions at the expense of increased emissions in the vehicle and electricity production chains” carries risks for policy makers and stakeholders.
The authors support serious attention to “life cycle” thinking.
Their research was partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council under the E-Car Project
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-10-green-toxic-norwegians-electric-vehicle.html#jCp
20
The two articles I have posted above , both from some 6 years ago in 2012 give warning on the looming problems of introducing Electric Vehicles [ EV’s ] on a mass scale as has been promoted by politicians and greens in a number of western countries including Australia.
Most of the information needed by Australian politicians to provide an assessment of the viability and the serious problems arising across the energy and pollution spectrum brought on by the introduction of EV’s without any preparation legally and legislatively to bring a similar level of control to EV’s as the ICE’s [ internal combustion engines ] have to contend with, all that information is already there for the politicians to have a long hard look at Before introducing EV’s into our transport system .
But just like the forced mandated introduction of Renewable energy without any public input and consultation and its disastrous effects on Australia’s formerly very cheap, reliable and predictable electrical energy supply system, the politicians in yet another grandiose exhibition of crass arrogance, bigoted ignorance ,allied with a naivete that is akin to that of a leftist university student of today trying to enter the workforce, have just gone ahead WITHOUT any research or any independent assessments by those familar with both EV’s and our Australian energy systems and our distances and our car culture and have apparently decided, based entirely on a vaporous and arrogant and highly disturbing belief in their own well disproven ability to change the global climate all on their own, to force the introduction of EV’s using the ordinary citizens hard earned taxes to subsidise yet again those wealthy enought to be able to loudly, blatantly and hypocritically signal their green virtue by buying a heavily subsidised EV.
20
Tesla is the extreme end of the “look at me I am better than you” market. This means egos and government. Both navel gazers. On the numbers today, when the cult ends, so will Tesla.
Logic does not enter into the equation for this market.
40
Au contraire:
Do a search for Tesla Failure, Tesla Front Suspension, Tesla Corrosion, and finally Tesla Corruption.
30
Great outline.
Inherently incorporates a severe design flaw in forcing the car to carry the weight equivalent of 6 extra people.
41
Re Tesla’s battery weights’
Try Tesla Motors Club
wk057 Tesla Model S Battery weight;
If you want to know a bit more technical details on Teslas some EPA test data for licensing the vehicle for road and manufacture; Other Tesla models technical specs also available at the EPA site per Tesla Motor Club forum site as above…; https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39827&flag=1
00
The difference now is that we hold our noses. We’re like the grunge guy or girl who rolls up to the servo in a sputtering, petrol-wasting bomb covered in greenie stickers protesting drilling and mining.
Since we’re going to go on doing the same old stuff (plus the expensive decor of wind turbines etc) why don’t we at least modernise? There’s a difference between how a forty-year old Cortina uses petrol and how a new Corolla uses it. Checked out Hitachinaka Thermal Power Station, with boiler and turbine by Hitachi? Hombre, that’s the way a gentleman treats his lovely coal.
It’s like our Green Betters don’t actually care about carbon, waste and pollution. So long as money and resources get dumped on that globalist conveyor belt and get skimmed as they go…everything cool!
261
Agreed mosomoso, we should be celebrating innovative modern internal combustion engine car design instead of punishing it with ever increasing emission targets and simultaneously sudsidising non viable EVs. Introducing a 105g CO2/km emission target for ICE cars is beyond the pale. Over the last 100 years ICE cars have improved profoundly in terms of economy, emission reduction, reliability and their ability to protect occupants in a crash.
241
Not only that according to last year’s survey the largest clump of people by far support the government focusing on renewables to fight climate change. So unless things have changed dramatically since then what hope is there of a change in energy polices by either major party? A big fat 0. Crash and burn is looking more and more likely.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2017-12/Climate%20Change%20Report%202017-Finalsingles_web.pdf
40
Drove a Nissan Micra on the weekend, small car, 3 pot screamer at 1.3L. Co2 output…………….156g/Km good little car but not good enough for the Greenish to Red army of comrades in Canberra
20
Do you really think anyone let alone the left cares how we reduce our CO2 emissions? As long as we destroy our only main source of base load power that’s all that matters. The vast majority of the public is supporting this nonsense by voting in either ALP or LNP as the majority government.
92
We could only get to this point by the main players colluding…
As such, a lot of disparate entities have got together to implement the green slavery.
Its hard to tell what it is at times – collectivism, communism, communitarianism or fascism.
Either way, its a form of sanctioned extremism, and in many ways no better than the lunacy that drove Jim Jones.
42
Its pseudo Marxism and they are in a bit of a state with the real Marxists knocking on the door.
The propaganda wings are ambivalent, the SMH is heading with the Belt and Road takeover of the world and Four Corners (ABC) takes a paranoid viewpoint. Strategic considerations weigh heavily on Aunty.
10
The composition of global energy consumption in 2017:
[I can’t copy the pie chart, or the link, but there is a very nice chart in the following link.]
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/bp-energy-review/
51
2017, herewith…
Renewables provide a piffling 3% of energy.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/image29.png
30
[…] The more things change… Global demand for coal and gas to generate electricity was back on the rise last year … […]
20
While coal fired power makes up 38% of Worldwide power generation, here in Australia it makes up around 72% of that total power generation.
I’ve been doing the Base Load Posts for just on a year now, and while that gives me insight into how much coal fired power supplies at that 4AM time of lowest power consumption, (and that average is 80%) I really wasn’t getting an idea of what the average was across the whole day until I started doing this new Series on daily power generation from all sources.
It’s stabilised now, after five weeks, and is around 72%, and that’s the rolling average over those full five weeks. That’s 72% of every watt of power being consumed across the whole of Australia coming from coal fired sources. (that’s 17000MW+ out of a total of 24000MW) See now why coal fired power is so important. There’s no other source of power generation in Australia where they can make that much power from ANY other source on a constant and reliable basis.
It’s an interesting exercise really. At first I thought it would be a difficult thing to do on that daily basis, too time consuming, but I can manage it now in a two hour time frame for all the images, extrapolating the data, and then doing the text for the Posts, and I can split that into two separate time areas. I also thought it would be a hard thing to do getting the data wef midnight and then having it all ready to Post at my site within 14 hours, but once you get into a routine, it’s relatively easy.
Incidentally, while we are talking about coal fired power, there was another loss of a large Unit on Saturday, this time the Kogan Creek Unit in Queensland, the largest single Unit in Australia at 740MW. A loss of that amount of power could be problematic, and it went off line at 4.30AM Saturday and came back on line at 5PM. When other large units fail, they use natural gas and hydro to come to line and make it up, but this time, they just used the Interconnector to make it up, and instead of transferring (up to) 1000MW+ from Qld to NSW, they limited the transfer to 260MW.
Very clever.
I have a full explanation at today’s Post on Daily data at this link.
The full weekly data results and new rolling total will be at the same time tomorrow.
Tony.
400
Tony. Thanks for you good work. We all understand more about power generation using coal,
I looked at the use of oil and gas to produce electricity from the link to BP given by Don B and was shocked to see the amount by oil and gas. These two fossil fuels are so important in manufacturing fertilizer,plastics, and other products as well as oil for transportation. I would like to see much more coal used in power generation and less oil and gas.
200
“When other large units fail, they use natural gas and hydro to come to line and make it up
Notwithstanding the incestuous relationship between AGL & APA [ & the ENRON Playbook]; the Chinese want to buy APA!
What could possibly go wrong?
Allowing a foreign entity to have control of what, under current circumstances, is effectively the key to the GDP, Balance of Payments & the $A would be contrary to National Sovereignty in the extreme.
150
Well yes, and the “t” word comes to mind…..but as were seeing with Trump wrestling the Deep State boa constrictor in the USA, they don’t care who they have to kill off to maintain power. Trump threatens the Deep State criminal cabal….
10
So you put up yet another argument for us to start building nuclear power stations if we are to reduce our CO2 emissions. There is really no other practical way is there? Either that or we bolster our existing coal fired power stations and where necessary build new ones. Why is this so hard for Australians to understand?
141
Tony ..I wonder if you can give me an explanation in regard to a hydro question…
I noticed today, that around midday MW produced from hydro was 565…….however tonight around 9pm the total was 802MW…..( NSW)
Why is there a difference in MW production in daylight, compared to night.??
I would have thought it would be similar….
Tx
30
Sorry Shannon, I almost missed this.
Look at the image (at this link) of power generation from Hydro for Saturday for the AEMO coverage area. The black line is the total for any point in time across the 24 hours and below that are the coloured lines indicating each hydro plant.
On most days it looks like this, and closely follows the similar shape of the Load Curve for total power generation, (also actual power consumption) with the two peaks, one in the morning and the other, usually always larger at the main evening Peak.
They use natural gas fired power and hydro power to add the extra power for when it is needed the most.
Wind power does what it wants to do whenever it wants to do it, and those other two sources are used to ‘moderate’ wind power. When wind power is high, natural gas and hydro are lower, and when the wind is low, then natural gas and hydro are higher.
Coal fired power just hums along oblivious of anything else, just generating and delivering what it always does, no matter what wind power does, be it high or low. Coal fired power also closely follows the main Load Curve for total power generation and also consumption.
I cannot stress this enough ….. Wind power has ZERO effect whatsoever on coal fired power.
The only sources it does have an effect on are natural gas and hydro.
Tony.
70
Hi Tony ….thank you for the explanation….I am slowly learning about the overall picture..
Really sad that the idiots in Government, are making renewable power generation a “backward” step for this Country…
Can only get worse in the near future..!
20
As any Green would say, ‘It’s working as intended.’
100
So true. The intent of the left (both the ALP+Greens and the LNP) is to stop using coal as our primary source of energy because it has been deemed to be bad for the climate. Much of the public either agrees with that or couldn’t care less otherwise they would be protesting in droves by now.
62
Lets make the usual assumption that seems to appear with monotonous regularity from people who reputedly are highly intelligent and who have supposedly studied the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources and then published a paper or two or three on the inevitable replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources.
1 / You can’t smelt metals with today’s renewable energy systems let alone a tiny fraction of the global requirements as smelting metals and refining metals is a continuous process or a batch process than can only be interrupterd for very short periods at best ie; NSW aluminium smelter a week or so ago.
A comment maybe from a headline post back a while in the commentaries is that the biggest battery in the world would have driven the NSW aluminium smelter for all of eight minutes during the recent NSW shortage of power.
Renewables cannot even supply the required predictable dead steady power in vast amounts needed in the use of the electric furnace to refine raw pig iron into high specification steel products.
Furthermore the open hearth iron furnace refining of iron ore requires coal or coke to carbonise the iron end product.
2 / You cannot make cement for concrete with renewable energy due to the unpredictable intermittency of supply and as coal in the form of coke [ 600 kgs of coke to one tonne of sinter= cement ]is a neccessary requirement to make the sinter from carbonate rocks that is then ground in ball and roller mills to the very fine powder that is the cement we know and used to make concrete.
3 / Renewables because of fluctuating and unpredictable supply cannot be used as stand alone energy suppliers to make the glass and / or carbon firbres for the turbine blades and resins to bind those fibres to give great strength to the blade composites
With all that in mind, wind turbines, solar panels, hydro dams and etc RENEWABLES CANNOT REPLICATE THEMSELVES in any way at all by using only their own generated power to do so.
4 / Renewables alone cannot provide the steady power required to create pharmaceutical products or reliably run the various life support systems used right across the health and medical facilities so there goes your health and life saving and pain ameliorating productsnand quite probably your life as support systems fail when the renewable energy turbines drop out due to no wind or too much wind [ the UK at the moment with almost no electrical production from its thousands of turbines for a couple of weeks now due to a high pressure settling down over Britian and therfore no wind.[ see GWPF ]
5 / Renewables alone cannot be used to run the national and now global communications network which if it fails will / would destroy the economies of nations and lead to the break up of modern societies and of the world financial and trading network.
6 / Renewables CANNOT be used to both create the right conditions to grow crops, to plant those crops and to harvest those crops.
Due to the absolute need for unconstrained mobility and absolute need for almost unlimited flexibility in timing and in area, only fossil fuels can supply those needs that are required to adaquately supply the 7.6 billion human souls on this planet with enough food to sustain them.
7 / Renewables CANNOT replace fossil fuels for earth movers, construction cranes, heavy trucks and vehicles, heavy road transport, farming equipment, the kilns for firing bricks and the creation of synthetic products and materials for building construction plus! plus!
8 / Renewables have not yet demonstrated any semblence of predictability and reliability that would enable them to supply the required electrical power to run a world fleet of electric vehicles which would replace the approximate 1.1 billion [ one thousand, one hundred million ] cars and light vehicles on the roads of the world today.
9 / Renewables as used in the defence of a nation, cannot create the steel and other products for armour plating, for weapons, for materials for uniforms and combat materials, the means ie fuels , required to have mobility of men and weapons and transport of back up supplies.
10 / Renewables cannot guarantee to continue to provide power regardless of weather, political interference, strikes, shortages of maintenance materials and etc to a city to run that city’s water supplies, sewerage systems, communications of every type ; traffic lights and street lighting, fuel supply systems regardless of if they are electrical or fossil fueled, maintenance vehicles to keep city sub systems operating, medical facilities at every level; , money supplies and financial transactions cease immediately there is no power, food supplies that enter the city in literally thousands of tonnes per day and all road transport that transports every single item that is both needed or is created in a city to wherever its destination might be.
No power and the cities everywhere stop as do their inhabitants.
11 / just keep on adding everything we can feel, smell, touch, handle . eat, dress with, melt, refine, transport, swallow inject, drink ______________ Renewable energy will not in its current form or in any near future form be reliable enough and predictable enough to run a nation and a civilisation and complex society such as the one we have developed world wide over the last 3 centuries by using fossil fuels such as coal and oil and gas.
Never let it be forgotten that before the first steam engine by Thomas Savery in 1698 who used a crude kettle type boiler with a fire box to heat it and then used cold water to rapidly cool the boiler , the resulting vaacuum in the boiler drew water from down in the mines.
Before that the only energy sources for mankind were animal and human and wind and water.
With the invention of the coal fired ie fossil fuel fired steam engine, mankind for the first time broke free of the need for animal and human muscle power and the small reliance of the very unpredictable wind that could not be used for industrial purrposes and the unpredictable vary in speed and power water wheel which was more regular at least butonly operated while the unpredicable water ran in the streams.
And that animal and human labour and the wind and water wheel energy was sufficient to support maybe as few as 600 million human souls on this planet.
With the use of fossil fuels the earth can now support some 7.6 billion human souls and does so with less people in hunger and poverty than has ever occurred before in human history .
402
Write it in capital letters,as
As Rom says:
“Renewables alone cannot be used to run the national and now global communications network which if it fails will / would destroy the
economies of nations and lead to the break up of modern societies
and of the world financial and trading network.”
Heck, write it in letters a foot high, in CAPITAL LETTERS and under-
lined in black texta … ‘RENEWABLES ARE SO WEAK THEY CANNOT EVEN
REPLICATE THEMSELVES!’
190
Extracts from the GWPF; UK WIND POWER BECALMED
.
[my bolding]
Now try and run a nation on that without any other either fossil fueled or nuclear sources of electrical energy.!
And this calm and the VERY low output of electrical power from the wind turbines in the UK has been ongoing for close to or exceeding a fortnight so far.
No worries!
The Government and politicians whether British, German Australian and etc just piles more tax payers hard earned in front of a whole range of scammers who then use gas and oil and etc to provide the required and absolutely neccessary power.
No trouble except the politicals in their endeavours to try and dig themselves out of a very deep and getting deeper energy hole have now brought into existence TWO distinct electrical generating systems to supply the same single already fully catered for demand.
So due to plain outright blatant political stupidity, we along with those other nations now have two distinct electrical generating systems both of which we, the consumers, have to pay for.
And WE, the consumers have to pay the maintence on both of those systems whether they are operating or not.
And we the consumer have to pay to extend the grid to these new generators
.
And we the consumer have to pay handsomely for the heavy duty extensions to the grid to take the maximum of power generated which in winds case is about 6% of the time and in solar even less.
The rest of the time the heavy duty grid extensions to the wind farms and solar farms and panels is just plain useless as low amounts of power flow through it for over 90% of the time the turbines and the solar panels are actually generating electricity.
——–.
The truly astonishing thing I see now in retrospect is that Governments and politicians every where did NO RESEARCH on the consequences of forcing renewable energy onto what was an already highly developed , rock steady and ultra reliable electricity generating and distrubution system.
There is NO evidence at all that the politicians here in Australia at least ever held any inquiries or ordered technical assessments on the introductiuon of renewable energy generators before making these radical changes.
The politicals don’t appeared to have done any financial assessments as to what it was all going to cost.
They don’t appear to have taken cognisance of the heavy industries needs for dead steady ultra reliable power.
They don’t seem to have even thought of what will happen to costs when you build and have to pay for and run another system along side of one already long established and which has the already long proven capacity to provide all the electrical needed here in Australia .
They don’t seem even now to have given any thought whatsoever to the horrendous cost increases imposed on the least able to pay in our society .
And they still don’t seem to give a damn for those unfortunates at the bottom of the earnings ladder except to spout a bit of highly cycnical lip service about reducing power costs sometime after most of us are dead and gone.
In short there does not appear to have been ANY preperation at any level or ANY study or ANY assessment on what the introduction of the so called renewable but completely un-reliable energy systems were going to have on the entire society and national community.
Politically and in all reality, they, the politicals have totally f–ked up from every possible aspect with the introduction of renewable energy into Australia.
It has been an economic and social disaster with NO percievable benefits of any nature at any level to be seen whether it is in emmissions or some other glorified green and imminent still to be seen climate catastrophe that has been predicted on twice a day basis for the last two decades past.
The best that can be said about Australia’s politicians when it comes to how renewable energy was forced onto the Australian public WITHOUT ANY assessments or research on the consequences is that the politicians have proved themselves again to be nothing more than a bunch of totally ignorant naive arrogant FW’s for which we the Australian public now have to pay the rapidly increasing price both personaly, financially and socially.
181
It’s the money men ROM once they’ve said their Open Sesame the whole show is waved through, for years probably; I don’t think anybody knows how to stop it once Australia’s determination to go for one hundred percent renewables has been launched. It is launched isn’t it? It’s supposed to be…
51
The wind turbine industry in Germany has the reputation of being the most corrupt industry in Germany.
Significant parcels of shares in a turbine company are known to be handed out to Mayors in particular who hold a much higher political and local power status on the continent than here in Australia , as well as councilmen who get shares and brown paper envelopes if and when they pass the licenses that allow a turbine company to clear and build basically where they like in the municipality including in German national forests and reserves.
.
From “Clean Energy Wire” , a pro Renewable Energy site.
Fighting windmills: When growth hits resistance
Interestingly, the very influential German Greens and their political organisation has found that the average age of its members is apparently increasing quite quickly as the younger cohort of Germans are no longer joining or showing much interest in the German greens and their politics.
In some german states the greens are down to 6% of the vote and have lost their party status in a couple of german states.
40
Feeding troughs, like swamps, are attractive to,
well you know, …
…
20
The politicians believed their 21 – 23 year old staffers fresh from the marxist universities with their brain washing
150
I suspect Len, that you are much closer to the truth than you or I realise with that comment.
How often have we read of some aspiring wet behind the ears political neophyte who came straight out of university and stepped straight into a politicians or union officials office on the way to the top so they believe without ever having an inkling of the real world outside of their 18 or so years in schools through to university and then into the unreal and frequently fake world of the proffessional politicals.
This sort of quite ignorant of real life neophytes have held “positions” where lesson One is the “Art of Back Stabbing” but have never worked at a job or just plain never worked and think that everbody else has done the same thing.
So when the big boss walks in one day and asks all and sundry in his office, “”Anybody know anything about this refurbished energy thing”, the neophyte never backward in self promotion as befits an aspiring prime minister just out of university puts their hand up and says ‘I studied that in the university sir.’
“Ok you have the job of finding out about it and briefing me! right!”
Bueddy ; Opens computer , clicks through for the Greenpeace site and learns all about global warming and renewable energy via the Greenpeace links.
Of such, I have little doubt, are the major decisions made within our political system.
Shiii
151
I used to love those old global maps; Mollweide Mercator projections that had Aeolus blowing the trade winds around this beautiful planet. Cherub- like types doin’ their thing. As Jimi Hendrix says in “The wind cries Mary” ; “Willthe wind remember the names that have blown in the past…….”
10
The Mercator projection is ideal for the alarmists.
They say Greenland’s ice sheet is melting and everyone is alarmed because Greenland looks about double the size of Oz whereas it is in fact slightly larger than WA.
50
Yes we all agree here that renewables alone, or for that matter a significantly higher focus on renewables than we already have is not sustainable for the economy in so many ways. Yet the two major parties continue down the path to a much higher focus on renewables with the explicit support of the public or at worst with a complete lack of interest. It’s no wonder the politicians are not budging one mm from their current stance on renewables. If they did they would lose lots of votes and hence would be unelectable. That’s the sad reality we are facing today here.
102
Peter S – 100% correct.
Renewables are currently politically favorable for the 2 major parties in Oz but poison to the economy. The issue will only be addressed once the Oz Economy has completely tanked. The voters will react accordingly – but that may take some time. If the ALP get elected in late 2019 then the “tanking” will occur sooner. The Libs will do a total 180 degrees turn wrt Renewables thanks to political expediency, ie there will be “significant voter support” in the offering for taking this measure – fast track to HELE coal fired & gas fired power stations. SA’s “Wind Powered Base Load” will be seen as the laughing stock in the region – a text book example of committing “economic hari kari”.
80
Yes the crash and burn scenario looks like the only way we will ever wake up to reality. Of course there is the possibility that a party comes up with the right sort of energy policies and becomes a powerful enough force in politics to make the necessary changes, if not as a government at least as a partner with one of the majors to allow them to form government, or if the Senate is controlled by said party. Oh dear! We already have such a party. It’s the ACP. Unfortunately it’s being ignored by the public for a variety of reasons but the main ones are laziness and disbelief that too much focus on renewables is a bad move. I reserve judgement on the degree of stupidity of the voters until I see the results of the next federal election. If the ACP doesn’t even manage to surpass the Greens then I’m afraid it’s all over red rover for Australia.
22
It seems clear the race is on to fulfil article 28 of the UN ‘Transformational’ agenda, namely to ‘commit to making fundamental changes in the way our societies produce and consume goods and services‘.
Pulling the plug would achieve that goal with ease. Once the collapse is achieved, there will be no ‘going back’ because no one will have the political nous to push back against the totalitarian bureaucracy that is saving the planet. That will require open insurrection.
Alternatives? Languish or to begin to consider ways of journeying to India, Russia or China, where work and prosperity appear to remain available and of wider interest.
Or may be, just may be, folk will awaken in time. It seems that many of the countries of Europe are flexing and enjoying the feel of their democratic muscles once again.
20
Agree with your post….
Sad .. that as we “progress” into the renewable twilight ..we actually regress into our future.!
10
I think you missed a couple of rather critical situations that RE cannot substute to replace FFuels…
…..air transport (international travel)
Deep sea shipping ( international freight)
So a 100% RE fuelled world would kill all international trade and travel !
10
There can be no trust in any article that uses the words “carbon emissions”. BP should know better.
180
And whose bright idea was it to stop hydro dams being built where ever possible?
161
Not too many more opportunities left for significant Hydro dams in Au
We just dont have the combination of rainfall, geographt, and location ( close enough to demand areas)
Even the Snowy doesnt have enough water to operate at capacity all the time.
10
We could set up other styles of hydro system to take advantage of the periodic large flooding rains that go to waste and or the many small creeks that have a large elevation drop along the great divide. Small scale hydro could easily dwarf a solar farm and be combined with a gas system on the same site for dry periods etc.
00
related:
Why Carbon Pricing Isn’t Working –
Good Idea in Theory, Failing in Practice
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-06-14/why-carbon-pricing-isnt-working?cid=soc-tw-rdr
40
Actually it is working here in Australia because there are votes in it. The two major parties continue down the path to a much higher focus on renewables with the explicit support of the public or at worst with a complete lack of interest. The politicians are not budging one mm from their current stance on renewables. If they did they would lose lots of votes and hence would be unelectable. That’s the sad reality we are facing today here.
21
In fact the EU based IEA tells us that the world only generates 0.8% of our TOTAL energy from solar and wind today.
Coupled with GEO this adds up to just 1.6%.
Lomborg informs us that they think S&W could generate just 3.6% by 2040. What a sick joke and of course this will waste 1 to 2 trillion $ a year for this zero return on our investment.
And the non OECD countries are laughing all the way to their banks. Here’s the IEA pie graph.
http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/WORLD4.pdf
40
Neville, there’s a difference between the overarching use of that word ‘Energy’ and then power generation.
They are two separate things.
Energy includes the use of all oil based products for every use, coking coal for steel making, manufacture of concrete, and natural gas and all other gases used in everything else besides power generation.
Power generation makes up ‘part’ of that total in the FULL Energy pie chart, so while wind power and solar power make up part of the power generation total, when that is added to the overall pie chart for ALL energy, then the totals for wind and solar power fade back to almost nothing.
Tony.
130
But Tony, Lomborg has been trying to explain this to the pollies,MSM etc for decades yet hardly anyone understands your point.
Matt Ridley has carried the same message through his columns. videos etc and is hated and vilified for his efforts.
Somehow the message doesn’t penetrate and even Dr Hansen said that Paris COP 21 is just BS and fra-d. He also said that a belief in S&W energy is like believing in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.
Here’s Lomborg’s 5 min video trying to explain the idiocy of COP 21. Simple sums but few pollies, media etc seem to understand it. Why is it so?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q
80
Sorry, here’s Lomborg’s summary of the latest 2018 IEA report.
Unbelievable but true. Are these donkeys barking mad or what?
https://climatechangedispatch.com/where-do-we-get-most-of-our-energy-hint-not-renewables/
40
I wish we could get subsidies for burning biomass to heat our home in Winter rather than using fossil fuels (???). We try to do our bit, but wood is increasingly difficult to source and becoming very expensive. We may have to revert to fossil fuel soon.
60
Well Drax in the UK gets subsidies for destroying old growth forests in the USA. Denmark buys wood pellets from Russia (and probably Finland and Slovakia where some are worrying about them becoming de-forested). Russia exports about 1.5 million tonnes of wood pellets to the EU and the UK. About two thirds for industrial use and one third for domestic heating. There are about half a million wood burning houses in London where the particulates cause more problems but they get blamed on diesel motors. How many in Germany I don’t know but 600,000 have had their electricity cut off because they couldn’t pay the bills, so they have to keep warm someway.
Fortunately burning wood is not counted as emitting CO2 so your best bet might be to get your local MP to back your call for subsidies. Then all you have to do is find someone trashing old growth forest to make wood pellets, and approach various Green organisations to approve the destruction of the forests. If you don’t trust those Green organisations (and who would?) not to cut themselves into the profits your best bet might be to use brown coal (but be sure to call it lignite or even peat so no-one will think it is coal) and claim that you have an experimental CARBON sequestration plant. PROOF is easy, a photo of the CARBON going in and a photo of the exhaust (after scrubbing) showing no visible CARBON.
60
“Despite 20 years of non-stop propaganda and belligerent namecalling”
Isn’t that 30 years? It’s nearly 20 years since the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, the greatest carbon tax in the Western world and all the money is pure profit, flowing overseas. People paid just to produce precious wind electrons, plus the electrons themselves. The world’ highest electricity prices. 20 years of utter idi*cy.
All started by the UN with the 1988 formation of the political organization the IPCC which pretends to be a scientific organization, except that is an intergovernmental panel of politicians, bureaucrats and hard left political activists.
The 30th anniversary meeting had such topics as
“the role of women in the fight against Climate Change”. Brave women.
Syria Climate, Q&A.
and Finance, a key issue in the fight against Climate Change.
So much fighting! Won’t someone help these poor bureaucrats and government ministers, trapped in hotels in Paris?
The IPCC ultimately has nothing to do with real science but all this nonsense was promoted in 1988 as merely plausible. 30 years of dud predictions and furious research and we are still hearing about Carbon pollution. $1.5Trillion a year has not slowed down CO2 which appears to be completely ignoring the 350,000 giant windmills! What has been achieved? Absolutely nothing, so there is much more fighting ahead.
CO2, the greatest threat to life on earth. Worse than nerve gas. Deadly. The only way to stop it is to destroy all living things. Then, strangely, CO2 levels would be exactly the same.,
90
In November 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and it takes no stretch of the imagination to see how the IPCC became radicalised by Marxists.
50
Irrelevant. The two major parties will continue down the path to a much higher focus on renewables with the explicit support of the public or at worst with a complete lack of interest. The politicians are not budging one mm from their current stance on renewables. If they did they would lose lots of votes and hence would be unelectable. That’s the sad reality we are facing today here.
61
I daresay it was ever thus, populations suffering depredations of hucksters, and then we die.
What’s so galling is that the population has been so illiterated and innumerated that its deception has become far too easy a task.
90
That word “Illiterated” is very appropriate.
30
Quite so. It is the crux of our self-replicating system of schooling—primary, secondary, tertiary.
30
Yes today that is certainly the case but there one other point that differentiates us from the rest of the world even though renewables is expanding everywhere, inducing places like China. They are at least still recognise the extreme importance of base load power be it from nuclear or coal. SO they are either building more of them even though they are also building more renewables, or they are now embarking on major program to bolster their existing nuclear and/or coal fired power stations as is the case with UK and US. Australia on the other hand is in a unique position where we are gradually closing down our base load power generation systems while we are building more renewables. Notice the difference? It’s critical. Australia for whatever reason is bucking the world trend and embarking on destroying it’s power generation system. Now we could go on at length to discuss the reasons, which are probably all valid but that would take too long here. The point to be taken away though is the only way we can break this nexus is by some new force, political or otherwise. Given a new political force is not apparent (ie, the ACP is languishing) which in itself may be unique since at most other places anti-Green parties have been given much more support, it leaves one other force – crash and burn.
40
Scroll down and look at China’s nuclear option, Adelaide could afford one of these.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/10/china-looks-to-nuclear-option-to-ease-winter-heating-woes.html
01
Technology and cost are not the problem. They are not even issues. At the moment the people want renewables at least up to fairly recently. The next federal election will reveal if that has changed or not.
10
‘TONY Abbott has slammed Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s energy market, likening the plan to Julia Gillard’s infamous …’ Daily Terror
The ginger group is making its run, Cory can join in at anytime.
41
el gordo I hope you are right. Indeed Cory will no doubt join them at least in support of passing the necessary legislation and bills. If the so called ginger group fizzles out then what’s left of them should join him if they have the guts.
20
‘…at least in support of passing the necessary legislation and bills …’
Not good enough, he has to be out on the hustings now and saying the government is wrong on energy policy and this is why.
To reinvigorate his political standing he needs to say radical\l stuff on climate change, like ‘after a couple of decades of no global warming the science is settled.’
21
I don’t hear Abbott saying anything near as much as Cory. He is a coward compared to Cory since Cory has listed his energy polices for all to see; and they are very dramatic indeed. In case anyone hasn’t see them here they are:
https://www.conservatives.org.au/our_policies#energy
00
Really, after thirty years, Climate Change is a bigger industry than every, but who assesses the performance? All the committees of the IPCC?
The problem: Rapid, runaway, tipping point Global Warming caused by steadily increasing CO2.
The solution: reduce CO2 output.
So how’s it going?
1. The tiny Global Warming has completely stopped or perhaps reversed. That’s good.
2. $1,500Billion a year is being spent to reduce CO2 growth. Necessary and effective.
3. CO2 growth is totally unaffected. Hardly worth mentioning.
Everyone is having fun, attending conferences, performing experiments and Climate Change/Global Warming employs millions of people in full time jobs. Universities receive hundreds of millions each. James Cook University is saving the Great Barrier Reef. The CSIRO, the ‘problem solvers‘ has spent hundreds of millions on Climate Change. Doing what is not clear.
Whole government organizations have been formed at every level, Federal, State, Council.
Climate Change is now one of the world’s biggest industry, as big as the entire world Steel industry.
350,000 giant windmills have been installed. Power systems across the globe have been crippled for the greater good.
What actual progress has been made in stopping steady CO2 growth? Absolutely none. A success then.
100
An Incredible Diversion of humanity from a True Path of development and growth to Total Servitude to those above us.
The profits from this New Scam outstrip previous benefits to the Ruling Elites derived from all previous Wars and all previous Religions.
The newest Control Paradigm of Globalism has been more productive than any War in stripping the wealth, and effort of the Masses.
No previous Religion has been able to funnel the thoughts, dreams, desires and hopes for the future like Global Warming™.
Is there a Messiah to lead us from our entombment?
Is he already here?
Can we free ourselves and our Children or are they doomed forever to serve the Whim of our Masters occupying impregnable Fortresses in Paris, Bruxelles, New York, London, Canberra, Sydney Harbour foreshore and Berlin.
We have been enslaved without a shot being fired.
Masterful.
KK
61
my position is we (private sector) should have been building new coal-fired power plants years ago – so much time has been wasted – on account of the CAGW mob demonising coal.
nonetheless, Shellenberger is a nuclear advocate whose take on the BP report is well worth reading in full:
13 Jun: Forbes: Michael Schellenberger: Carbon Emissions Rose in 2017 Despite Record Solar & Wind — More Proof They Can’t Save The Climate
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), public and private actors spent $1.1 trillion on solar and over $900 billion on wind between 2007 and 2016. According to BNEF, global investment in these clean 10 energies hovered at about $300 billion per year between 2010 and 2016.
To put this roughly $2 trillion in investment in solar and wind during the past 10 years in perspective, it represents an amount of similar magnitude to the global investment in nuclear over the past 54 years, which totals about $1.8 trillion.
A big part of the problem has been the decline of nuclear…
My organization, Environmental Progress, was the first to alert the world about the impact that declining nuclear power as a share of global electricity was having on efforts to deal with climate change.
Over the last two years, renewable energy advocates have insisted that solar and wind can make up the difference. The new BP Energy data is further proof that they cannot.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/13/carbon-emissions-rose-in-2017-despite-record-solar-wind-proof-renewables-cant-save-the-climate/#7de098dd5f40
51
Again, why blow up working coal power plants to replace them with slightly more efficient ones at a cost of $6Bn each?
At higher temperatures, engines are slightly more efficient according to the Carnot cycle. That’s all.
That is nonsense logic to please ignorant people. Politicians. Green politicians like Turnbull and Frydenberg.
Perhaps scientists could invent a coal fired power station which did not output CO2 at all?
Or a cow which did not fart?
Or a termite which did not output methane?
It is really frustrating seeing lawyers take charge of the Nation’s power and decide to shut it down, for the greater good.
Really $1Million fines for aluminium smelters which do not shut down when the wind stops? With genius like this, I remember lines
from Hot Shots
“Recon reports Indians on the warpath in your area. Over.”
“Ain’t No indians around here. Over.”
“Do not take literally. Repeat. Do not take literally. The vultures are circling the carcass. Repeat. The vultures are circling the carcass. Over.”
“I see is a couple of gulls, but i don’t..”
“The Pitbull is out of the cage. The crips are raiding the liquor store.”
“Hey, you yankin’ my crank?”
Australian politicians. A sandwich short of a picnic. More than one a coupon short of a toaster.
70
Yes, yes, but wind and solar make fewer plastic bags, so that’s the way to go.
30
16 Jun: CanoeCanada: Lorrie Goldstein: Trudeau’s ‘secret’ carbon price exposed
Since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau refuses to tell Canadians the costs they face because of his national carbon pricing scheme, here’s an expert assessment likely close to the numbers he’s keeping secret.
They were calculated by Jennifer Winter, assistant economics professor at the University of Calgary and Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at its School of Public Policy…READ ON
http://canoe.com/news/national/goldstein-trudeaus-secret-carbon-price-exposed/wcm/8b90fffc-9e26-427d-a169-12657c227b93
16 Jun: CarbonPulse: Ontario to abstain from August WCI auction as new Premier Ford announces end of carbon market
Ontario will not participate in the next quarterly WCI auction in August after its new premier announced that his government’s first act will be to scrap the provincial cap-and-trade scheme.
16 Jun: CarbonPulse: California, Quebec entities blocked from trading with Ontario following WCI exit announcement
WCI’s market operators have blocked participants in California and Quebec from trading allowances with Ontario entities following Premier-designate Doug Ford’s decision to abruptly scrap Ontario’s cap-and-trade scheme and leave the North American programme.
20
If the news is right, there was some world class deflection in the Canadian parliament a few days ago, when the push was on to have the Carbon tax assessment made public via an all-night sitting. The deflection? How terrible the opposition were for preventing Trudeau minions from spending time in their electorates celebrating the end of a certain month-long religious festival.
I can’t speak for those who sad they were upset at missing the celebrations, but from Australian experience, local members actually making an appearance anywhere in the electorate, and amongst the people of the electorate is… usually only happening around election time.
One only has to look at the way major parties choose their candidates – there’s no hint of even pretending that they want to represent their electorate.
40
16 Jun: Edmonton Sun: Lorne Gunter: Canada has work to save economy
Projected growth in our GDP was downgraded to under 1.5 per cent for 2018.
And Statistics Canada found Canadian firms intend to invest less than they did last year in new locations, new equipment, new hires – the fourth straight year of decline…
By comparison, the E.U. is expected to grow by close to 2.5 per cent and the U.S. by nearly four per cent…
We can’t blame this on Donald Trump and his stubbornness on trade. This began long before Trump became president.
(Well, part of it is Trump’s “fault.” America’s economy is on the verge of a boom because the corporate tax cuts he forced through Congress have given the U.S. a clear tax advantage.)
Our troubles are almost entirely the fault of Canadian governments and their anti-investment rhetoric and policies, especially their “green” energy schemes and carbon taxes…
Because our leaders can’t get firm with environmental extremists and stand up to stubborn “green” politicians – like the ones who run B.C. and Quebec – we can’t get pipelines built. That has cost Canada nearly $100 billion in lost investment and reduced prices for our oil over the past three years.
And if you believe small businesses are the engine of our economy, consider what it means that since 1998, small-business startups in Canada are off by 50 per cent…
Add the uncertainty caused by our governments’ obsession with “green” policies and who is going to invest their life savings in a new business or their shareholders’ billions in a pipeline?
Doug Ford’s election should improve the scene in Ontario, but all the damage done by “progressive” federal, provincial and municipal governments will take years to repair.
http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-canada-has-work-to-save-economy
20
it was depressing to hear a caller to 2GB this week claim wind turbines last 100 years and need no maintenance. while the 2GB presenter could counter the maintenance claim to some extent, he did not correct the 100-year lifespan claim, as he obviously had no clue about the subject.
one of the reasons I wish Jo had a weekly spot on some prominent 2GB program is so that she could present the basic facts about “renewables” that media and the public simply don’t understand.
the lifespan of wind turbines is an issue the British public will soon face:
5 Jun: BusinessGreen: Repowering our way through the wreckage
Britain’s oldest onshore wind turbines will soon be 20 years old – the government should ensure they are repowered rather than dismantled, argues Labour’s Alan Whitehead
(Alan Whitehead is Shadow Energy and Clean Growth Minister and Labour MP for Southampton Test)
This much we know… onshore wind in England is effectively banned. Onshore wind developers cannot access any forms of public support for it, such as Contracts for Difference (CfDs), and even if they could they would be defeated by the raft of planning obstacles put in their path in the wake of the then DECC decision to leave onshore in the breeze…
It so happens that the pioneers of onshore wind in the UK have an anniversary to celebrate in a short while – the 20th anniversary of the date of their installation. Something like 60 onshore projects will be cutting their 20th birthday cakes over the next five years. And they will therefore be coming to the end of the life of the turbines they first erected. The question that then arises is should they be repowered – that is the old turbines and mountings removed and replaced in identical locations with new (and here’s the gain) far more powerful plant than was installed twenty years ago…
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/3033498/repowering-our-way-through-the-wreckage
17 Jun: AmericanThinker: Norman Rogers: Dumb Energy
Wind and solar electricity are renewable energy. How nice to pluck energy out of the air and the sky.
It’s a scam. Big money men and screwball dreamers, otherwise called environmentalists, are behind the scam…
The wind and solar promoters, in order to accommodate their dumb energy, demand that the electric grid be re-engineered to become a “smart” grid. Perhaps the idea is that if the grid is smart enough, the dumb energy will be canceled by the smart grid…
The practical men easily see the weaknesses in abstract theories, weaknesses that are invisible to the ivory tower thinkers. But the practical men are not equipped to assert or defend their reality in political, media, or academic circles. If they try, they are patronized and ignored…READ ALL
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/dumb_energy.html
60
Then you get the non science that electric cars do not produce CO2. In fact if half the cars are electric, CO2 output will soar along with electricity prices and the cost of car ownership. That’s reality. The fantasy is that they run on sunlight and air. Seriously, people think so. We call them politicians. There is an IQ classification, but I fear the moderator software.
80
The out TdeF !
His IQ is about the same as his shoe size!
00
He is too kind. Crackpots and snake oil salesmen. No. As our former Prime Minister said, it is socialism masquerading as environmentalism. I really do not believe Al Gore believes CO2 is warming the planet and is man made. Nor James Hansen. The evidence to the contrary is just so obvious after 30 years. Rapidly rising sea levels is busted. Extra storms (never explained) is busted. 0.5C per decade is busted. Besides, there is almost no man made CO2 in the air anyway, so it never made sense.
So why do politicians persist? For the blatantly communist Greens, it is a way to power, political power. Any scare to get power. Climate Change causes earthquakes or volcanic activity, forest fires and floods? What happened to the more frequent and longer droughts. Some of the Flannerism are just laughable, the true meaning of ridiculous.
The reality is that there is no detectable science behind Man Made Global Warming. As for Climate Change and more storms and the end of the Polar bears, it is just random and cute made up stuff. It’s been 107 years since Amundsen reached the South Pole. Now we are melting 4km of ice the size of South America at -50C. Destroying the Great Barrier Reef. All discovered by ‘scientists’. How powerful are we? From ignorance to total control of the planet in just 107 years. Amazing. Truly unbelievable.
112
Jo, does your first graph (BP) show nameplate capacity, or output? If it shows nameplate power then it is very misleading and gives the false appearance that ‘renewables’ are supplying much more power than they are. If it shows output, then it is still misleading because ‘renewable’ power is intermittent and not dispatchable.
30
Hi
The Green line may be green to mislead us into believing just that it represents green power.
The way the world outside Australia works does include a lot of hydro power (many other countries actually have dams) and Nuclear.
Cost will eventually settle it out but “renewables” will be around for a few years yet. Then someone has to pay for the cleanup Or we could do what the Americans did with one 14,000 strong field of windmills: just leave them there to rot.
Whatever, it’s going to be a green mess.
KK
20
If our nation is to survive the majority of the people not just the politicians have to work together in the common understanding we cannot continue on the current path of allowing our base load power stations to be run down and destroyed. That surely is common sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise especially in the longer term as the population grows must be a complete and utter imbecile or an enemy of the nation who deserves to be behind bars. I look at things simplistically as it’s the only way to break through the smoke and mirrors put up by so many people, not just politicians. Cut through the BS is one of my principles. So if the voters do not put a fight at the next election and place the ACP above the Greens in at least the Senate to allow the ACP to control it then as far as I’m concerned Australia will get what it deserves – crash and burn. Even if the ACP manages to control the Senate it’s a far cry from other nations like the US where the people have voted for a leader or a party that is against the renewables madness. It will be a very sad indictment of the mentality of Australian voters if at the next federal election we find ourselves no different that we are today, be it either LNP or ALP+Greens as the government. Granted a lot of the blame rests on the various elements that lead people astray, such as the MSM, CSIRO, schools and Universities, which were all one well respected institutions. Not today that’s for sure. Some believe in conspiracy theories and claim they have been taken over by some evil group. Perhaps so but I doubt it. I think it’s part and parcel of how a society deteriorates over time after it has reached its peak. It happened over and over in historical terms. I believe it’s closer to the truth to say the people is what makes a society, not the politicians nor the institutions. After all at the end of the day we all have the ability to study the evidence, think and make choices. Instead we have become a lazy group of people when it comes to those abilities and instead leave it all up to the politicians to think and act for us. That’s a deadly mistake for any society, past, present or future. I know I’m probably wasting my breath and falling on a lot of death ears but it still needs to be said: wake up Australia!
42
‘Instead we have become a lazy group of people ….’
Dunno if that’s true, but I’m prepared to say that the ABC, SBS, Fairfax and Guardian are the main culprits in manufacturing propaganda, less so the scientists and politicians who are being carried along by the MSM.
No science reporters means mass ignorance on the subject, so I look forward to the ABC eventually being privatised because of its stance on AGW.
71
Why privatise the ABC?
Just eliminate it.
Stop subsidising it.
Stop subsidising renewables.
Aim for a fair dinkum surplus.
51
We need more of that good clear thinking.
31
Most of us are lazy because we believe pretty much everything we are told, be it by the politicians, the MSM, CSIRO, schools or Universities. If they all suddenly turned around and admitted they got it wrong and we had to push for say nuclear power the public in general will nod in a agreement without thinking. That’s my point. We in general are too lazy to think independently. Instead we are witnessing groupthink in action. So how do we encourage people to think independent? To be honest I don’t think it’s possible. That leaves us with only two real alternatives. A change in leadership and thus a complete 180 on renewables and coal power, or we need to learn the hard way – crash and burn.
20
If the ABC produced balance then the people would make up their own minds, they are neither stupid or lazy.
Its just that they have been brainwashed into accepting the word of authority on climate change and energy.
So I can say without fear of contradiction that balance on these two thorny issues would bring about a revolution in thinking.
21
As I stated if the MSM did a 180 the people would follow like sheep. It’s moot anyway because they will not do it. Why do you think the LNP are too scared to denounce renewables and promote coal fired power? They know they would lose a lot of votes and so be unelectable. THat’s one reason why Turnbull doesn’t want to touch the ABC. It’s doing most of his job for him.
00
Appalling story of the NEG on the front page of the Australian. Just a further ’emissions’ control scheme.
It is now the responsibility of the big consumers to provide dispatchable power or close. Also the opportunity to meet our ‘carbon’ reduction obligation with direct action and the like are being slammed shut. It’s all about our obligation under Turnbull’s Paris agreement. There is even an amazing debate about whether the targets are absolute or accumulated? You would think someone would check this stuff before racing to sign away our futures?
Anyway, transgressors will be punished. Now $100million fines. So people who buy more than 5Megawatt, retailers of electricity. all to ‘keep the lights on’ in the homes at all costs and make sure the politicians are not embarrassed. They need to drop prices too.
Too bad if you don’t have a job because the factory is shut, but public servants do not work in factories and the public service is the boom area, booming jobs and booming salaries.
The only, the obviouis result is that Tomago and Portland and Whyalla and Port Pirie and all manufacturers will just shut their doors. Then the people who write such insane laws in Canberra will be cheering madly. Who needs manufacturing anyway? Farmers are the problem. Miners ruin the planet. Besides, we can import it all from China and Vietnam and Indonesia using all those borrowed billions.
The Paris Accord, the gift which keeps on giving. Overseas. To old globalist banker friends of Malcolm Turnbull in his Goldmann Sachs. It is increasingly hard to know how Bill Shorten could be worse for the country than Malcolm’s Black Hand.
60
I am also appalled that the people who wrote the RET, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 are now blaming the consumers for the massive growth in electricity prices, the total lack of reliabilty and the inadequacy of supply and the very wrong ripoff of consumers and the uselessness of windmills and lunchtime solar. It’s the fault of the ‘big’ consumers who use 60% of the grid. Penalize them and shut them down.
Only Canberra would blame the consumers and fix a very bad law with an even worse law. Like Washington, the Green bureaucrats of Canberra and the ABC/SBS and Malcolm’s friends live in another universe, untouched by logic or reality or the need to make a living. They just take more. There is no law so bad it cannot be fixed with a worse one.
70
TdeF
Your last two comments here indicate that you believe that a bad system is being put in place.
I totally agree.
I can remember replacing gas mantles on the wall fittings when gas supplied some of our room lighting. In those days, many decades ago, governments worked to encourage industry to locate locally. They even managed to accommodate Aluminium smelters but this new system will send them packing as the higher power prices will make them uncompetitive.
When you’re living on the edge of Sydney Harbour, nothing else matters much.
KK
30
Tony Abbott says the NEG is nothing of the sort, just another punitive giant Carbon tax, as if we were not paying enough already!
Even the Australian Newspaper says it is a disguised Emissions Intensity Scheme, the very thing the Liberal party is against but not Malcolm Big Battery, who appears to be building his water park at our expense without asking anyone at all. Another borrowed $12Billion wasted without reference to parliament. Five Pink Batts schemes.
This is an ego driven Prime Minister who does not care, having now lost 34 Newspolls and Kevin Rudd’s mad schemes made more sense. Malcolm calculates we have nowhere else to go. Of course he is popular, the opposition love him.
80
“Only Canberra would blame the consumers and fix a very bad law with an even worse law.” Never underestimate the rest of the world. Venezuela is an excellent example.
00
SA wind generated close to 1Gw over the weekend, when it is not needed, but today only 31Mw a 97% reduction how can you run an economy with that sort of performance? May the red thumb can explain it to us.
71
Anonymous little red thumb will never reply.
What is now being done by the government is unspeakable…words utterly fail me; if I could find them they probably wouldn’t pass moderation anyway. The whole business utterly stinks. The Australia we first came to seems to have vanished under the weight of the Greenie tail- wagged dog of the present coalition and ‘opposition’. Nothing to choose between these wreckers.
Come on little red thumb….do your worst. Pathetic.
73
You may be getting cross with a disabled person. Or illiterate. These are the sort of people who vandalized O bikes or threw them in the river so that an excellent service is leaving Melbourne. Then again it might be Malcolm.
52
More amused than cross re little red thumb, unless it is Mal…
43
Malware
52
Malaware in either case
20
18 Jun: Gold Coast Bulletin: Gold Coast shivers through cold morning after temperatures plummet to minus 1.6C at Beaudesert
Peyton Hutchins & Andrew Potts
TEMPERATURES have plummeted overnight on the Gold Coast, with the mercury falling below freezing — making it the coldest June morning ever.
And the chilly temperatures are not going away any time soon.
The mercury dropped to a near-freezing 0.6C at Coolangatta at 4.45am — well below the previous June record of 1.5C set in 1998.
The long term average for Coolangatta is 11.3C.
Meanwhile, inland at Beaudesert temperatures dropped below freezing to minus 1.6C at 6.46am — again breaking the previous record of 2C set in 2001. The average minimum June temperature is 10.1C…
The temperatures were warmer on the northern end of the Coast with it dropping to 8.7C at the Gold Coast Seaway at 3.54am — well below the long-term average of 13.2C…READ ON
https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/locals-and-tourists-warming-up-by-taking-a-dip-in-the-ocean/news-story/3ffb42a8355e8c9efc93cbbdfcea6f77?utm_source=Gold%20Coast%20Bulletin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial
00
comment re Gold Coast’s coldest June morning EVER is in moderation.
10
Actually, the wind is producing less as I did not remove the solar component from wind and other the only t put for wind is around 13Mw at the moment.
10
Actually, the wind is producing less as I did not remove the solar component from wind and other the output for wind is around 13Mw at the moment.
00
***note how MSM never misses an anti-Brexit opportunity:
16 Jun: UK Telegraph: British reliance on French energy increases by more than quarter
By Jillian Ambrose
The UK’s reliance on importing French power to keep the lights on has increased by almost a quarter this year in further evidence of Britain’s energy cost crunch.
Energy prices in Britain are now around a fifth higher than they were this time last year on the wholesale market.
Meanwhile, across the Channel, nuclear power plants have flooded France with cheap electricity which is being sold at a tidy profit to struggling British suppliers.
“French nuclear plants have been far more reliable this year to date than last year,” said Jamie Stewart, the ICIS Energy analyst, “which has kept a firm lid on French power prices.”
The stark fundamental differences between the UK and its biggest electricity trade partner have nudged British imports, via twin high-voltage sub-sea cables, to a total of 6.4 terawatt hours so far this year. Last year Britain imported less than 5TWh over the same period. Energy brokers at Marex Spectron told The Sunday Telegraph that the “anomalously strong” imports from France are closer in line with Britain’s winter appetite for foreign energy than typical summer trends.
***The trend has also re-energised industry debate over Britain’s energy trading future once it leaves the EU next year…
Iresa Energy, the energy minnow, slipped into default on the wholesale market for a third time last week, according to Elexon, the market administrator. Meanwhile, Bulb and First Utility, the Shell-owned supplier, have been forced to raise prices in the wake of tariff hikes from the “big six” suppliers.
UK power prices hit 10-year highs in March following the freezing temperatures brought by the “Beast from the East” and show no sign of returning to typical summer prices due to the strong price of gas…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/06/16/british-reliance-french-energy-increases-quarter/
10
Anyone think that Brexit is going to stop France wanting to sell its excess nuclear energy when it suits them?
Any excuse by the Remoaners to sabotage Brexit.
20
so “renewables” aren’t cheap! almost all comments are scathing, and fact-check Salomon’s claims:
16 Jun: ConservativeHome: Charlotte Salomon: New lamps for old – renewable energy mustn’t be left on the back-burner
(Charlotte Salomon is Deputy Chairman Membership for Saffron Walden Conservatives)
When it comes to a young market, small decisions can have unpredictable consequences. The Government believed that developers no longer needed financial incentives to invest in clean energy; that generous subsidies had allowed the industry to inflate faster than ministers anticipated. This reappraisal lead to a dramatic loss of confidence in Britain’s green power projects. Planning applications for onshore wind developments plummeted by 94 per cent, and as many as 12,500 jobs have been lost since the government eclipsed solar power subsidies…
In 2017, the Conservatives served up an ambitious pledge to deliver the cheapest clean energy in Europe post-Brexit. But if Ministers consider this goal to be achievable, why is Britain rowing backwards on renewables? Global investors are running scared as subsidies continue to be slashed on solar power, and red tape slapped on onshore wind power. The lack of political decisions and shock taxes have hindered large-scale solar projects being installed on hospitals and factories, and the number of people putting solar panels on their homes is at a six-year low…
Under the EU’s renewable energy plan, the UK is expected to be extracting 15 per cent of energy needs from renewable sources by 2020 (our share of energy from renewables was just under 10 per cent in 2016), Ministers are still required to meet the target despite Brexit but, according to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, this figure is unlikely to be met unless urgent action is taken.
As things stand, renewables will have to come to market without government support…
If we want to signal our country’s commitment to sustainable, low-carbon growth strategies and renewables, the Government could introduce a green sovereign bond. This will have a positive impact on the private sector investment case for green sectors. Raising a green bond can improve Government tracking of climate-related and sustainable expenditure, France and Poland set a precedent for this in 2016/17. Nigeria and Fiji were the first developing countries to issue the bond, and Hong Kong has announced plans for a green sovereign bond programme with a borrowing ceiling of HKD100 billion ($12.8 billion) as part of its budget for 2018/19.
Green Sovereign bonds have been neatly highlighted by the Green Finance Taskforce, which issued a report (LINK) on accelerating green finance. Headed up by Sir Roger Gifford, this report isn’t policy, but contains a forward by two junior ministers, and makes for a promising read. Other recommendations include green mortgages, and making it mandatory for companies to publish their strategies for climate change. Global climate leaders have set a target of achieving $1 trillion in green finance by 2020, but if we’re going to achieve clean sustainable energy in the UK, we first need to establish clean sustainable finance.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/06/charlotte-salomon-new-lamps-for-old-renewable-energy-mustnt-be-left-on-the-back-burner.html
00
18 Jun: ABC: The future of Tasmanian wind power hangs on improving mainland interconnection
By Natalie Whiting
This month Hydro Tasmania announced more details for its plan (LINK) to introduce pumped hydro in order to become the “battery of the nation”.
While the hydro scheme stole the headlines, developing more wind farms is a key part of the state’s plan.
The wind farms are meant to provide the cheap power needed to pump the water up during times of low demand.
The Battery of the Nation project isn’t feasible without a second cable to allow the power to be sent to the mainland…
The companies looking to develop wind farms in the island state are, unsurprisingly, strongly backing the push for pumped hydro and the second interconnector, but they could face competition from the mainland…
Among them is a plan for what could be the biggest wind farm in the southern hemisphere on Robbins Island (LINK).
“We’d really like to see the turbines up in three to four years from now,” developer Anton Rohner from UPC Renewables said.
“But a lot of that really depends around developing the transmission network.”
The full project being proposed for by UPC Renewables would produce more power than Tasmania needs, so it wouldn’t be viable without the second interstate cable…
Mr Rohner said Tasmania’s north west has huge potential and has been identified as a potential renewable energy zone.
“It has anywhere from 1500 to 1800 megawatts of potential energy in that zone, that’s sort of $2.2 to $2.8 billion worth of investment for that region…
The details of how the proposed second interconnector would be funded are yet to be outlined, but traditionally the end user pays.
(Energy analyst Marc White from Goanna Energy) said the pumped hydro scheme could end up purchasing the power it needs from Victoria…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-18/the-future-of-tasmanian-wind-power-hangs-on-interconnection/9878508
10
“traditionally the end user pays”. Wrong. The investor pays and provides despatchable, reliable electricity to the market.
21
18 Jun: Bay 93.9: Wind farm threat to iconic Aussie bird
by Rebecca McDonald
A well-known species of Australian bird could stand in the way of a massive wind farm planned for a site near Geelong.
WestWind Energy is proposing to build a 228-wind turbine facility on land at Rokewood, about 60km north-west of Geelong.
The company estimates 25 brolgas could be lost over the 25-year life of the wind farm, and is planning to restore three wetlands used by the birds near the farm.
However it is not saying how much it will spend to make sure the birds are not harmed by the turbines.
Victoria’s Brolga Recovery Group has told the Herald Sun it’s concerned the plan will be pushed through by a pro-business state government.
Submissions to a state government review close today, with a directions hearing to be held next month at Bannockburn.
A public hearing will be held later in July…
https://www.bay939.com.au/news/local-news/94436-wind-farm-threat-to-iconic-aussie-bird
17 Jun: Herald, Washington State: Researchers hope to reduce eagle deaths caused by turbines
$625,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy aims to develop tech for detection and deterrence
By STEPHEN HAMWAY, The Bulletin
“It is critical to help the species survive,” said Roberto Albertani, associate professor of mechanical engineering at OSU’s Corvallis campus…
Albertani said the project will have three components, which can be used independently and can be added to existing wind turbines.
A sensor that can be mounted on the tower of the turbine can detect a nearby bird and determine if it is an eagle in danger of hitting a blade. If it is, the sensor triggers another component of the project: a deterrence system on the ground, designed to scare the birds away from the turbine. The final portion of the project is a series of blade-mounted sensors designed to confirm that a bird did not collide with them…
Albertani reached out to the High Desert Museum last year about using its eagles, including Walter, to model behavior. The team set up a 360-degree camera that can track an eagle as it flies, transmitting data to a computer in real time. While the sensor is only capable of detecting eagles, Albertani said, the software can be adjusted to respond to any species of bird.
“The key point is to train the algorithm to automatically detect a certain species,” Albertani said…
If it’s successful, the project will help solve one of wind energy’s ongoing challenges: bird fatalities caused by turbines. A 2013 study notes that at least 140,000 birds are killed by wind turbines every year. While energy-industry groups dispute that total, Albertani noted that the true total has likely increased in the past five years, as the industry has grown…ETC
https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/researchers-hope-to-reduce-eagle-deaths-caused-by-turbines/
17 Jun: WDAY6/ABC: How many bald eagle deaths from a ND wind farm can wildlife officials accept?
By Patrick Springer
FARGO—Wind farms are hailed as a source of clean, renewable energy. But even wind energy supporters acknowledge that those spinning wind turbine blades impose an environmental cost: dead birds.
Consequently, federal wildlife officials are mulling a morbid question involving a large North Dakota wind farm: How many bald eagle deaths do they consider acceptable for a bird that is legally protected and hallowed as a national symbol?
Their tentative answer: About one per year, or up to five dead bald eagles over a five-year permit period.
That’s a key provision of a draft environmental assessment for a bald eagle taking permit for the Courtenay Wind Farm north of Jamestown, which would allow up to five protected bald eagles to be “incidentally” killed over five years…
If the number of bald eagle deaths exceeds the number allowed, wildlife officials will work with the wind farm’s company to find ways to reduce risks, he said…
The bald eagle taking permits are a recent regulatory tool, and so far only a few have been issued around the country, including two in California and one expected to be issued soon in Wyoming, said Brian Smith, the wildlife service’s chief of the migratory bird for a western region that includes North Dakota.
“We encourage it,” he said of the permits and the conservation collaborations they generate with wind energy firms. “It’s completely voluntary on the company’s part.”
Although there are more than a thousand migratory birds, so far the taking permits have been applied only to bald eagles and golden eagles, the only bird species protected under two federal laws, Smith said. “They have a higher conservation bar for those two species.”
Owned by Xcel Energy, Courtenay Wind Farm’s 100 turbines are capable of generating up to 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 105,000 homes. The wind farm sprawls over almost 25,000 acres in east-central North Dakota…ETC
What: Public comments are being accepted by federal wildlife officials on a draft permit to allow the “taking” of bald eagles by the Courtenay Wind Farm north of Jamestown, N.D…ETC
https://www.wday.com/news/science-and-nature/4461233-how-many-bald-eagle-deaths-nd-wind-farm-can-wildlife-officials
10
14 Jun: TheEconomist: On the solarcoaster: Can the solar industry survive without subsidies?
A crackdown on feed-in-tariffs in China has sent shock waves through the business globally
A LITTLE over a decade ago, when JinkoSolar, a Shanghai-based company, entered the solar business, it was such a novice that when it visited international trade fairs, all it had was a bare table and a board with its name scribbled on it. But it also had luck, a technological edge and lots of public money on its side.
The industry globally was riding high on subsidies. Generous feed-in-tariffs (FITs), financial incentives for installing solar, made Germany the world’s largest solar market by around 2010. Germans turned to China for cheap sources of crystalline silicon solar panels, not least because subsidised land and loans enabled China’s fledgling manufacturers to undercut European and American competitors.
When European solar subsidies slumped during the euro crisis, the Chinese government once again stepped in to support its renewable-energy champions. It offered FITs to slather the remote west of China with solar farms…
These ups and downs are known globally as the “solarcoaster”: just as subsidies can quickly build the market up, their withdrawal can tear it down. On June 1st this happened with a particularly heart-stopping lurch when Chinese authorities, with almost no notice, strictly limited new solar installations that qualified for FITs, blitzing the shares of Jinko and some of its peers in China, as well as of First Solar, one of America’s biggest solar suppliers…
The clampdown comes at a time when the solar industry globally is increasingly able to compete toe-to-toe on price with more conventional sources of power generation, such as coal, natural gas and nuclear…
It all raises an important and tricky question: is this the end of the line for solar subsidies?
China provides an illustration of the likely answer, which is that FITS may be disappearing but other subsidy-lite alternatives are taking their place. Analysts say China’s decision to scrap FITs follows a rise to about $15bn last year in the deficit in the subsidy fund earmarked for developers; plugging the gap would have strained public finances. As a result of this shortfall, solar developers were not getting the subsidies they were owed. As one industry insider puts it, everyone loves subsidies—but only when they get paid…
Though solar was the world’s biggest source of new power-generating capacity last year, it still generates a paltry 2% of global electricity. Technological improvements to make it better at turning sunlight into energy are slowing down…
https://www.economist.com/business/2018/06/14/can-the-solar-industry-survive-without-subsidies
10
well worth reading all the following, which was first published 22 May on the World Economic Forum Agenda blog, prior to China’s announcement re crack-down on solar on 1st June:
18 Jun: BrinkAsia: Time To Rethink China’s Renewable Energy Approach?
by Lin Boqiang, Director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research, Xiamen University, China (He was formerly the chief energy economist at the Asian Development Bank)
In 2012, China’s installed capacity of wind and solar power was 61 GW and 3.4 GW, respectively, while the annual electricity generated by renewables was only 2.1 percent of China’s total consumption. By 2017, China’s wind and solar power capacity had increased to 168.5 GW and 130.06 GW, respectively, and renewables were generating 5.3 percent of China’s electricity supply…
The Role of Subsidies
The success of China’s renewable energy drive fully illustrates the effectiveness of China’s on-grid tariff subsidies. The advantage of the on-grid tariff policy—through which the government can make renewable energy production more competitive and attractive to businesses and investors—is that it anchors the revenue of power generation throughout the entire life cycle. In this way, it conveys a clear price signal to investors and can effectively support the early stages of renewable energy development.
However, alongside the rapid expansion of installed capacity, the total amount of renewables subsidies is also mounting rapidly. Based on the average on-grid electricity tariff, the total amount of wind and PV subsidies in 2012 came to about 60 billion yuan, a figure that had increased to 170 billion yuan by 2017. Although the government reduced the value of subsidies several times during this period, the total subsidy amount continued to climb. The subsidies for renewable energy should be compensated by the renewable surcharge collected from end consumers. China’s renewable surcharge was 0.015 yuan/kWh in 2012 and rose to 0.019 yuan/kWh in 2016. There was a surplus of 15 billion yuan in the account of China’s renewable energy subsidy in 2012, but by 2017 it had turned into a large deficit of about 80 billion yuan.
Therefore, China’s expansion of renewables will inevitably lead to a rapid increase in subsidies. Solutions to accommodate rapid renewable expansion usually lead to two phenomena: one is the rapid growth of end-consumer tariffs, such as in Germany, and the other is maintaining high subsidies, such as in China, but with a large subsidy deficit…
The rapid development of renewables in Germany has led to a significant rise in electricity tariffs, which have nearly doubled over the past decade, making Germany one of the countries with the highest electricity tariffs in Europe. Of these tariffs, the most significant has been the renewable energy surcharges. At present, Germany’s renewable surcharge roughly amounts to 0.8 yuan/kWh—or 0.11 euros—which alone is equivalent to China’s average end-consumer tariffs. This has had a considerable negative impact and has provoked great opposition. As a result, the development of renewables in Germany has slowed sharply in the last two years.
Last year, there was an appeal to increase China’s renewable surcharge to 0.3 yuan/kWh in order to balance the subsidy deficit. But it did not happen. Instead, the government this year lowered the end-consumer tariffs for industrial and commercial consumers by 10 percent. It would seem it is not possible to increase funding for renewables subsidies. At the same time, the installed capacity of China’s PV surged significantly. In the first nine months of 2017, about 42 GW of new capacity had been installed, and this increased the subsidy bill by nearly 30 billion yuan…
Time for a Shift in Focus?…
The curtailment of wind and solar in China is largely due to the imbalance in China’s energy endowment. The majority of renewable generation is concentrated in western China, but the market’s capacity to accommodate wind and solar power there is very limited. Despite the government’s efforts, the relatively large curtailment is likely to continue, as long as renewable installed capacity continues to grow rapidly. As such, the government might need to consider reducing subsidies to contain the enthusiasm for renewables…
Reducing subsidies can also force renewables manufacturers and power plant investors to consider future investments more carefully and encourage them to look for more economical projects…ETC
http://www.brinknews.com/asia/is-it-time-to-rethink-chinas-renewable-energy-approach/
10
More Climate Disruption. I wish we still had Global Warming. I feel duped!
Imagine if Queensland went back to winter peak power rather than summer. I wonder how far north the cold Climate Disruption has wandered.
30
This post should follow #35 not #33.
00
“Power generation” presumably does not include consumption of fossil fuel for trains, cars, trucks, aircraft, tractors, pumps and generators which has not been diminished except for general efficiencies, smarter engines.
So the real impact on CO2 generation has been close to zero despite making our electricity the most expensive in the world and shutting down our manufacturing. The Smart Country at work again. All done by virtue signalling politicians.
This is confirmed with the proposed and absurd NEG which takes the view that shutting all manufacturing is far better for the country than producing CO2. They also believe that fully electric cars are better than petrol cars. The only thing missing is any logic at all except a desire to get reelected on Green preferences.
71
***lovely pic:
18 Jun: news.com.au: Australia hit with extreme cold front as snow hits and people are warned of dangerous conditions
PLUMMETING temperatures have caused freezing conditions and snow across the country — and more severe weather is coming.
by Stephanie Bedo
A FREEZING cold snap has blanketed parts of the country in fluffy white snow.
Australians have packed on the layers as icy chills continue to blow across southeast Australia thanks to the cold front that’s been pushing through the Great Australian Bight since Wednesday.
Severe weather warnings have been issued for parts of New South Wales today as strong gusty winds with cold temperatures and showers are forecast.
The Bureau of Meteorology said a complex low over the Tasman Sea was directing a “vigorous westerly airstream” over NSW ahead of a south to south-westerly change which would move along the coast today…
Sheep graziers are also being warned about severe weather today in the Southern Tablelands and Snowy Mountains, as well as parts of the Northern Tablelands, Illawarra, Central Tablelands, South West Slopes and Australian Capital Territory.
The Bureau said there was a risk farmers could lose lambs and sheep exposed to these conditions.
Snow has already fallen in parts of the Tablelands this morning, with people in Guyra posting “winter wonderland” videos of flakes blanketing the area…
Yesterday morning, Camden was one of the coldest locations, dropping to 0.2 degrees at 6am.
The Snowy Mountains were hit with about 60cm of snow and temperatures were below -5C…
TWEET: Bureau of Meteorology: The coolest June morning ever for Cool-angatta at 0.6C! ❄️ But why so cold? This @NOAA trajectory plot shows that the air has come from a long way south with single digits across much of #Qld. What did it get to at your place?…
The coolest temperature was recorded just west of the Gold Coast at Beaudesert, where it reached 0.1 C at 5am…
***PHOTO CAPTION: Clintonvale, QLD, near Warwick this morning
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/australia-hit-with-extreme-cold-front-as-snow-hits-and-people-are-warned-of-dangerous-conditions/news-story/61dd84de00f72de94d8f17b8d094bb23
40
With all the hype about the cool weather, I take it no one has any idea as to why the Snowy Mountains came by their name?
Sarc/
71
Oh-uh, if the cold whether continues ovah-long,
can we expect a back-to-the-1970’s-New-LIA-SCARE,
co-too and evil-capitalist-man to blame? (Naturally.)
50
Bono/Richard Branson/Paul Polman/Jeff Skoll/Pierre Omidyar private equity vehicle investing in solar in India (see second link). nothing political!
27 April: EQ International: TPG adds John Kerry to $2B Rise Fund
First, TPG Growth tapped Bono to help launch The Rise Fund. Now, the firm has brought on former US Secretary of State John Kerry as a senior advisor for the $2 billion vehicle.
Kerry, the former Massachusetts senator and 2004 presidential nominee, becomes the latest politician to join the PE ranks. He will reportedly be responsible for helping find and advise the firm’s portfolio companies, with a specific focus on the renewable energy sector…
“We hope that we can write a new playbook and demonstrate that impact investing can be scalable, profitable and truly measurable,” Kerry wrote in a Medium post about his new role. “If we succeed, we can open the door for institutional investors to deploy capital toward investments that drive positive social and environmental change without compromising returns.”…
Formed by TPG managing partner Bill McGlashan, Bono and billionaire film producer Jeff Skoll, the vehicle aims to promote social and environmental good by investing across several industries…With a star-laden board of directors that includes Richard Branson and Laurene Powell Jobs, the fund has made 11 investments so far, per PitchBook data…
Kerry likened TPG’s efforts to a privately funded version of the Marshall Plan, a $13 billion government initiative to help the European economy recover in the aftermath of World War II…
The sector looks poised to grow, with Goldman Sachs, UBS and US Bank having already added impact investing divisions. Bain Capital, meanwhile, closed its Double Impact fund on a reported $390 million last year, with a focus on health & wellness, sustainability and community building. In a bit of a coincidence, the vehicle is led by (Democrat) Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor who’s been rumored as a possible 2020 presidential candidate.
http://www.eqmagpro.com/tpg-adds-john-kerry-to-2b-rise-fund/
15 Jun: HinduBusinessline: The Rise Fund of TPG Growth invests $70 mn in Fourth Partner Energy
One of the company’s main offerings is solar power under long term power purchase agreements leading to significant cost savings for industrial, commercial as well as public sector clients…
“India is demonstrating to the world the positive commercial and environmental impact of distributed solar solutions. Across industries, our customers are realizing tangible savings in their power bills. By replacing traditional thermal power plants with renewable energy sources, we are helping nurture the critical ecosystem in India. We are now confident of exceeding our initial target of managing over 1 GWp of distributed solar assets by 2022 through this strategic partnership with The Rise Fund and TPG Growth.” said Vivek Subramanian, Founder Fourth Partner Energy…
By expanding rooftop solar across India, their model will help reduce carbon emissions, cut costs for growing businesses across India, and push India towards a more sustainable energy economy and their ambitious goals around renewable energy.” said Ankur Thadani, TPG Growth…
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/the-rise-fund-of-tpg-growth-invests-70-mn-in-fourth-partner-energy/article24170786.ece
00
all solar eyes on India, now that China is taking a back seat:
17 Jun: ImpactAlpha: TPG’s Rise Fund bets on accelerated growth in solar electricity in India
India’s aggressive shift to solar energy has attracted yet another private-equity player: The Rise Fund has taken a $70 million stake in Hyderabad rooftop-commercial solar developer, Fourth Partner Energy…
Forecasts of new capacity to be added this year range from six gigawatts to 11 gigawatts, compared to 9.3 gigawatts last year, as a result of trade disputes, tariffs and project delays. (The U.S. is expected to add about 10 gigawatts of solar capacity this year.)…
Rooftop solar projects for industrial, commercial and government customers, as well as residential, are forecast to account for 40 gigawatts by 2022. Fourth Partner Energy has its own 2022 target of one gigawatt of distributed solar capacity. The company says it has so far completed more than 1,500 projects across 22 Indian states, totaling about 50 megawatts of generating capacity.
Growth-equity and strategic investors have been angling for position in the Indian market. Royal Dutch Shell, the giant oil company, was in discussions to acquire a majority stake in Fourth Partner Energy in February, according to reports in the Indian press.
Instead, The Rise Fund, managed by TPG Growth, will try to help Fourth Partner, and India, blow through best-case scenarios and expand to South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa…
The $2 billion Rise Fund (LINK), which includes a who’s who of billionaires and institutional investors, calculates an “impact multiple of money” for each investment, according to CEO Bill McGlashan…
“The more solar systems they deploy, the more they save their customers money and the greater the positive environmental impact,” said The Rise Fund’s Rick Needham…
The deal reflects accelerating dealmaking in the Indian solar sector. Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp is aiming to invest between $60 billion and $100 billion in solar-power generation in India, the broadcaster NHK reported last week…
In January, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board paid $144 million for the Asian Development Bank’s 6.3% share in ReNew Power Ventures. In February, U.K.-based SunSource Energy attracted an undisclosed equity investment from the Neev Fund, a joint venture of the State Bank of India and the U.K.’s DFID, for solar projects in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and other India states.
Bangalore-based Orb Energy raised $15 million of equity and debt from development finance institutions including Netherlands Development Finance Co. and the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corp. U.K.-based Lightsource and Australian bank Macquarie, are also breaking ground on solar developments in India.
https://impactalpha.com/tpgs-rise-fund-bets-on-accelerated-growth-in-solar-electricity-in-india/
00
pure evil. if only the “young” were not indoctrinated into the CAGW religion. they have a LOT to lose:
18 Jun: Guardian: UK pension funds get green light to dump fossil fuel investments
Government directive means trustees will be able to push harder for green investments
by Patrick Collinson and Julia Kollewe
Managers of the £1.5tn invested in Britain’sworkplace pension schemes are to be given new powers to dump shares in oil, gas and coal companies in favour of long-term investment in green and “social impact” opportunities.
Government proposals published on Monday are designed to give pension fund trustees more confidence to divest from environmentally damaging fossil fuels and put their cash in green alternatives ***if it meets their members’ wishes.
Until now many pension trustees have been hamstrung by fiduciary duties that they feel requires them to seek the best returns irrespective of the threat of climate change…
The new rules, though couched in opaque legalese, are a coded go-ahead for pension funds to sell shares in fossil fuel companies if they believe that they could turn into “stranded assets”. The term refers to companies’ coal, oil and gas deposits that may not ever be monetised as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy…
In the paper published on Monday, Clarifying and Strengthening Trustees’ Investment Duties, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said: “Our proposed regulations are intended to reassure trustees that they can (and indeed should) take account of financially material risks, whether these stem from investee firms’ traditional financial reporting, or from broader risks covered in non-financial reporting or elsewhere.”…
But the DWP warned that the new rules do not give carte blanche for activist groups to bully pension funds into selling out of fossil fuels. “These proposals are not intended to give any support to activist groups for boycotts or divestment from certain assets,” the DWP paper said. “Trustees have primacy in investment decisions and, whilst they should not necessarily rule out the ability to take account of members’ views, they are never obliged to, and the prime focus is to deliver a return to members.”…
The new rules, subject to a consultation period, have been brought forward by secretary of state for work and pensions, ***Esther McVey.
***“As we see the younger generation care more about where their money is going, they are also increasingly questioning that their pensions are invested in a way that aligns with their values,” she said. “This money can now be used to build a more sustainable, fairer and equal society for future generations.”…
Climate change campaigners said they were delighted at the proposals…READ ALL
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/18/uk-pension-funds-get-green-light-to-dump-fossil-fuel-investments
***Wikipedia: Esther McVey
Esther Louise McVey is a British Conservative Party politician and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions since 8 January 2018…
Before entering politics, McVey was a television presenter and businesswoman…
McVey was a co-presenter of the summer holiday Children’s BBC strand But First This in 1991, and has subsequently presented and produced a wide range of programmes, co-hosting GMTV, BBC1’s science entertainment series How Do They Do That?, 5’s Company, The Heaven and Earth Show, Shopping City, BBC2’s youth current affairs programme Reportage, and Channel 4’s legal series Nothing But The Truth with Ann Widdecombe…
Guardian doesn’t provide a link to the directive, but here it is:
18 Jun: UK Govt: Open consultation: Pension trustees: clarifying and strengthening investment duties
Summary
This consultation seeks views on the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment and Disclosure) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
This consultation closes at 11:45pm on 16 July 2018
MULTIPLE DOWNLOADS
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pension-trustees-clarifying-and-strengthening-investment-duties
00
16 Jun: Reuters: UPDATE 1-China cuts subsidies for some renewable power projects – finance ministry
* Finance ministry trying to resolve huge subsidy backlog
* Grids can now pass renewable connection costs on to customers (Adds background)
by David Stanway
SHANGHAI, June 15 (Reuters) – Some Chinese biomass and waste-to-energy plants will no longer be eligible for renewable energy subsidies, the country’s finance ministry said on Friday, as it bids to resolve a huge payment backlog.
The Ministry of Finance has been struggling to find the funds to pay a subsidy backlog now amounting to an estimated 120 billion yuan ($18.7 billion), following a rapid surge in solar and wind capacity.
The ministry said in a notice that biomass and waste-to-energy plants, including “co-fired plants” that burn a mixture of coal, forest waste and household refuse, would no longer be entitled to financial support.
The move follows a decision earlier this month to cut subsidies for new solar power plants this year and also restrict the number of new projects…
It aims to give clean energy plants priority access to the grid, and will also introduce a mandatory renewable quota system later this year.
Grid firms have been accused of failing to meet their legal obligation to buy all the renewable power available in their jurisdiction, preferring instead to source cheaper coal-fired power.
The finance ministry also said on Friday that it would now allow grid companies to pass on some renewable energy connection costs to customers.
https://www.reuters.com/article/china-renewables-subsidy/update-1-china-cuts-subsidies-for-some-renewable-power-projects-finance-ministry-idUSL4N1TH208
00
What is the basis of the lie we are constantly told that wind power is so cheap and dropping in price?
And as anyone who owns a yacht knows, the wind might be free but the machinery to harvest it is extremely expensive and high maintenance and requires extensive control inputs to harvest the resource due to its erratic nature.
10
Yes indeed. Anyone who has spent a lot of dough on fitting up a sailing dinghy knows the utter frustration of having no wind in the middle of a race! That is when one is tempted to give up, grab a paddle and go home…or wish there was a small outboard motor to hand!
10